And boy do they cry about it when they are. Witness Z above, for a great example. Since they keep being wrong but never change, they must enjoy it.
What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Democrats are extremely liberal and Republicans are very liberal. There are no real differences. Oh and don't come up with Neoconservatism , for that's just another form of Trotskyite Marxism.
What made you believe that I am Publisher? I don't see any indication that would lead anyone to believe that I am him. I think that some people, searching for ways to explain the anti-Semitism that is present, prefere to convince themselfes that it's only coming from one person.
Oh please, who do you think you're trying to fool? Even your non-denial denial is quite telling. Of course you are publisher. Publisher's last post was on 4/2, you registered on 4/4, you post the same nonsense he did. Moreover Publisher at some point of time indicated in his profile that he was a Romanian translator living in the Netherlands, you also indicate that you are a Romanian translator. You and publisher post during the same hours disappearing at about 5-6 pm ET (NY) and coming back at about 3 am ET. PS Holocaust denial is a crime in Romania and the Netherlands. Be careful or you'll end up in jail.
As an individual who has argued that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are propably genuine, a document which was supposed to remain secret but which was exposed by some courageous dissident, of the likes of Israel Shahak today, I tread a risky tightrope between the extremes of Far Right and Far Left. I believe that our only hope is for a combination of the moderates of these two forces; otherwise, we face a totalitarian and deadly nightmare ahead. Outside such a coalition, the 2 ''more or less'' honest groups are trending towards the extremes of Trotskyism and Nazism. The Trotskyists are coldly unrepentant, and denying, of the barbarity of the Bolshevik Holocaust; they scapegoat Stalin, and shield Trotsky and Lenin from criticism. I note that Noam Chomsky, although critical of Stalin and Zionism, seems not to have criticised Lenin or Trotsky, or written on the intrigues behind the Balfour Declaration. At the other extreme are people like Dr David Duke, who proudly identifies himself with the Confederate side in the US Civil War, and by that implication supports Black Slavery. Chomsky and Duke are examples of brilliant but dangerous leaders of the extremes. The feature of such extremes seems to be an unwillingness to dialogue with political opponents, as if there is no common humanity between them. On the question of the Nazi Holocaust, the shameful "Holocaust Industry" is comparable to the corrupt "Indulgence-selling'' scam within the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation; yet I would hesitate to go to the other extreme, to deny that there may have been slaughter of innocent Jews during the war. The absence of evidence does not mean that this did not occur, just as the absence of the bodies of the victims of Lenin or Trotsky, does not mean that they did not murder millions of people. What is required is an openness to critical questioning, in line with the exposition of one the few, but great Jewish philosopher of Scientic Method, Karl Popper. On that method, one cannot elevate the Nazi Holocaust into an unquestionable absolute; it is comparable to other events in this and recent centuries. All the "great" conquerors of the past - Alexander, Napoleon and many others - committed genocides; they are still remembered as "Great", not because of those genocides, but because of the civilisations that came after, that were built on those ruins. Hitler might have been judged otherwise, had he triumphed over the forces of evil Zionism. Unfortunately, so many human endeavours have ended up as rubble, the foundations for some later endeavour. We are a genocidal species: it happened in Rwanda only a decade ago; not a decade goes past without some genocide or other. Even your beloved Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is presented as supporting the genocide of the inhabitants of Palestine, by Moses & Joshua (e.g. see Num 31: 7-19; Deut 2: 33-35, 3:4-7, and 20: 12-14; Josh ch. 6, 8:2, 8:24-25, and 10:33). The first anti-genocidal philosophy seems to have been Jainism, which did not spread beyond India. It later gave rise to Buddhism; about the same time, this lifestyle was practised by the Pythagoreans of Greece, to which it had probably been introduced either by a missionary from India, or by a Greek philosopher who had journeyd to India. The Essenes show traces of this lifestyle, but mixed with religious-fundamentalism (based on fear of the 'Devil') and separatism (to avoid contamination) and a violent guerilla movement. From this virile mix, Christianity emerged. Its Buddhist side has led Christians towards Pacifism; its Jewish militancy, and its later adoption by the barbarian Nordic tribes, have given Christians their willingness to kill. Today we stand in between: once again we must choose between these paths.
Don't forget to provide links to your sources, otherwise people may think that a dumb-ass like you wrote it all by yourself http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/whitecon.html