David Duke Arrested in Czech Republic

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Sister jundp is well known in the Seattle area for being a top notch death match winner.... reason why I am her friend .....

I suggest you two resolve your intellectual differences with a good ol fashioned death match.

My money's on jundp.

I brought the popcorn, who has the beer. Nothing like beer and popcorn for a death match.

I think Pike chickened out. He knew he was no match for me.

For you, jundp:

Thank you, sir.

[Ling Ling 22]

It's really hard to see how you can quote Duke or Hitler out of context....

Nah you can quote Hitler out of context - its quite easy actually.

I suggest you two resolve your intellectual differences with a good ol fashioned death match.

My money's on jundp.

I brought the popcorn, who has the beer. Nothing like beer and popcorn for a death match.

I think Pike chickened out. He knew he was no match for me.

I would suggest that David Duke knew that what he was doing was against the law in the Czech Republic but went ahead and did it anyway. Most people are aware that holocaust denial is illegal in several European countries, just like they should know better than to get drunk in the Middle East. He gets what he deserves.

Well I would have to agree with most that, when we go to foreign countries, we should do so knowing their idea of rights can be very different than ours and if you break their laws... be ready to pay.

I recall all the folks crying how "unfair and inhumane" it is when one of our folks does something which lands him/her a good caning.

Ok, but not knowing that inciting hatred and denying the Holocaust is on a whole different level from not knowing that graffiti will lead to a caning...

I can't agree, while they are different crimes the base principle is the same; you are not in America, don't expect American style law or justice.

Agreed Danno!

I thought that people on this forum would have a better understanding of the world. There are different cultures, food, traditions, and laws outside the USA.

If you don't want to experience them, then stay in the warm and fuzzy USA.

Personally, I love this country, and think there's lots of great things about the USA, but there are also lots of great things about other countries.

We have a lot of freedom here, but we also are under a lot of control. Other countries understand that everyone with site has or will see a nude person.

Other countries understand that sometimes adults want to walk (or even ride in a vehicle...but not drive) with an alcoholic beverage.

I'm not saying other countries are better overall, but that the USA is just one small and young country. Wealth and power don't make it the greatest country

in the world...and until I've visited EVERY country in the world, I can't say that any country is the best.

As an analogy, imagine being the judge at a pie contest, and you only taste a couple of the pies, or worse yet, you only taste the pie that your mother made,

and then declare it the best. Too many Americans wouldn't even try the other pies, but insist they know what's best. To that, I wonder if our laws are the best, or if there are other systems that are more fair or more efficient. I really like the fact that the Czech Republic arrested Duke. No...not because of him personally (although I think he's a poster child for abortion) but because they made some laws, and aren't afraid to enforce them. How dare ANYONE think they are above the law just because they're American.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by a group of US Civil War veterans from the defeated Confederacy, a group of southern states that upheld slavery and maintained African Americans were inferior to whites.

But, of course, the Civil War had nothing to do with racism and the Rebel Flag is about culture, not hate

Little acknowledged fact: The orignal KKK was started by pro-slavery Democrats, and the Republican Party was among their first opponents and targets. Because of that, most Blacks were Republicans until the 1960's. Democrats in the Congress, like Byrd, got their start in politics as segregationists, and many, including Al Gore's father, voted against the Civil Rights Act. The Democrat Party was so torn in regard to its position on equal rights for non-whites that its 1924 convention was also a gathering of Klan representatives. A lot of White guilt to make up for.

[Ling Ling 22]

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by a group of US Civil War veterans from the defeated Confederacy, a group of southern states that upheld slavery and maintained African Americans were inferior to whites.

But, of course, the Civil War had nothing to do with racism and the Rebel Flag is about culture, not hate

Little acknowledged fact: The orignal KKK was started by pro-slavery Democrats, and the Republican Party was among their first opponents and targets. Because of that, most Blacks were Republicans until the 1960's. Democrats in the Congress, like Byrd, got their start in politics as segregationists, and many, including Al Gore's father, voted against the Civil Rights Act. The Democrat Party was so torn in regard to its position on equal rights for non-whites that its 1924 convention was also a gathering of Klan representatives. A lot of White guilt to make up for.

First of all Barza Woman, I would like to applaud you for using the uppercase "B" when describing a group of people, as opposed to a color (possibly the 2nd person I've seen here to do so).

As to your 'fact", I agree with much of it, but it doesn't give the complete truth. That is, "some" of the original KKK were disenfranchised Democrats, but not all (and not all Democrats were pro-slavery or pro Klan) Not that you said either of those, but I wanted to clear up any possible confusion. The primary reason that the Republican Party was a target of the KKK, was because Lincoln and the Republicans were the Federal Government at that time. The primary target was more-so Federalist than it was Republicans per se. True, many Blacks were Republicans, believing that Lincoln and his party freed them via the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was actually the bipartisan efforts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that were then considered the "Equal Rights Amendments", of which the 13th had abolished slavery...not a unilateral proclamation by Lincoln (who didn't particularly have any fondness for Blacks or a mixed society) nor by the Republican party.

As for Al Gore Sr voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too often we consider a "no" vote as SIMPLY being against. However, in many cases where a politician votes "no" it's because he believes a proposal is incomplete. In the senior Gore's situation, it's my understanding that he was afraid that the act would take away school funding from schools that appeared in violation of the act. In 1957 the senior Gore nominated 2 Black students to the US Air Force Academy, something that was quite bold and risky

in 1957's South.

These "truths" about Democrats and the KKK, while accurate, fail to tell the complete story...or rather they only tell the convenient truths that support an anti-Democratic party agenda.

As for Duke and the KKK in the USA...around 1870 a Federal jury acknowledged the KKK as a terrorist group, and outlawed them. I believe in freedom of speech, but I think it's preposterous that Duke and the KKK are allowed any assembly in the USA after being acknowledged as terrorists. Anyone who thinks terrorists are entitled to protection under the law, has to be insane.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by a group of US Civil War veterans from the defeated Confederacy, a group of southern states that upheld slavery and maintained African Americans were inferior to whites.

But, of course, the Civil War had nothing to do with racism and the Rebel Flag is about culture, not hate

Little acknowledged fact: The orignal KKK was started by pro-slavery Democrats, and the Republican Party was among their first opponents and targets. Because of that, most Blacks were Republicans until the 1960's. Democrats in the Congress, like Byrd, got their start in politics as segregationists, and many, including Al Gore's father, voted against the Civil Rights Act. The Democrat Party was so torn in regard to its position on equal rights for non-whites that its 1924 convention was also a gathering of Klan representatives. A lot of White guilt to make up for.

First of all Barza Woman, I would like to applaud you for using the uppercase "B" when describing a group of people, as opposed to a color (possibly the 2nd person I've seen here to do so).

As to your 'fact", I agree with much of it, but it doesn't give the complete truth. That is, "some" of the original KKK were disenfranchised Democrats, but not all (and not all Democrats were pro-slavery or pro Klan) Not that you said either of those, but I wanted to clear up any possible confusion. The primary reason that the Republican Party was a target of the KKK, was because Lincoln and the Republicans were the Federal Government at that time. The primary target was more-so Federalist than it was Republicans per se. True, many Blacks were Republicans, believing that Lincoln and his party freed them via the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was actually the bipartisan efforts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that were then considered the "Equal Rights Amendments", of which the 13th had abolished slavery...not a unilateral proclamation by Lincoln (who didn't particularly have any fondness for Blacks or a mixed society) nor by the Republican party.

As for Al Gore Sr voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too often we consider a "no" vote as SIMPLY being against. However, in many cases where a politician votes "no" it's because he believes a proposal is incomplete. In the senior Gore's situation, it's my understanding that he was afraid that the act would take away school funding from schools that appeared in violation of the act. In 1957 the senior Gore nominated 2 Black students to the US Air Force Academy, something that was quite bold and risky

in 1957's South.

These "truths" about Democrats and the KKK, while accurate, fail to tell the complete story...or rather they only tell the convenient truths that support an anti-Democratic party agenda.

As for Duke and the KKK in the USA...around 1870 a Federal jury acknowledged the KKK as a terrorist group, and outlawed them. I believe in freedom of speech, but I think it's preposterous that Duke and the KKK are allowed any assembly in the USA after being acknowledged as terrorists. Anyone who thinks terrorists are entitled to protection under the law, has to be insane.

History is often HISStory. I sat at the knee of a historian for the Supreme Court for many years, which fostered my love of history. He happened to be my uncle. Much of the history as we know it know is PC or coated over to negate the regretful decisions of politicians. I like mine straight up.

As for Black people not being a color, thx, but I've lived thru N!gger, Colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American and African-American. I'd be pretty sorry not to get that right

[Ling Ling 22]

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by a group of US Civil War veterans from the defeated Confederacy, a group of southern states that upheld slavery and maintained African Americans were inferior to whites.

But, of course, the Civil War had nothing to do with racism and the Rebel Flag is about culture, not hate

Little acknowledged fact: The orignal KKK was started by pro-slavery Democrats, and the Republican Party was among their first opponents and targets. Because of that, most Blacks were Republicans until the 1960's. Democrats in the Congress, like Byrd, got their start in politics as segregationists, and many, including Al Gore's father, voted against the Civil Rights Act. The Democrat Party was so torn in regard to its position on equal rights for non-whites that its 1924 convention was also a gathering of Klan representatives. A lot of White guilt to make up for.

First of all Barza Woman, I would like to applaud you for using the uppercase "B" when describing a group of people, as opposed to a color (possibly the 2nd person I've seen here to do so).

As to your 'fact", I agree with much of it, but it doesn't give the complete truth. That is, "some" of the original KKK were disenfranchised Democrats, but not all (and not all Democrats were pro-slavery or pro Klan) Not that you said either of those, but I wanted to clear up any possible confusion. The primary reason that the Republican Party was a target of the KKK, was because Lincoln and the Republicans were the Federal Government at that time. The primary target was more-so Federalist than it was Republicans per se. True, many Blacks were Republicans, believing that Lincoln and his party freed them via the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was actually the bipartisan efforts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that were then considered the "Equal Rights Amendments", of which the 13th had abolished slavery...not a unilateral proclamation by Lincoln (who didn't particularly have any fondness for Blacks or a mixed society) nor by the Republican party.

As for Al Gore Sr voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too often we consider a "no" vote as SIMPLY being against. However, in many cases where a politician votes "no" it's because he believes a proposal is incomplete. In the senior Gore's situation, it's my understanding that he was afraid that the act would take away school funding from schools that appeared in violation of the act. In 1957 the senior Gore nominated 2 Black students to the US Air Force Academy, something that was quite bold and risky

in 1957's South.

These "truths" about Democrats and the KKK, while accurate, fail to tell the complete story...or rather they only tell the convenient truths that support an anti-Democratic party agenda.

As for Duke and the KKK in the USA...around 1870 a Federal jury acknowledged the KKK as a terrorist group, and outlawed them. I believe in freedom of speech, but I think it's preposterous that Duke and the KKK are allowed any assembly in the USA after being acknowledged as terrorists. Anyone who thinks terrorists are entitled to protection under the law, has to be insane.

History is often HISStory. I sat at the knee of a historian for the Supreme Court for many years, which fostered my love of history. He happened to be my uncle. Much of the history as we know it know is PC or coated over to negate the regretful decisions of politicians. I like mine straight up.

As for Black people not being a color, thx, but I've lived thru N!gger, Colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American and African-American. I'd be pretty sorry not to get that right

Heh, heh...I think I said nearly a year ago that it was anything near the truth, it would've been called "OURstory or THEIRstory". :-)

Yeah, straight up is the best way...but those with an agenda often prefer to "sip" on the truth rather than take a straight up shot of the truth, like a grown-up.

Maybe that's what Jack meant when he said, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth".

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by a group of US Civil War veterans from the defeated Confederacy, a group of southern states that upheld slavery and maintained African Americans were inferior to whites.

But, of course, the Civil War had nothing to do with racism and the Rebel Flag is about culture, not hate

Little acknowledged fact: The orignal KKK was started by pro-slavery Democrats, and the Republican Party was among their first opponents and targets. Because of that, most Blacks were Republicans until the 1960's. Democrats in the Congress, like Byrd, got their start in politics as segregationists, and many, including Al Gore's father, voted against the Civil Rights Act. The Democrat Party was so torn in regard to its position on equal rights for non-whites that its 1924 convention was also a gathering of Klan representatives. A lot of White guilt to make up for.

First of all Barza Woman, I would like to applaud you for using the uppercase "B" when describing a group of people, as opposed to a color (possibly the 2nd person I've seen here to do so).

As to your 'fact", I agree with much of it, but it doesn't give the complete truth. That is, "some" of the original KKK were disenfranchised Democrats, but not all (and not all Democrats were pro-slavery or pro Klan) Not that you said either of those, but I wanted to clear up any possible confusion. The primary reason that the Republican Party was a target of the KKK, was because Lincoln and the Republicans were the Federal Government at that time. The primary target was more-so Federalist than it was Republicans per se. True, many Blacks were Republicans, believing that Lincoln and his party freed them via the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was actually the bipartisan efforts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that were then considered the "Equal Rights Amendments", of which the 13th had abolished slavery...not a unilateral proclamation by Lincoln (who didn't particularly have any fondness for Blacks or a mixed society) nor by the Republican party.

As for Al Gore Sr voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too often we consider a "no" vote as SIMPLY being against. However, in many cases where a politician votes "no" it's because he believes a proposal is incomplete. In the senior Gore's situation, it's my understanding that he was afraid that the act would take away school funding from schools that appeared in violation of the act. In 1957 the senior Gore nominated 2 Black students to the US Air Force Academy, something that was quite bold and risky

in 1957's South.

These "truths" about Democrats and the KKK, while accurate, fail to tell the complete story...or rather they only tell the convenient truths that support an anti-Democratic party agenda.

As for Duke and the KKK in the USA...around 1870 a Federal jury acknowledged the KKK as a terrorist group, and outlawed them. I believe in freedom of speech, but I think it's preposterous that Duke and the KKK are allowed any assembly in the USA after being acknowledged as terrorists. Anyone who thinks terrorists are entitled to protection under the law, has to be insane.

History is often HISStory. I sat at the knee of a historian for the Supreme Court for many years, which fostered my love of history. He happened to be my uncle. Much of the history as we know it know is PC or coated over to negate the regretful decisions of politicians. I like mine straight up.

As for Black people not being a color, thx, but I've lived thru N!gger, Colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American and African-American. I'd be pretty sorry not to get that right

Heh, heh...I think I said nearly a year ago that it was anything near the truth, it would've been called "OURstory or THEIRstory". :-)

Yeah, straight up is the best way...but those with an agenda often prefer to "sip" on the truth rather than take a straight up shot of the truth, like a grown-up.

Maybe that's what Jack meant when he said, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth".

Something that seems to be no longer taught in school is a dictum in my profession. When consdering the notions of a source, you are obligated to examine their sources and all points of view, for it is a given that any author or pundit has a point of view and an agenda. You should know what it is before applying it. Too few do that anymore, believing that any old blog or website which shares their view is credible. That gives me headaches, but when in Rome . . . or the OT . . .

[Ling Ling 22]

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by a group of US Civil War veterans from the defeated Confederacy, a group of southern states that upheld slavery and maintained African Americans were inferior to whites.

But, of course, the Civil War had nothing to do with racism and the Rebel Flag is about culture, not hate

Little acknowledged fact: The orignal KKK was started by pro-slavery Democrats, and the Republican Party was among their first opponents and targets. Because of that, most Blacks were Republicans until the 1960's. Democrats in the Congress, like Byrd, got their start in politics as segregationists, and many, including Al Gore's father, voted against the Civil Rights Act. The Democrat Party was so torn in regard to its position on equal rights for non-whites that its 1924 convention was also a gathering of Klan representatives. A lot of White guilt to make up for.

First of all Barza Woman, I would like to applaud you for using the uppercase "B" when describing a group of people, as opposed to a color (possibly the 2nd person I've seen here to do so).

As to your 'fact", I agree with much of it, but it doesn't give the complete truth. That is, "some" of the original KKK were disenfranchised Democrats, but not all (and not all Democrats were pro-slavery or pro Klan) Not that you said either of those, but I wanted to clear up any possible confusion. The primary reason that the Republican Party was a target of the KKK, was because Lincoln and the Republicans were the Federal Government at that time. The primary target was more-so Federalist than it was Republicans per se. True, many Blacks were Republicans, believing that Lincoln and his party freed them via the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was actually the bipartisan efforts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that were then considered the "Equal Rights Amendments", of which the 13th had abolished slavery...not a unilateral proclamation by Lincoln (who didn't particularly have any fondness for Blacks or a mixed society) nor by the Republican party.

As for Al Gore Sr voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too often we consider a "no" vote as SIMPLY being against. However, in many cases where a politician votes "no" it's because he believes a proposal is incomplete. In the senior Gore's situation, it's my understanding that he was afraid that the act would take away school funding from schools that appeared in violation of the act. In 1957 the senior Gore nominated 2 Black students to the US Air Force Academy, something that was quite bold and risky

in 1957's South.

These "truths" about Democrats and the KKK, while accurate, fail to tell the complete story...or rather they only tell the convenient truths that support an anti-Democratic party agenda.

As for Duke and the KKK in the USA...around 1870 a Federal jury acknowledged the KKK as a terrorist group, and outlawed them. I believe in freedom of speech, but I think it's preposterous that Duke and the KKK are allowed any assembly in the USA after being acknowledged as terrorists. Anyone who thinks terrorists are entitled to protection under the law, has to be insane.

History is often HISStory. I sat at the knee of a historian for the Supreme Court for many years, which fostered my love of history. He happened to be my uncle. Much of the history as we know it know is PC or coated over to negate the regretful decisions of politicians. I like mine straight up.

As for Black people not being a color, thx, but I've lived thru N!gger, Colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American and African-American. I'd be pretty sorry not to get that right

Heh, heh...I think I said nearly a year ago that it was anything near the truth, it would've been called "OURstory or THEIRstory". :-)

Yeah, straight up is the best way...but those with an agenda often prefer to "sip" on the truth rather than take a straight up shot of the truth, like a grown-up.

Maybe that's what Jack meant when he said, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth".

Something that seems to be no longer taught in school is a dictum in my profession. When consdering the notions of a source, you are obligated to examine their sources and all points of view, for it is a given that any author or pundit has a point of view and an agenda. You should know what it is before applying it. Too few do that anymore, believing that any old blog or website which shares their view is credible. That gives me headaches, but when in Rome . . . or the OT . . .

eYep, too many folks believe anything in print is the truth...especially if it fits into their own beliefs or fears. Straight up truth is the exception these days.

[jundp 191]

Ling Ling and Danno,

You misunderstand me. I am saying that it is ABSURD to pretend that David Duke didn't know Holocaust denial was something unacceptable in a country which suffered greatly during the Holocaust. I can understand that someone might not know strict laws concerning graffiti. However I didn't condone, as an American, being ignorant of any law of another country.

But of course, it's not as exciting if you don't twist my words....

Edited April 29, 2009 by jundp

[Ling Ling 22]

Ling Ling and Danno,

You misunderstand me. I am saying that it is ABSURD to pretend that David Duke didn't know Holocaust denial was something unacceptable in a country which suffered greatly during the Holocaust. I can understand that someone might not know strict laws concerning graffiti. However I didn't condone, as an American, being ignorant of any law of another country.

But of course, it's not as exciting if you don't twist my words....

Chill jundp, no reason to get your panties (or your words) twisted. It's my words that were twisted. I should have clarified that I was agreeing with Danno's statement,

"you are not in America, don't expect American style law or justice."

Agreeing with Danno doesn't mean that I disagree with you, the two are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I agree with you in that, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

[Ban Hammer 12,892]

Anyone who thinks terrorists are entitled to protection under the law, has to be insane.

there's a few that think the guys in gitmo do

[Heracles 417]

Agreed Danno!

I thought that people on this forum would have a better understanding of the world. There are different cultures, food, traditions, and laws outside the USA.

If you don't want to experience them, then stay in the warm and fuzzy USA.

Personally, I love this country, and think there's lots of great things about the USA, but there are also lots of great things about other countries.

We have a lot of freedom here, but we also are under a lot of control. Other countries understand that everyone with site has or will see a nude person.

Other countries understand that sometimes adults want to walk (or even ride in a vehicle...but not drive) with an alcoholic beverage.

I'm not saying other countries are better overall, but that the USA is just one small and young country. Wealth and power don't make it the greatest country

in the world...and until I've visited EVERY country in the world, I can't say that any country is the best.

As an analogy, imagine being the judge at a pie contest, and you only taste a couple of the pies, or worse yet, you only taste the pie that your mother made,

and then declare it the best. Too many Americans wouldn't even try the other pies, but insist they know what's best. To that, I wonder if our laws are the best, or if there are other systems that are more fair or more efficient. I really like the fact that the Czech Republic arrested Duke. No...not because of him personally (although I think he's a poster child for abortion) but because they made some laws, and aren't afraid to enforce them. How dare ANYONE think they are above the law just because they're American.

I agree with a lot of that. Many of those points are probably one of my biggest pet peeves with regards to the general attitude in the US. That is, the innate belief that Americans, by default, are the best at everything. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is certainly not the case or reality. Furthermore, this attitude is what now holds this country back. From your schools, to the third world infrastructure & roads, unaffordable health care, low living standard, high crime, ridiculously high homicide rate and low quality of life. Really you name it. If someone asked me from Australia, "what do you think the US does better than us or Canada or numerous European nations?" I honestly could not think of one thing. Well, apart from the fact that Athletes, movie stars and singers (aka entertainers) earn a ridiculously high salary.

After being here for over 4 years I can without a doubt say that people here love their 1st Amendment and many believe that it is something cherished by the rest of the world; which is not the case. To the contrary, whenever I am overseas and someone wants to get into a 'debate' about America, the first thing they ridicule is the 1st amendment. How it is a failed (get out of jail free) anything goes law. Whereas, stuff like racism and hatred is illegal in a number of civilized first world countries; as it should be. Most civilized nations realize that you have to draw the line somewhere; hence the concept of laws and being civilized. Not hard to see why nothing changes here. It would be logical to ask and question, why would others abroad think like that. Rather, many here will be like, "who gives a cr-p what others abroad think", hence why nothing changes.

I see this pie like attitude in every industry when it comes to America. Where people sample one or two pies, therefore, believe they must be the best pies. But I have a different analogy. If they were the best pies, the rest of the world would copy the recipe. Common sense really. Same theory can be applied with the 1st amendment. If it was so effective the rest of the world would use it too. Yet in reality they have seen the failure of the 1st amendment. They have seen it taken out of context, due to its ambiguity, and used as some sort of anything goes clause. Rather than the original (actual) definition of freedom to express ones political views; which is what most other civilized first world countries have. The one thing about living overseas is that most other developed countries have no issue with learning and passing on knowledge to one another. Whereas, when it comes to the US we know everything, so why would be learn from others, right?

While what is considered the best is relative and personal, there does come a point where one has to compare pies and determine are we actually better or do we falsely believe we are good, that is, simply because we say so. The US auto and airline industry is the perfect example of this. The point is people should not hate on another country just because they don't share America's ingrained view and belief of freedom of speech should mean anything goes. Furthermore, I can say that many of these other countries that have limits to what is acceptable and what is not (in terms of speech), have some of the highest standards of living in the world. Hate begets hate. No matter what the form. Equality and understanding begets the same.

Some people here have hated on Australia for their similar anti-hate rules and censorship laws. Yet, I challenge anyone to come find a US style ghetto there. Or find many free roaming David Duke or Jesse Jackson equivalents there. I challenge anyone to come find the same level of hatred and race related gangs there, to that of the US. Racism here is also just as prevalent in once race as it is in the other. Just as many racist black yanks are there are racist white yanks. Anyone who denies that is quite frankly an idiot.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It begins (again).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And why not.