What you described is Communism or extreme Socialism. The Socialism used in a moderate way doesn't make you a part of a whole losing your individuality. Take a look at the best economies of Europe. I said it before, Socialism and Capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. And that's an usual misconception.imortal wrote:
There are severe problems with an extemist form of ANY type of goverment. I will grant you that unlimited capitalism would be bad, creating the comsuming masses and the few at the top who bounce among the companies.Turquoise wrote:
The only difference between Communism and Corporatism is that our system involves giving corporations control rather than the government.imortal wrote:
...right until the last sentence. And he was doing SO well up until then.
Neither system truly benefits the individual.
However, there is also something to be said about supporting society's interests over the greed of individuals in power.
But extreme socialism is just as bad, subsuming any form of individuality for the good of the community as a whole, drawing your sense of self only as a part of the whole. I cannot see living to serve in a society like that.
Even an extreme freedom-based society would end up as anarchy without some form of controls.
And while I commend your belief in your cause, I do not think you have the proper grasp of communism in this sense, or you were grouping them together for shock effect and to draw a response based on that. Communism in practice had no person above another, and people were in the running of the goverment only because that was the position they were best at; not because of any desire for power. Communism as it stood in the USSR, or any other country for that matter, became something else altogether.
There cannot be an extreme form of any type of goverment. I think there is room for all our philosphies in a single goverment... in the correct mixture. Each style has its own advantages and disadvantages. The difficulty, as with most things in our age, is a matter of moderation, discipline, restraint, and balance.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- If Bush Removed Democracy from the US, Should the World Help?
Poll
If Bush Removed Democracy from the US, Should the World Help?
| Yes, Invading the US and Hanging Bush | 28% | 28% - 20 | ||||
| Yes, Using Diplomacy and the UN | 12% | 12% - 9 | ||||
| No, it's America's Business | 30% | 30% - 22 | ||||
| Gtfo | 28% | 28% - 20 | ||||
| Total: 71 | ||||||
There we don't agree. I think Education should be granted until College to everyone. Hence, you need a public education system. If you can afford a private school for your kid better, but you need to give people who can't the opportunity of a good education. Poor education is the root of most of the World's problems.Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem. In a society as corporate as ours, there are many powerful groups that try to portray anything socialized as akin to Communism. This is likely a relic of the Cold War and the Red Scare, but it's also become a modern tradition for us since privatization benefits corporations far more than individuals in most cases.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, a country with 300M people isn't as easy to control as a 10M one. But, what I meant is many people need to understand that Socialism is not Communism and used in the right way, it can coexist with Capitalism. I make good money living in Capitalism, but I'd like my government to use MY TAXES to help the less fortunate that can't afford the basic standard of living. I'm not Communist for that, I think there's a social role in every government.
That's not to say that I want everything socialized though. I think we should socialize medicine here, but I think our socialized education system (pre-collegiate) has been a failure in many areas.
We should probably privatize education completely, but it will require a transition period of some sort. School vouchers seem like a decent idea.
It's basically a balance.... Socialized systems give more people access to a resource, but they encroach upon personal freedoms and can be inefficient. Privatized systems generally promote freedom of choice, but they also lead to wide disparities in access to a resource. This is why I can't really say that I want to socialize or privatize everything across the board. Different resources require different approaches.
Agreed. Make no mistake about it... I certainly prefer our system over Communism, but I prefer Norway's system over ours.imortal wrote:
There are severe problems with an extemist form of ANY type of goverment. I will grant you that unlimited capitalism would be bad, creating the comsuming masses and the few at the top who bounce among the companies.
But extreme socialism is just as bad, subsuming any form of individuality for the good of the community as a whole, drawing your sense of self only as a part of the whole. I cannot see living to serve in a society like that.
Even an extreme freedom-based society would end up as anarchy without some form of controls.
And while I commend your belief in your cause, I do not think you have the proper grasp of communism in this sense, or you were grouping them together for shock effect and to draw a response based on that. Communism in practice had no person above another, and people were in the running of the goverment only because that was the position they were best at; not because of any desire for power. Communism as it stood in the USSR, or any other country for that matter, became something else altogether.
There cannot be an extreme form of any type of goverment. I think there is room for all our philosphies in a single goverment... in the correct mixture. Each style has its own advantages and disadvantages. The difficulty, as with most things in our age, is a matter of moderation, discipline, restraint, and balance.
Again, I don't think Norway's system would work here, but we could probably stand to socialize certain things here like medicine.
The main problem I see with much of our so-called "free market" approach is that it seems like deregulation is another way of saying "amending laws to benefit corporations over individuals." The regulation is still there, but it gets changed to help the elite rich instead of the average consumer.
We seriously need to recenter our government and society towards the common man. As it currently stands, special interests and lobbyists seem to be calling the shots.
I actually disagree with you there. I personally feel that a goverment should have NO social functions like that. I feel that churches and charities should provide those services, and we should not give tax money for those purposes to the goverment (and by that I mean being forced to pay taxes for services we do not need or even believe in), but should have that money available to donate to orginazations of our choosing. Those entities should be the ones providing the social services.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, a country with 300M people isn't as easy to control as a 10M one. But, what I meant is many people need to understand that Socialism is not Communism and used in the right way, it can coexist with Capitalism. I make good money living in Capitalism, but I'd like my government to use MY TAXES to help the less fortunate that can't afford the basic standard of living. I'm not Communist for that, I think there's a social role in every government.
Part of the reason is your desire for a smaller, decentralized goverment. Once a goverment is handing money (or food or shelter) to a person, the goverment controls that person by having control of the dispersment or even the possible stoppage of the aid. Vote in the pocket. Also, if given a chance, the people will vote for 'bread and circuses.' Whoever offers these people an increase to the support system (a Dole in all but name) is most likely to receive the vote. You have recreated the Roman mob.
By relying on churces and private charities, you take that power away from the goverment. And having many smaller charities may be less efficient, but no one is gaining a power base based on a food-for-vote system.
I think the social role whouls be in the hearts and minds of the populace, each doing what they feel is right; not being forced to give to what someone else says is the proper thing to do.
I prefer deregulation mainly to get more players into the field. If you have 3 or more competitors, the public wins as the coorperations have to fight for your business by providing better service, better products, and lower prices.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed. Make no mistake about it... I certainly prefer our system over Communism, but I prefer Norway's system over ours.imortal wrote:
There are severe problems with an extemist form of ANY type of goverment. I will grant you that unlimited capitalism would be bad, creating the comsuming masses and the few at the top who bounce among the companies.
But extreme socialism is just as bad, subsuming any form of individuality for the good of the community as a whole, drawing your sense of self only as a part of the whole. I cannot see living to serve in a society like that.
Even an extreme freedom-based society would end up as anarchy without some form of controls.
And while I commend your belief in your cause, I do not think you have the proper grasp of communism in this sense, or you were grouping them together for shock effect and to draw a response based on that. Communism in practice had no person above another, and people were in the running of the goverment only because that was the position they were best at; not because of any desire for power. Communism as it stood in the USSR, or any other country for that matter, became something else altogether.
There cannot be an extreme form of any type of goverment. I think there is room for all our philosphies in a single goverment... in the correct mixture. Each style has its own advantages and disadvantages. The difficulty, as with most things in our age, is a matter of moderation, discipline, restraint, and balance.
Again, I don't think Norway's system would work here, but we could probably stand to socialize certain things here like medicine.
The main problem I see with much of our so-called "free market" approach is that it seems like deregulation is another way of saying "amending laws to benefit corporations over individuals." The regulation is still there, but it gets changed to help the elite rich instead of the average consumer.
We seriously need to recenter our government and society towards the common man. As it currently stands, special interests and lobbyists seem to be calling the shots.
On the note of the health care system; our biggest single problem is the HMO purgatory created by the goverment in an effort to regulate affairs. I am a firm believer that we should have medical insurance companies run much like our auto insurance companies. Ripping those huge HMOs apart, in and of itself, will go a long way to lowering the cost of health care. We also need to find a way to lower the cost of education, to make it les expensive to train, and therefore to pay for, doctors. And, as I am an EMT, and am in nursing school, I pay a lot of attention to the Health Care debate.
We also have to llok at the shadyest of all goverment agencies, the FDA. Granted, it is expensive to create drugs, but the entire system needs to be reworked.
Last edited by imortal (2007-06-30 12:34:44)
I didn't recreate the Roman mob, I recreated the best economies of Europe. So, you think there's no need for a social security check for those who can't get a job? They should form in a row behind a church waiting for our "garbage". I don't think so. But, I respect your viewpoint.imortal wrote:
I actually disagree with you there. I personally feel that a goverment should have NO social functions like that. I feel that churches and charities should provide those services, and we should not give tax money for those purposes to the goverment (and by that I mean being forced to pay taxes for services we do not need or even believe in), but should have that money available to donate to orginazations of our choosing. Those entities should be the ones providing the social services.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, a country with 300M people isn't as easy to control as a 10M one. But, what I meant is many people need to understand that Socialism is not Communism and used in the right way, it can coexist with Capitalism. I make good money living in Capitalism, but I'd like my government to use MY TAXES to help the less fortunate that can't afford the basic standard of living. I'm not Communist for that, I think there's a social role in every government.
Part of the reason is your desire for a smaller, decentralized goverment. Once a goverment is handing money (or food or shelter) to a person, the goverment controls that person by having control of the dispersment or even the possible stoppage of the aid. Vote in the pocket. Also, if given a chance, the people will vote for 'bread and circuses.' Whoever offers these people an increase to the support system (a Dole in all but name) is most likely to receive the vote. You have recreated the Roman mob.
By relying on churces and private charities, you take that power away from the goverment. And having many smaller charities may be less efficient, but no one is gaining a power base based on a food-for-vote system.
I think the social role whouls be in the hearts and minds of the populace, each doing what they feel is right; not being forced to give to what someone else says is the proper thing to do.
Well, I definitely agree with that last sentence, but I would suggest that the market could probably offer better services to everyone than the government has when it comes to education.sergeriver wrote:
There we don't agree. I think Education should be granted until College to everyone. Hence, you need a public education system. If you can afford a private school for your kid better, but you need to give people who can't the opportunity of a good education. Poor education is the root of most of the World's problems.Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem. In a society as corporate as ours, there are many powerful groups that try to portray anything socialized as akin to Communism. This is likely a relic of the Cold War and the Red Scare, but it's also become a modern tradition for us since privatization benefits corporations far more than individuals in most cases.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, a country with 300M people isn't as easy to control as a 10M one. But, what I meant is many people need to understand that Socialism is not Communism and used in the right way, it can coexist with Capitalism. I make good money living in Capitalism, but I'd like my government to use MY TAXES to help the less fortunate that can't afford the basic standard of living. I'm not Communist for that, I think there's a social role in every government.
That's not to say that I want everything socialized though. I think we should socialize medicine here, but I think our socialized education system (pre-collegiate) has been a failure in many areas.
We should probably privatize education completely, but it will require a transition period of some sort. School vouchers seem like a decent idea.
It's basically a balance.... Socialized systems give more people access to a resource, but they encroach upon personal freedoms and can be inefficient. Privatized systems generally promote freedom of choice, but they also lead to wide disparities in access to a resource. This is why I can't really say that I want to socialize or privatize everything across the board. Different resources require different approaches.
Eventually, markets develop for consumers that can only afford to pay less. While their education isn't usually as good as a result of this, we see the same problem with socialized systems in America. Basically, my theory is that if a free market system was properly developed, most education would be vocational. Higher scholastic education is really overemphasized in America, which results in a lot of post-collegiate adults finding it hard to get a decent paying job. If they were instead taught a trade, they'd make decent money right out of school. I believe a free market system would handle this better.
Yes, poor education is a problem. But is it better for your goverment to run it, and have de facto control over what your child learns? How about mandatory attendence at those same schools? Can you not see the potential for abuse it creates in the system? I belive in private schools and home schooling. Most children who are hme-schooled learn faster than than those at 'public' schools. Granted, there are socialization problems, but that can be fixed. Private schools are so expensive because of the lack of students. more students attending would lower the price. Also, if your tax money for schools did not go to the goverment, you would have more money to spend to send your child to a private school. One that YOU chose.sergeriver wrote:
There we don't agree. I think Education should be granted until College to everyone. Hence, you need a public education system. If you can afford a private school for your kid better, but you need to give people who can't the opportunity of a good education. Poor education is the root of most of the World's problems.Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem. In a society as corporate as ours, there are many powerful groups that try to portray anything socialized as akin to Communism. This is likely a relic of the Cold War and the Red Scare, but it's also become a modern tradition for us since privatization benefits corporations far more than individuals in most cases.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, a country with 300M people isn't as easy to control as a 10M one. But, what I meant is many people need to understand that Socialism is not Communism and used in the right way, it can coexist with Capitalism. I make good money living in Capitalism, but I'd like my government to use MY TAXES to help the less fortunate that can't afford the basic standard of living. I'm not Communist for that, I think there's a social role in every government.
That's not to say that I want everything socialized though. I think we should socialize medicine here, but I think our socialized education system (pre-collegiate) has been a failure in many areas.
We should probably privatize education completely, but it will require a transition period of some sort. School vouchers seem like a decent idea.
It's basically a balance.... Socialized systems give more people access to a resource, but they encroach upon personal freedoms and can be inefficient. Privatized systems generally promote freedom of choice, but they also lead to wide disparities in access to a resource. This is why I can't really say that I want to socialize or privatize everything across the board. Different resources require different approaches.
In principle, yes. In practice, no. In many markets, competitors narrow down to a small oligarchy where collusion occurs. The most blatant example of this is the pharmaceutical industry. They collectively agree to drive up prices because they can.imortal wrote:
I prefer deregulation mainly to get more players into the field. If you have 3 or more competitors, the public wins as the coorperations have to fight for your business by providing better service, better products, and lower prices.
Agreed, but a socialized system would eliminate much of the problem because, when the government runs the system, they can be more easily held accountable for fuckups. HMOs have the power that they do because they buy off Congressmen. If the politicians themselves have power over deciding how the system runs, they'll get their asses handed to them in the next election if they screw something up. So, healthcare reform is easier to implement when the government is the provider itself. There's more of an incentive to serve the people that way.imortal wrote:
On the note of the health care system; our biggest single problem is the HMO purgatory created by the goverment in an effort to regulate affairs. I am a firm believer that we should have medical insurance companies run much like our auto insurance companies. Ripping those huge HMOs apart, in and of itself, will go a long way to lowering the cost of health care. We also need to find a way to lower the cost of education, to make it les expensive to train, and therefore to pay for, doctors. And, as I am an EMT, and am in nursing school, I pay a lot of attention to the Health Care debate.
We also have to llok at the shadyest of all goverment agencies, the FDA. Granted, it is expensive to create drugs, but the entire system needs to be reworked.
But, while most of what you say is correct, you forget one thing. We are trying to improve the whole education system, and you can't do that with underpaid teachers. In order to have well-paid theachers you need money. That would make your private system more expensive, and many people couldn't afford it. That's when the State needs to offer these people the opportunity of a good public education system.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I definitely agree with that last sentence, but I would suggest that the market could probably offer better services to everyone than the government has when it comes to education.sergeriver wrote:
There we don't agree. I think Education should be granted until College to everyone. Hence, you need a public education system. If you can afford a private school for your kid better, but you need to give people who can't the opportunity of a good education. Poor education is the root of most of the World's problems.Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem. In a society as corporate as ours, there are many powerful groups that try to portray anything socialized as akin to Communism. This is likely a relic of the Cold War and the Red Scare, but it's also become a modern tradition for us since privatization benefits corporations far more than individuals in most cases.
That's not to say that I want everything socialized though. I think we should socialize medicine here, but I think our socialized education system (pre-collegiate) has been a failure in many areas.
We should probably privatize education completely, but it will require a transition period of some sort. School vouchers seem like a decent idea.
It's basically a balance.... Socialized systems give more people access to a resource, but they encroach upon personal freedoms and can be inefficient. Privatized systems generally promote freedom of choice, but they also lead to wide disparities in access to a resource. This is why I can't really say that I want to socialize or privatize everything across the board. Different resources require different approaches.
Eventually, markets develop for consumers that can only afford to pay less. While their education isn't usually as good as a result of this, we see the same problem with socialized systems in America. Basically, my theory is that if a free market system was properly developed, most education would be vocational. Higher scholastic education is really overemphasized in America, which results in a lot of post-collegiate adults finding it hard to get a decent paying job. If they were instead taught a trade, they'd make decent money right out of school. I believe a free market system would handle this better.
I'm all about for private schools. But, you need to have public schools for people who can't afford the private system, it's basic. You can't neglect the opportunity to those who can't afford it, because that way you are perpetuating ignorance and poverty for them. Only good education can take you out of the basement.imortal wrote:
Yes, poor education is a problem. But is it better for your goverment to run it, and have de facto control over what your child learns? How about mandatory attendence at those same schools? Can you not see the potential for abuse it creates in the system? I belive in private schools and home schooling. Most children who are hme-schooled learn faster than than those at 'public' schools. Granted, there are socialization problems, but that can be fixed. Private schools are so expensive because of the lack of students. more students attending would lower the price. Also, if your tax money for schools did not go to the goverment, you would have more money to spend to send your child to a private school. One that YOU chose.sergeriver wrote:
There we don't agree. I think Education should be granted until College to everyone. Hence, you need a public education system. If you can afford a private school for your kid better, but you need to give people who can't the opportunity of a good education. Poor education is the root of most of the World's problems.Turquoise wrote:
Here's the problem. In a society as corporate as ours, there are many powerful groups that try to portray anything socialized as akin to Communism. This is likely a relic of the Cold War and the Red Scare, but it's also become a modern tradition for us since privatization benefits corporations far more than individuals in most cases.
That's not to say that I want everything socialized though. I think we should socialize medicine here, but I think our socialized education system (pre-collegiate) has been a failure in many areas.
We should probably privatize education completely, but it will require a transition period of some sort. School vouchers seem like a decent idea.
It's basically a balance.... Socialized systems give more people access to a resource, but they encroach upon personal freedoms and can be inefficient. Privatized systems generally promote freedom of choice, but they also lead to wide disparities in access to a resource. This is why I can't really say that I want to socialize or privatize everything across the board. Different resources require different approaches.
Do you really think of it as garbage? I am not talking about donating scraps; I am talking about money. The traditional tithe that used to be so common. Or Christian (or you may change to any religeon you prefer) generosity. As for those who cannot get a job; we have a very low unemployment rate in the US, so our system must not be too bad in that respect.sergeriver wrote:
I didn't recreate the Roman mob, I recreated the best economies of Europe. So, you think there's no need for a social security check for those who can't get a job? They should form in a row behind a church waiting for our "garbage". I don't think so. But, I respect your viewpoint.
I will agree with you on one point; the mentally ill, (which composes a serious portion of our homeless) do need to be cared for. But churces used to run hospitals too. I think you underestimate how much could be gathered by these churches and charities. Many people think they give enough to 'the goverment' to help that problem. Some people do indeed give more. And some people feel it is not their problem and are resentful of the money taken from them to support these systems. Personally, I am a big believer in 'work or die.' And before you label me an inhuman monster, I point out that I was without a job for a time, and I never drew a penny of unemployment. I was on my last 20 dollars in the world when I cashed my first paycheck when I did end up getting a job. I am now back in school, at my own expense. I think I am about to get a job that will double my pay. Work or die. Hunger is a great motivator. And if you have a safety net, you may tend to get a bit careless on the tightrope.
The cost of providing a GOOD socialized education system (like the Canadian system) would require higher taxes. Americans understandably resist any rises in taxation. Until you can convince the majority of them that it's worth paying higher taxes for it, I think we'll continue to have a mediocre at best education system.sergeriver wrote:
But, while most of what you say is correct, you forget one thing. We are trying to improve the whole education system, and you can't do that with underpaid teachers. In order to have well-paid theachers you need money. That would make your private system more expensive, and many people couldn't afford it. That's when the State needs to offer these people the opportunity of a good public education system.
We're essentially half-assing it right now. I'd rather privatize it than do that.
I'm sure much of Africa would agree, but that's a bit extreme.imortal wrote:
Work or die. Hunger is a great motivator.
You were talking about extremism earlier, but it seems like you're an extreme Libertarian. Serge seems to be somewhat of an extreme Socialist .
I try to fit somewhere in the middle, although many consider me left-of-center.
Again, there are other ways of educating the masses. There is nothing worng with homeschooling, and it should be inexpensive. ANd think of the opportunities in the modern world, with the internet as a resource for learning(that they did not have a hundred years ago)? How about catholic schools? How about a small community gathering together to found a small community school, especially for rural areas? We look back upon history to show us how these things have worked in the past, and we are right to do so. But do not overlook how technology has come along to create abilities that have to be taken into account.sergeriver wrote:
I'm all about for private schools. But, you need to have public schools for people who can't afford the private system, it's basic. You can't neglect the opportunity to those who can't afford it, because that way you are perpetuating ignorance and poverty for them. Only good education can take you out of the basement.
Africa has been a disaster area ever since the old european powers moved into the place; well, since they left it, actually. That is a mess that cannot be fixed in any time scale measuring less than generations.Turquoise wrote:
I'm sure much of Africa would agree, but that's a bit extreme.imortal wrote:
Work or die. Hunger is a great motivator.
But my break is over. Back to work for me.
Plus you have Chuck Norris. Send him in. Coup over.
America likes to invade countries for its economic needs, dont see why everyone shouldnt invade them...see how they like being liberated
Garbage, leftovers, it's totally humiliating for a person to form in a row at the entrance of a church to receive charity. The system is easy. You make money, you pay taxes. When you don't make money, you have the net. But that doesn't mean you use the net all the time. The social role of the State can't be left in the hands of the Church. Churches can help, but you need the State to take care of social security. Education, health, social security, and justice are issues that the government should take care of. Always.imortal wrote:
Do you really think of it as garbage? I am not talking about donating scraps; I am talking about money. The traditional tithe that used to be so common. Or Christian (or you may change to any religeon you prefer) generosity. As for those who cannot get a job; we have a very low unemployment rate in the US, so our system must not be too bad in that respect.sergeriver wrote:
I didn't recreate the Roman mob, I recreated the best economies of Europe. So, you think there's no need for a social security check for those who can't get a job? They should form in a row behind a church waiting for our "garbage". I don't think so. But, I respect your viewpoint.
I will agree with you on one point; the mentally ill, (which composes a serious portion of our homeless) do need to be cared for. But churces used to run hospitals too. I think you underestimate how much could be gathered by these churches and charities. Many people think they give enough to 'the goverment' to help that problem. Some people do indeed give more. And some people feel it is not their problem and are resentful of the money taken from them to support these systems. Personally, I am a big believer in 'work or die.' And before you label me an inhuman monster, I point out that I was without a job for a time, and I never drew a penny of unemployment. I was on my last 20 dollars in the world when I cashed my first paycheck when I did end up getting a job. I am now back in school, at my own expense. I think I am about to get a job that will double my pay. Work or die. Hunger is a great motivator. And if you have a safety net, you may tend to get a bit careless on the tightrope.
You are leaving a lot in the hands of Church IMO. You talk about Internet, but you don't realize we're talking about people that possibly can't afford to pay a broadband connection, so how would they get a good education at home without the internet? In your communitarian system, there would be a lot of differences between different counties and cities. You need the education system to meet the minimum standard of quality, and you can't achieve that leaving the school in the hands of community centers.imortal wrote:
Again, there are other ways of educating the masses. There is nothing worng with homeschooling, and it should be inexpensive. ANd think of the opportunities in the modern world, with the Internet as a resource for learning(that they did not have a hundred years ago)? How about catholic schools? How about a small community gathering together to found a small community school, especially for rural areas? We look back upon history to show us how these things have worked in the past, and we are right to do so. But do not overlook how technology has come along to create abilities that have to be taken into account.sergeriver wrote:
I'm all about for private schools. But, you need to have public schools for people who can't afford the private system, it's basic. You can't neglect the opportunity to those who can't afford it, because that way you are perpetuating ignorance and poverty for them. Only good education can take you out of the basement.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-06-30 13:12:07)
Was the US a democracy in the first place?
Quit trying to bash Bush inadvertently though hypothetical situations. This is just one more of the innumerable attempts to "demonize" him.
It would be none of our business - unless they began to threaten us.
Along with a few sarcastic remarks about Iraq and some faces.Kmarion wrote:
The world help? How, by sending a really mean letter with lots of frownie faces ?
As said if anyone tried to pull that, the American public would revolt.
Sorry buddy but he doesn't need any help to be demonized. He's doing a great job himself.Velker wrote:
Quit trying to bash Bush inadvertently though hypothetical situations. This is just one more of the innumerable attempts to "demonize" him.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- If Bush Removed Democracy from the US, Should the World Help?