This sums it all up real well

[Plane]

<<This makes him [Ken Lay] a good stand in of government in general, they are all like that.>>

I'm kind of surprised that you can't see the difference between Ken Lay and government in general. 

Do you understand that when Kenny-Boy stole money from others, he did so with the main intent of lining the pockets of, and benefitting nobody else but, Kenny-Boy himself, his friends and family?  Good.

Do you understand that when "government in general" takes people's money through taxes, their main intent is to spend it (or what's left of it after the military gets whatever it needs to rob and kill millions of Third World people) on programs such as school lunches, public health, education, etc.?  Good.

Are you starting to see maybe just a glimmer of difference between Ken Lay secretly stealing for his own aggrandizement and "government in general" taking money to benefit primarily people who need food, health, education?  I hope so.

<<A liberals concern for the Poor causes him to want to do something effective for them with other peoples money , he has no faith in his own money.>>

Well, that's true enough.  I don't expect the miracle of loaves and fishes to spring forth from the holy money that lives in my pocket.  If I give my holy quarter to a beggar, I don't expect it to magnify into thousands of quarters to feed thousands of beggars because of the sanctity of my own holy persona.  Only a nutball fundamentalist would have that kind of "faith in his own money," but IMHO, despite his "faith in his own money," his quarter won't go any farther than my quarter.

No, plane, my faith is in my government.  I gave them my money in taxes and they gave me a health system that pays all my bills and my family's bills.  And let me witness for you:  that faith has been munificently repaid ten thousandfold.  What I paid in taxes was a fraction of the benefits that I have received:  my wife's rectal cancer removed by one of the best colorectal surgeons not only in Canada but in the whole world, a guy who lectures all over the world on his technique, and it didn't cost us a cent; continuing follow-up oncology including weekly home visits from a stoma nurse continuing to this day, and it didn't cost us a cent; haemorrhoidectomy and follow-ups, free of charge; angioplasty, follow-up treatment and therapy not costing a cent.  Do I want another year of intensive cardiovascular physiotherapy?  No problem, any time I do, pick up the phone, schedule it - - won't cost me a cent.

You're God-damn right I don't have any faith in the power of my own money.  If I'd been forced to pay for all this on my own, I'd either be dead or bankrupt at this point in time.  For sure, we'd have lost our home, as many in the U.S.A. have done, for medical costs.

I live in the real world, plane.  In the real world, I pay my taxes, and my government takes care of me.  I might also add the excellent University of Toronto undergraduate educations that my three kids and I have all had, courtesy of our government.  We could never have paid for all of that from our own resources, or if we had managed, we'd be paying off the debt for the rest of our lives.  The subways, the public parks, the marinas and the beaches - - all maintained by what?  Our own money?  Are you crazy?  The fucking government provides ALL of that and twenty thousand times more.

I'm real sorry you don't see any difference between Ken Lay and "government in general."  I just told you what "government in general" did for me.  Now maybe you can tell me what Ken Lay did for me.

I'm kind of surprised that you can't see the difference between Ken Lay and government in general. 

Do you understand that when Kenny-Boy stole money from others, he did so with the main intent of lining the pockets of, and benefitting nobody else but, Kenny-Boy himself, his friends and family?  Good.

>>No this is not correct , he was trying to keep his empire running , if he had been trying to abscond with the money he could have left with a bindle full long before anyone knew how hollow his corp was getting. His behavior was mostly parrellel to those who are presently doing exactly the same thing in government right now proping up the Social Security administration with fancy paperwork.

Do you understand that when "government in general" takes people's money through taxes, their main intent is to spend it (or what's left of it after the military gets whatever it needs to rob and kill millions of Third World people) on programs such as school lunches, public health, education, etc.?  Good.

>> No this is not correct there never has been a government that didn't have self perpetuation as a goal , for most of them it is a goal above all others.

Are you starting to see maybe just a glimmer of difference between Ken Lay secretly stealing for his own aggrandizement and "government in general" taking money to benefit primarily people who need food, health, education?  I hope so.

>>> If you do not see it possible for a government to do just as wrong for just the same reasons as any corporation I know from this that you have a basic misunderstanding of one or both.

<<A liberals concern for the Poor causes him to want to do something effective for them with other peoples money , he has no faith in his own money.>>

Well, that's true enough.  I don't expect the miracle of loaves and fishes to spring forth from the holy money that lives in my pocket.  If I give my holy quarter to a beggar, I don't expect it to magnify into thousands of quarters to feed thousands of beggars because of the sanctity of my own holy persona.  Only a nutball fundamentalist would have that kind of "faith in his own money," but IMHO, despite his "faith in his own money," his quarter won't go any farther than my quarter.


>>> Sad then that you have faith that the Government has the ability to multiply the effect of this giveing in a miraculous manner.

No, plane, my faith is in my government.  I gave them my money in taxes and they gave me a health system that pays all my bills and my family's bills.  And let me witness for you:  that faith has been munificently repaid ten thousandfold.  What I paid in taxes was a fraction of the benefits that I have received:  my wife's rectal cancer removed by one of the best colorectal surgeons not only in Canada but in the whole world, a guy who lectures all over the world on his technique, and it didn't cost us a cent; continuing follow-up oncology including weekly home visits from a stoma nurse continuing to this day, and it didn't cost us a cent; haemorrhoidectomy and follow-ups, free of charge; angioplasty, follow-up treatment and therapy not costing a cent.  Do I want another year of intensive cardiovascular physiotherapy?  No problem, any time I do, pick up the phone, schedule it - - won't cost me a cent.
   

>>> That sounds good , I am nearly persuaded that the government should get involved in healthcare , but all of that care did cost some one something , shuffleing all of the cost through the government does not eleminate it.

[Michael Tee]

Thanks for the critique, Prince, it really helped me to focus my thoughts.  I'll try to group them by topic, rather than the more traditional format of quote and counter-quote.

Morality
You criticized my attempt to take the moral high ground.  My characterization of small -government conservatives ("SGCs") as greedy, evil little bastards.  

SGC today is a powerful political movement which is promoted by right-wing think tanks, publications, academics, PR groups, MSM "commentators" and all the other promotional means available to big-money interests in a developed 21st-century society.  It elects policticians and leaders and like any political movement attempts to direct the course of our society.

As a movement, considering the source of its funding, SGC is nakedly and transparently a movement for the preservation of wealth and privilege.  There is no question in my mind that the sources behind this entire movement are in fact greedy, evil bastards just as I have always stated.  

This is not to say that the movement could not have picked up, along the way, some true believers, people with no axe to grind, who are persuaded by its philosophical arguments and sincerely believe that SGC will either be good for all the people or will bring the greatest good to the greatest number.

In fact, I think it would be impossible to characterize ANY political movement's membership as being without exception, 100% evil.  Even the Nazi Party must have had some good individuals (we'll have to leave their intelligence out of it) who sincerely believed that Hitler and what he preached were good and that the Party program was necessary for the improvement of the human race in general and of the Master Race in particular.

I think your point - - that not all small-government conservatives are evil - - is irrelevant.  In order to condemn a movement, one doesn't have to condemn each and every one of its individual members.  It's enough to show that the movement itself is evil and greedy, not that each and every member is evil and greedy.  What would be the effects of its policies?  Who would benefit and who would be harmed?  THAT is the basis on which I say that the movement is the movement of the greedy, the egotistical, the selfish.

As a political philosophy, a thought-system in a world of competing thought-systems, it is of course value-neutral.  Either one system or the other will produce the greatest good for the greatest number - - good or evil shouldn't enter into it any more than they would into a debate as to which of two competing formulae would produce the cleaner-burning fuel.

Authoritarianism
We couldn't agree on whether taxing the rich to pay for the poor was authoritarian.  When I claimed that it couldn't be authoritarian if it was the will of the people democratically expressed, you countered that I wouldn't feel the same way if the will of the people democratically expressed were to legislate some of Pat Robertson's pet theories into law.  You're quite right, of course.  I wouldn't.

Made me think.  Every law that's ever passed is SOMEBODY'S idea of right and wrong.  Maybe to live in a society of laws IS to live under authoritarianism.  The alternative - - a society without laws: anarchy.

So I'll take back what I said.  You're right - - it IS authoritarian to pass a law that says that Bill Gates (who I happen to admire greatly) should fork over more of his loot to pay for welfare mommas and slum babies.  Just like it's authoritarian to pass a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for too many tanks and guns and warplanes and not enough public health and education and child support.  And you know what?  between the two authoritarian tax laws, I'll choose the one that feeds the people.

Lunch
Holy fuckin shit, it's almost 1:00 o'clock an' I ain't had no lunch.  I'll have to continue this later on.

[Michael Tee]

<<<That sounds good , I am nearly persuaded that the government should get involved in healthcare , but all of that care did cost some one something , shuffleing all of the cost through the government does not eleminate it.>>>

Think about it, plane.  That care is available to every single citizen on the same basis.  Free.  YOUR country, with 42 MILLION having ZERO health care coverage, effectively dependent on charity, pays MORE MONEY PER CAPITA for health care than any other nation on earth.

We "shuffle our cost through government."  You are "shuffling your cost" through private health insurance.

Now who is getting the better deal? 

Or to put it another way: are there any family doctors flying all over the world from luxury home to luxury home on private jets like the heads of HMOs?  And if the answer to that is no, then why is that?  Where is all the money that the U.S. pays for health care going?

[sirs]

In order to condemn a movement, one doesn't have to condemn each and every one of its individual members.  It's enough to show that the movement itself is evil and greedy, not that each and every member is evil and greedy.  What would be the effects of its policies?  Who would benefit and who would be harmed?  THAT is the basis on which I say that the movement is the movement of the greedy, the egotistical, the selfish.

Boy, that proclaimation sure brings up alot of probable conclusions, since it's only required to claim that the "movement" is X, I think we can safely apply, thanks to Tee that
- Liberalism (big or little "L") is wrong for the country, on so many levels.  Can't get much worse on how they'd better spend other people's money, and use the threat of Governmental legal fines &/or imprisonment to do so
- Democratic Hypocritical intolerance of the supposed party of tolerance.
- NAACP is an apparently Racist organisation
- ACLU is anti-ANYTHING Christian
- National Teacher's Union's 1st and formost responsibility is to the protection of any and every teacher in the union, regardless how bad they are.  The welfare and education of the Children falls somewhere in the top 10.  Perhaps #8, only after the 1st 7 priorities are addressed and dealt with

I could go on, but I'll stop there for now

You're right - - it IS authoritarian to pass a law that says that Bill Gates (who I happen to admire greatly) should fork over more of his loot to pay for welfare mommas and slum babies.  Just like it's authoritarian to pass a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for too many tanks and guns and warplanes and not enough public health and education and child support.  And you know what?  between the two authoritarian tax laws, I'll choose the one that feeds the people.

A) One does not require sacrifice of the other
B) You apparently have no problem with protecting this nation, so long as people can eat equally.  Well of course you don't, you're not American

[Mucho]

In order to condemn a movement, one doesn't have to condemn each and every one of its individual members.  It's enough to show that the movement itself is evil and greedy, not that each and every member is evil and greedy.  What would be the effects of its policies?  Who would benefit and who would be harmed?  THAT is the basis on which I say that the movement is the movement of the greedy, the egotistical, the selfish.

Boy, that proclaimation sure brings up alot of probable conclusions, since it's only required to claim that the "movement" is X, I think we can safely apply, thanks to Tee that
- Liberalism (big or little "L") is wrong for the country, on so many levels.  Can't get much worse on how they'd better spend other people's money, and use the threat of Governmental legal fines &/or imprisonment to do so
- Democratic Hypocritical intolerance of the supposed party of tolerance.
- NAACP is an apparently Racist organisation
- ACLU is anti-ANYTHING Christian
- National Teacher's Union's 1st and formost responsibility is to the protection of any and every teacher in the union, regardless how bad they are.  The welfare and education of the Children falls somewhere in the top 10.  Perhaps #8, only after the 1st 7 priorities are addressed and dealt with

I could go on, but I'll stop there for now

You're right - - it IS authoritarian to pass a law that says that Bill Gates (who I happen to admire greatly) should fork over more of his loot to pay for welfare mommas and slum babies.  Just like it's authoritarian to pass a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for too many tanks and guns and warplanes and not enough public health and education and child support.  And you know what?  between the two authoritarian tax laws, I'll choose the one that feeds the people.

A) One does not require sacrifice of the other
B) You apparently have no problem with protecting this nation, so long as people can eat equally.  Well of course you don't, you're not American

You know , of course , that all of this is a figment of your fascist imagination like WMD's and ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq were.

[sirs]

You know , of course , that all of this is a figment of your fascist imagination like WMD's and ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq were.

Not enough neurons firing this afternoon yet, Knute?  Be patient

[Mucho]

Please find another debate trick other than "that's what you are , what am I?" It is not only stupid, but becoming quite tedious .

When you stop accusing others of your own faults, I'll consider not pointing it out.
You are STill doing it- Gads what a dolt.

 I do not condemn all who disagree with me . Only those that do it on stupid shallow grounds like you or those whose very believes create needless deaths and misery like most of the other RW lunatics in here.

Yes, of course. Exactly what I said. You talk in a hypocritically self-righteous manner while you spout foolish political dogma and condemn anyone who does not generally agree with you politically. Thanks for proving my point.
I defy you to identify the so called dogma to which you alude. I am not a liberal . I only use that term in here to piss off you RW haters./ I would call myself a radical , but left &* right radicals are pretty much the same being anarchists and/or libertarian losers. Samo , samo.
Oh and others proving your point when is another shallow debate quirk for losers. You really have no point , only silly circular arguments.

I do however wish to thank you for keeping this topic on top for so long. All the other RW freaks were either to cowed or beaten by the election to respond. You thought the US was actually as stupid as you, but were wrong at least this time.

Would you bother to get a clue, just once? I don't support President Bush, do not support the war in Iraq, and I think the Republican Party deserved to get beat in the last election. Pay attention to someone besides yourself every once in a while. Sheesh.

You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them

[Michael Tee]

<< Liberalism (big or little "L") is wrong for the country, on so many levels.  Can't get much worse on how they'd better spend other people's money, and use the threat of Governmental legal fines &/or imprisonment to do so>>

As if the gang of fascist thugs, torturers and murderers, liars and hypocrites that calls itself the Bush administration spends their own money for their various nefarious projects and doesn't bother to threaten, fine or imprison tax evaders.

<<- Democratic Hypocritical intolerance of the supposed party of tolerance.>>

No specific examples of this, naturally.  The party of Trent Lott and George Macacawitz don't need no steenkin examples.

<<- NAACP is an apparently Racist organisation >>

Yeah I guess in your twisted bizzaro fascist dictionary "racist" is what you'd call an organization that fought Jim Crow, racial segregation and lynching  for a century and more.  What would you call the party of Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott and Senator George Macacawitz?  (Anti-racist, naturally)

-<< ACLU is anti-ANYTHING Christian>>

Why?  Because they won't let Christian fanatics force their brand of religion down everyone else's throats?  

-<< National Teacher's Union's 1st and formost responsibility is to the protection of any and every teacher in the union, regardless how bad they are.  The welfare and education of the Children falls somewhere in the top 10.  Perhaps #8, only after the 1st 7 priorities are addressed and dealt with>>

Like YOU would know anything about it.  What labour union DOESN'T put its own members first?  If you ever belonged to a union, would you choose one that fights for each and every one of its members every time they're accused of any wrongdoing, or would you choose to belong to a bunch of wimps and pussies that runs away in the opposite direction from any member who has the misfortune to be accused of anything?  Only a fucking moron would want a union that wouldn't fight for his rights.

<<I could go on, but I'll stop there for now>>

Why stop now when you've only proven yourself a moron?  Why not keep going and shoot for totally-brain-dead-do-not-resuscitate?



<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 12:57:09 PM

<You're right - - it IS authoritarian to pass a law that says that Bill Gates (who I happen to admire greatly) should fork over more of his loot to pay for welfare mommas and slum babies.  Just like it's authoritarian to pass a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for too many tanks and guns and warplanes and not enough public health and education and child support.  And you know what?  between the two authoritarian tax laws, I'll choose the one that feeds the people.>


<<A) One does not require sacrifice of the other>>

Apparently it does, since you don't even have the resources to conquer the 23 million people of Iraq while your public health and living standards for the bottom 20% are in a shambles.  Or is it your opinion that the hundreds of billions already spent on Iraq wouldn't have helped a single member of the U.S. underclass?

<<B) You apparently have no problem with protecting this nation, so long as people can eat equally.  >>

Actually, to move from your fantasy world of bullshit back into real life, it is obvious to every sane person that without protection NOBODY is going to eat, period.  The point being that your moronic "President" seems to feel that "protecting" his nation means pissing off hundreds of millions of Muslims by attacking people who never attacked the U.S., giving billions annually to Israel while it murders thousands of Muslim Arabs and settles their lands farm by farm, torturing and murdering and insulting and hoping that none of these actions will have any payback at all.  

<<Well of course you don't, you're not American>>

No, I'm just the grandfather of two little Americans, the father-in-law of one big American and the father of his Canadian wife, all of whom just happen to live in Manhattan.  But hell, I don't give a shit what happens to any of them, they're evil.

[sirs]

No, I'm just the grandfather of two little Americans, the father-in-law of one big American and the father of his Canadian wife, all of whom just happen to live in Manhattan.  But hell, I don't give a shit what happens to any of them, they're evil.

Naaa, just "America", since as you already opined "In order to condemn a movement, one doesn't have to condemn each and every one of its individual members.  It's enough to show that the movement itself is evil and greedy, not that each and every member is evil and greedy"

As far as the rest of your irrational rant, we'll just chalk that up to not enough for lunch

[Michael Tee]

Prince, you also didn't like my reply to your accusation that my tax plans for the rich were "unjust."  I pointed out that the injustice in the current situation, by giving some examples of the glaring discrepancies between the rich and the poor.  But you replied:

 << . . .  you seem to be assuming that because you can claim the current society seems unjust to you then your solution is therefore just.>>

That's not what I meant.  You're never going to achieve perfect justice in an imperfect world.  I meant that the imposition of a socialist share-the-wealth scheme would LESSEN the overall injustice now prevalent by removing the gross disparities between the rich and the poor.  I never claimed it would be perfectly just.  Even if it's not perfectly just, the result that it would produce would be much more just than the current situation of gross and unjustifiable inequities of wealth and oppoprtunity.

Voluntary Cooperation?
I reiterate: it's a miserable failure.  The existence of large-scale poverty and inequality today is proof of that.  The failure to end Jim Crow by voluntary action is evidence of that.  The failure to end child labour is evidence of that.  Every major reform in your country and elsewhere was necessarily achieved through social-engineering legislation.  People for a variety of reasons simply do not clean up their act.  If their is a problem caused by human action, you can assume that the humans who cause the problem are sufficiently aware of the consequences of their action and choose to proceed with what they are doing for reasons that are personal and unique to themselves.  The actions of a relative handful of well-intentioned and unselfish individuals rarely if ever amount to more than a drop in the proverbial bucket.  Most wrongdoers simply do not give a shit or they wouldn't have done wrong in the first place.

Personal Responsibility
It is NOT my personal responsibility to care for the unfortunate.  They are not members of my family and I am no more virtuous and self-sacrificing than any other member of this society.  It's a communal responsibility and I want every member of the community to bear a fair and reasonable share of that responsibility.  That's what socialism is and that's what socialism does.  The unfortunate are not neglected or left behind and the burden of caring for them is not randomly distributed.  Each member of the society is MADE to shoulder his or her fair share.  Myself of course included, so your snide little snickers about me evading the responsibility are completely ridiculous.

Love
I will go through this again from the beginning because I see from your post that you just don't get it.  Those of us who feel we are our brother's keeper have not come to that feeling out of logic.  There is no logical reason in the world why I should be the keeper of some hapless bum, unrelated to me by blood or marriage, who because of the ravages of mental illness or simply just a series of incredibly bad choices, winds up beaten, penniless, substance-addicted and homeless.  It is just as rational (and in a Darwinian sense, more rational) to say "Fuck this guy" and move on without a backward glance.

Some of us love our neighbour, some of us don't.  There is no rationality or reason to this.  You're either my kind of person or you're not.  Maybe it's religious conditioning, I don't know.  I've often felt, if I weren't Jewish, I wouldn't give a shit.  But I can't remember ever discussing this kind of thing in religious school, which seemed to be all about the Jews and their sufferings at the hands of a widely varied bunch of bastards down through the ages in every corner of the earth.  Yet I'm not a religious person and my upbringing was definitely non-religious.  However: socialists, whether Jewish or not, feel that we all share this responsibility, that we just can't NOT care about the underclass.  That we SHOULDN'T not care about them.  We feel that communal duty.

I stress the communal nature of the duty.  I never felt a personal duty.  Only a schmuck would take such a duty on his own shoulders: 1, because it's unfair - - why should he bust his ass looking after these people, when somebody else, similarly unrelated to them, does absolutely nothing? and 2, because of the sheer ineffectiveness of individual (as compared to communal) action.  The coercive power of government can raise many times more resources than all the good-natured idiots pulling together voluntarily.  More will be accomplished and in much fairer conditions of giving and sacrifice once the government can be persuaded to take a hand.

I make a clean division between those who want to help the unfortunate and those who don't give a shit.  The former love their neighbour, the latter don't.  Your mistake is to expect that love of neighbour will translate into personal action UNRELATED to prodding the community into taking on the burden.  This is illogical.  Love of neighbour is not inconsistent with wanting to achieve the most effective result for the neighbour nor with wanting the burden to be equally shared by all, particularly when one realizes the historical ineffectiveness of individual action.

[Michael Tee]

<<As far as the rest of your irrational rant, we'll just chalk that up to not enough for lunch>>

The "irrational rant" was your truly weird and  bizarre list of grievances against the ACLU, the NAACP, the Teachers' Union and anyone else trying to make America a better place, free of the influence of crypto-fascists like you and your beloved Bush administration.

But I'll take the above as an admission that you have absolutely nothing to back up your rant when challenged.  Thank you.

[sirs]

I make a clean division between those who want to help the unfortunate and those who don't give a shit.  The former love their neighbour, the latter don't.  Your mistake is to expect that love of neighbour will translate into personal action UNRELATED to prodding the community into taking on the burden.  This is illogical.

While your mistake Tee, is that in encompassing such a "generous intention", and perhaps even a sincere one, you insist on making it so, with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.  That's where your "high road" bottom's out, I'm afraid.  That becomes no different than the Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's of the world, who insist that their intentions are the honorable ones, and that everyone else needs to conform to them.

No different, what-so-ever

The "irrational rant" was your truly weird and  bizarre list of grievances against the ACLU, the NAACP, the Teachers' Union and anyone else trying to make America a better place, free of the influence of crypto-fascists like you and your beloved Bush administration.

.

No, that was simply the use of your application in condeming some group for X for what most of "the group" supposedly does.  The rant that followed my Tee-application, was all over the ball park, again implying how basically anyone that doesn't agree with your warped socialist mentaility, and how evil Bush is supposed to be, must be then by irrational debate design, some crypto-fascist Bush lover.  It's ok though, Brass and Lanya use it frequently themselves, so you're not alone

And your low-brow repetative use of calling folks who don't agree with you fascists & nazis, truely does demean and degrade the term, for when it can be more appropriately applied

[Michael Tee]

<<No, that was simply the use of your application in condeming some group for X for what most of "the group" supposedly does. >>

Yeah but what you think most of the group was doing (when you deigned to provide an example) was something laudatory and commendable.  And for two of the groups, NAACP and ACLU, you didn't even bother to give ANY specific examples of their supposed wrongdoing.  That's what made your rant so bizarre and weird.

<<While your mistake Tee, is that in encompassing such a "generous intention", and perhaps even a sincere one, you insist on making it so, with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.>>

Yes but those "OTHER PEOPLE" are members of the same community we all belong to.  Why on earth should they not be made to shoulder a fair share of the burden when the obligation falls equally on each and every member of the community?

  <<And your low-brow repetative use of calling folks who don't agree with you fascists & nazis, truely does demean and degrade the term, for when it can be more appropriately applied>>

Actually I used the word "crypto-fascist," but if you feel you're not one of the folks the NAACP, ACLU or Teachers' Union was fighting, then I'll take it back in your case.  Although I am fairly certain, at least in the case of the ACLU, that you would be on the opposite side of some of their big issues.  But I take back nothing in the case of the Bush administration.  I KNOW they are crypto-fascists.

[Plane]

You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them

Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.

[Mucho]

You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them

Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.

Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.