Michael Moore, liberals and real power

[alfredog]

Hi, I haven't posted on here in a while, but the SICKO film threads got my attention. It always shocks me to see a good number of reactionary, jingoistic types on a board that you'd think would be filled with liberal minds. That's cool, though. Democracy.

To the superpatriots who see guys like Michael Moore as anti-American propagandists, all I can do is suggest some good reading:

Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins, The Sorrows of Empire http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Secrecy-Republic/dp/0805070044, or any of Gore Vidal's recent dissections of the corporatocracy. This history runs deep: the collusion of big business and shrinking government to keep power in the hands of a few downright tyrannical private interests. Watch Adam Curtis' documentaries, The Power of Nightmares, The Trap ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6980862905834535581&q=the+trap&total=6125&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1), and The Century of the Self. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8181323820923484667&q=guatemala+curtis&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0). Read Naomi Klein's journalism documenting corporate greed and exploitation around the world. Check up on the history of private firms like KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel, Chas T. Main, etc. These aren't household names, but they are the real power in America, not presidents or Congressmen. Increasingly in the last 50 years, elected officials have become little more than facillitators for these powerful crime families while advertising themselves as public advocates. Liars, thieves and killers.

Read some of that stuff, then check it against the vast public record of these crimes, and you'll realize that Michael Moore is an ant fighting elephants. He is nobody to be afraid of, nor to be idly dismissed. His arguments, however crass or overbearing you might find them, are supported by the historical record and his enemies' own words. He's trying to get your attention in the face of power the Romans would fear.

All authoritarian structures use patriotism, public relations, religious fervor and fear tactics to make their populations submit without use of force. When that doesn't work, they kill us. Doesn't matter if its a middle eastern theocrat or an American neocon, all power that sidesteps its responsibility to the people is corrupt; all flags should be burned. That ain't communism talking, that's pure humanism.

[specialk]

Nice post A-Dog..and welcome back!

[El Nino]

Michael Moore Has Serious Questions About 9/11


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607Moore.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607Moore_Questions.htm

The sleeping Giant is awakening

[LTR_Seeker]

is this the same michael moore who has stocks in halliburton ..lol he he is joke

[alfredog]

Nice post A-Dog..and welcome back!

Thanks, k.

As for Moore's Halliburton stocks, I'd guess that any outrageous move like that is probably one of his publicity-gathering stunts, like going gun shopping, ambushing a politician with pissed off citizens or sneaking into Cuba for free medical care. His tactics imitate those of the powerful: shock and awe. Or, in some cases, shock and "awww."

The "limousine liberal" argument is probably the weakest and most desperate strategy of the right in absence of facts or reasoned argument.

[stillies77]

this is why we have a political section.

[yodajazz]

Great post. I agree with almost everything you have said. A lot of people have not heard about the Becthel Corp, which has former cabinet level officials, in it's employ.

My only point of contention would be that our goverment might be the only force that could fight thier influence. Even though it is not likely. I say that it is essential for the people to fight for agents of change and openess within the goverment. Nothing else can stop their multi-billion dollar deals from the goverment, at the same time as programs to support the poor are called goverment hand outs.

[guyone]

And to all the liberals out there stop reading THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO!

[trish]

haven't read that piece of shit since college: ideas of western philosophy.

[yodajazz]

And to all the liberals out there stop reading THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO!

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? I think that the US was founded on principles that elevated the individual and his rights. Individuals have the right to choose their own form of goverment, etc.
I'll admit that it has been a long time since I read the document. But I don't recall anywhere where it says that rich people have the right to decide what is best for everyone. That is like building missile defense system for some very very remote possibility of a threat, but average people can't walk the streets at night. I believe that the principle is that all people have the right to determine the greatest good, not just rich White men.

Guyone, you are always calling people names. Is it because you are not able to make intelligent arguments, or understand others? Really want to call you a bunch of names because that seems to be the level of your thinking. But I'll try not to lower myself to your level and just that you are pathetic.

[tsluver247]

And to all the liberals out there stop reading THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO!

Vietnam's president Nguyen Minh Triet shakes hands with President Bush in the Oval Office, June 22, 2007. Triet's visit is the first for a president of the communist-led country to the United States since the Vietnam War. (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070622/photos_ts/2007_06_22t122010_450x321_us_usa_vietnam)

[guyone]

Guyone, you are always calling people names. Is it because you are not able to make intelligent arguments, or understand others? Really want to call you a bunch of names because that seems to be the level of your thinking. But I'll try not to lower myself to your level and just that you are pathetic.

Accusing people of name calling on this board is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500. And by the way are you a Creationist or a Darwinist because if you believe in science then you will understand that THOSE WHO CAN SURVIVE ARE THE ONLY ONES WORTH SURVIVING.

Besides what names did I call anyone? The word Liberal is now considered an expletive?

[trish]

And by the way are you a Creationist or a Darwinist because if you believe in science then you will understand that ONLY THOSE WHO CAN SURVIVE ARE THE ONLY ONES WORTH SURVIVING.

You weren't paying full attention in biology class, guyone. Science doesn't tell us which species are worthy of survival. Of those that have survived we can say:

1. up to now, their inheritable characteristics and their environment favored their chances of survival (i.e. they suitably fit their environment);

2. and up to now, they were lucky.

I'm not clear on what profound moral we're to draw from your fallaceous pronouncement about worth anyway.

By the way, are you admitting the creationists aren't scientists? Is this something we actually agree on?

[guyone]

I think you have a problem comprehending my post. I never identified any species. 'Those' is an adjective not a species. As far as creationism anyone who wants to believe in that be my guest. I don't have a innate desire to control what others think.

[trish]

Then please explain your post. What do you mean by
THOSE WHO CAN SURVIVE ARE THE ONLY ONES WORTH SURVIVING. and how does it relate to Dawinism which in no way addresses the worth of "those who survive."

I didn't ask you if you would have others believe in creationism; just wondered whether we were in agreement concerning its veracity.

[guyone]

Do I believe in the evangelistic version of the origin of the universe? No. I do know however that God & Darwin play very well together.

What I mean by THOSE WHO CAN SURVIVE is that the one who winds up surviving is the best equipped to survive. Those who can't...tough luck. I believe we are the product of our own self manufactured destiny.

In the words of J.J. Burnel:

"I don't want to be your enemy but I sure won't be your slave."

[trish]

The word “can” covers a lot of territory. Some can survive by accepting the services of others. Others survive by exacting those services via outright power, social arrangement, and a plethora of other mechanisms. Is it then fair to paraphrase your maxim as follows: anyone who can (regardless of whether they do) utilize any of these mechanisms for survival is, by virtue of that ability, worthy of survival? Also back to the original question: how does this maxim connect with Darwinism?

[guyone]

Survival of the fittest.

Most able to survive by any means necessary.

[trish]

Damn...that's still not clear.

Are you claiming (1) or (2) or neither:

1. If someone has a means that allows them to survive, then they are worthy of survival.

2. Those most able to survive by any means necessary are the only ones worthy of survival.

The former imagines different people will fit their society in different ways and survive by different means. The latter imagines that to be worthy of survival one must be able to utilize any and all means necessary, whether they actually arise or not.

After we get the meaning behind the maxim cleared up, I'd like to know how you, or perhaps Zarathustra, would argue that it gives a reasonable characterization of worth.

[guyone]

It means whatever you want it to mean.

[yodajazz]

Still, in human societies, policies which that help poorer people survive and prosper benefit all of society. You have to admit there are benefits, G.

Plus survival issues must include social values, of what are greater goods than others. A person could survive by harming others by stealing, killing, etc. All human societies have rules which take these factors into account. Even animal communites expell members based on behaviorial factors. Survival of a species or a society is a lot more complex than "survival of the fittest".

[trish]

It means whatever you want it to mean.
That's too bad...I thought together we might explore exactly what it was you meant, its consequences and justification. Oh well, never-mind.

[guyone]

It means that those who can survive (by any and/or all methodology required for survival at that particular time and space) are the only ones equipped for survival thus they are the most worthy of survival since they ultimately survived. There is no way to gauge the criteria for survival since there are too many variables(e.g. time, location, circumstances, physical attributes, value placed by the All Mighty, etc.). In one case it could be strength and in another luck. They are the ones worthy of survival because for whatever reason they ultimately survived. Since their compatriots are dead their chances of survival are pretty low giving the edge to the ones who survived.

[yodajazz]

I say that in today's world, it is not about survival of the fittest, as much as it is public policies which promote survival. An example would be providing safe drinking water and making it available to large amounts of people at a reasonable price. Every body does not have safe drinking water in today's world. Are the people who do not have it worth getting it?
That is a matter of public policy to decide.

I think the purpose of Michael Moore's movies are to help people look at public policies and present facts to help people decide on what these polices should be. We all make these decsions daily as we take political stances on the issues.

[trish]

guyone:In one sense, everyone survives (up to the time they don’t). Let’s say someone’s failure to survive was just bad luck. Were they worthy of survival up to the last nanosecond, and then suddenly their worth changed with their luck?

In another sense nobody survives (alas we’re all mortal). Are we all unworthy?

Besides the difficulty of clarifying the hypothesis of your Nietschean sounding aphorism, we need to clarify two aspects of its conclusion. What counts as survival and what counts as worth?

Let's suppose we manage to get over those difficulties. There remains the question of whether one can derive a value judgment (such as one’s worth) from a non-evaluative facts (such as one survived). David Hume says no valid arguments can make this sort of transition.

[trish]

I think people create in part their own ecology and simultaneously strive to fit suitably within their ecology. The implementations of public policies are part of our environment. Roads, planes, private corporations, nations, schools etc are all things that we both create, contend with and exploit for survival. Kids who survive, in part, by actively partaking in public education are, by guyone’s criteria, worthy of survival. So is an elderly person taking advantage of Medicaid. Along with yodajazz, I personally don’t see anything wrong with looking at our heathcare system and figuring out what we can do to help more people live healthier, happier lives and survive longer.

[guyone]

Besides the difficulty of clarifying the hypothesis of your Nietschean sounding aphorism, we need to clarify two aspects of its conclusion. What counts as survival and what counts as worth?

Let's suppose we manage to get over those difficulties. There remains the question of whether one can derive a value judgment (such as one’s worth) from a non-evaluative facts (such as one survived). David Hume says no valid arguments can make this sort of transition.


These are very easy to define. First as to the question of survival.
Survival is accomplished when an entity has successfully propagated and there is an offspring to continue its own particular flavor of DNA. If the entity has not successfully propagated by death then it was not worthy of survival.

(please note*- I am not saying that individuals that live in society are failures for not propagating. This is ofcourse all a matter of personal choice.).

In terms of nature and reality by an entity not propagating it will not add its own unique strain of DNA to the rest of the species thus eradicating its own particular flavor of DNA from the species collective menu.

Worth is a quantitative value that relates directly to survivability. If the entity is not contributing to the survival of the species by dying out before it propagates then it has not contributed to the species growth on the whole. Therefore by not adding its unique features to the species future generations it is forgotten. Something that has been forgotten contains no value or function in the present so it is therefore worthless.

[guyone]

As far as health care goes...I don't mind paying for mine but I'm sure as hell not going to pay for someone else's.

Familiar with the book, "I'm OK, You're OK"?

I propose a new book called "I take care of myself and you take care of yourself"

...and Michael Moore should go on a diet.

[trish]

Okay, sorry. In my first post, I thought you were referring to the actual mechanisms of gene selection via the natural selection of phenotypes. But I was thrown your succeeding post (
Those' is an adjective not a species) and was given to think you were only using Darwin in metaphor. But now I see you ARE using a well know mechanism of selection


Survival is accomplished when an entity has successfully propagated and there is an offspring to continue its own particular flavor of DNA.



Let’s get your aphorism once again in front of us:


THOSE WHO CAN SURVIVE ARE THE ONLY ONES WORTH SURVIVING.

Let me try to paraphrase your aphorism (in a less poetic way to be sure) to more clearly bring out your meaning.

Those who can propagate their genes into the next generation are the only ones worthy of propagating their genes into the next generation.

This reformulation is obtained simply by substituting for “survive” and “surviving” your meaning of those words, namely “propagating ones genes into the next generation.” However, putting the aphorism in this way takes a lot of steam of the conclusion. A person might be worthy of a lot of other things. An celibate priest might be worthy of surviving into old age regardless of your supposition that he’s not worthy of being genetically represented in the succeeding generations. We remember people for more than their genetic contributions to the species (which for the most part was given to them by their parents without mutation anyway). We remember and value people more for their cultural contributions. Musicians, artists, scientists, people who show us how to live better, fuller lives are worthy of our attentions. I admit, given the context of this thread, I thought that you were using a more general notion of worth than the one you wound up defining.

Even in its form as we now understand it, I do not agree with your aphorism. But I do think it has lost its punch. It certainly isn’t relevant to a discussion of health care. Our species already finds that its elders (who are largely beyond the age of propagation) are worthy of aid and attention (regardless of whether they ever actually passed on any genetic information). We also think those who do not contribute more to their community than their seed are worthy of fines (for tax evasion). We live in a ecology partly of our own making, full of highways and institutions private and public. Those that are best fit are those who cooperate and look out for each other.

[guyone]

Trish, you've got too much time on your hands.

[Cuchulain]

"As far as health care goes...I don't mind paying for mine but I'm sure as hell not going to pay for someone else's....I propose a new book called "I take care of myself and you take care of yourself"

Guyone has pretty much summed up the CONservative philosophy. In other words: Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.

[trish]

Trish, you've got too much time on your hands.

You're welcome, guyone. :)

[guyone]

What's wrong with able bodied people taking responsibility for themselves? Do we all need 'Mommy & Daddy' wiping our collectives asses for our entire lives? When people take their own destiny into their own hands great things are accomplished.

[North_of_60]

Insurance companies lives/exists on donations from a collectivity, but they like to make people think they're taking reponsibility for themselves.

When one who paid insurance fees for 15 years can't get his money for a broken arm, he's all alone in court againt the major corporate fraud, trying to argue that this was "in fact" an "accident"...

When a collectivity collectively ask for it's money/care/etc. you shift weights in the balance.


We live in an ecology of our own making, and those that are best fit are those who cooperate and look for each other

One of the main key of evolution is definitely empathy ; when the chimps started to look into each other's eyes seeing their own selves, ...it was the first time they smiled. Preserving one another helps the human spirit in it's quest to complexity.

[Cuchulain]

guyone asks " What's wrong with able bodied people taking responsibility for themselves? Do we all need 'Mommy & Daddy' wiping our collectives asses for our entire lives? When people take their own destiny into their own hands great things are accomplished."

Nothing, on the face of it. But republican buzz words like "personal responsibility" and "mommy/daddy/nanny state" seem like a sneaky way of advocating social darwinism - the elimination of the sick and the weak (ie, the 'lower classes') because they are a drag on society. Progressives feel that we're all in this together and we're stronger as a group, working for the common good.

Btw, we are already paying for the health care of others by way of the VA system and Medicare. I suggested in the 'Sicko' thread in general chat that a single payer system for all, such as Medicare, would be cheaper for about 95% of us. See that thread for links.

[trish]

What's wrong with able bodied people taking responsibility for themselves? Absoutely nothing. Taking responsibility for oneself doesn’t preclude sharing the burdens of others. Likewise there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being asked to help carry a modicum of that burden.

Now let’s look the opposites of propositions:

Is it generally right for able bodied people to take responsibility for themselves? Yes.
Is it generally right to help people in need? Of course.

So isn’t it right to expect the government to take care of those of it’s citizens who need help?

Look, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HEALTH CARE IS PEOPLE TAKING RESPONSIBILITIY FOR THEMSELVES.

[bucatini70]

the only problem with govt sponsored health care is that in every case on the planet without exception it becomes a two tiered system (in some cases three) the govt provider is for the less well off or for routine illness whereas the the more well off will seek the higher level of care ......in no country with a social medical program in this not the case

[guyone]

Yeah I want my healthcare in the hands of a civil servant. So we go to a system where a loser in charge who denies benefits who can get fired to one where the loser in charge can't.

By the way there is nothing in the constitution about collectivism.

[trish]

The wealthy will of course always buy what they perceive to be the best: the best shoes, the best handbags, the best cars, the best education and the best doctors. This will be true whether we have a government sponsored health care system or not. So yeah, if you’re rich enough you won’t ever need to avail yourself of the public system, if there ever is one. But at least with a government sponsored system we would be taking responsibility for ourselves. Today it is the private insurance companies who are the losers in charge and who deny people the treatments their doctors recommend. Today there are Americans who have no coverage and get no care. Contrary to what you may have heard, without regulation, free markets demonstrably do not seek equitable equilibriums. Sure there’s nothing in the constitution about collectivism. I agree. There’s also nothing in the constitution about capitalism. Because nothing is said about either, it is constitutionally consistent to have a little of both.

For Bucatini70 the ONLY problem with government sponsored health care is the problem that it quickly becomes two tiered. But this is true of private heath care as well. So it cannot be used as an objection to eliminate one and select the other.

For guyone, this seems more like a moral question. guyone whines that it’s unfair to expect him to help, even in the least way, to support someone else in need. He seems to feel that if he were totally self-sufficient, he should be exempt from society’s expectations. But self-sufficiency is an illusion. We’re not each alone living on an island. Neither are we ants living in a nest. We’re somewhere in between. Should we expect people to only drive on that length of road for which they paid? When treating a patient, should the doctor only use that knowledge which was discovered by the research and experimentation paid for by that particular patient? By that reasoning not even the wealthiest could afford the knowledge to keep themselves alive. We owe our language (and along with it our ability to think), our technology, knowledge and way of life to everyone around us.

There is an additional difficulty with the notion of self-sufficiency, a moral one. I take it guyone would like to absolve us our responsibilities toward himself. He’s taking care of himself and he doesn’t expect anyone to step in even if his precautions and investments somehow fail to protect him when he falls ill. But does anyone have the moral authority to release someone else of their responsibilities?

[guyone]

Look I don't trust doctors. The bad one's let you die and the good doctors kill you. When my time comes I'm just going to bow out with dignity and grace. And I don't need anyone's help for that...

[White_Male_Canada]

Look I don't trust doctors. The bad one's let you die and the good doctors kill you. When my time comes I'm just going to bow out with dignity and grace. And I don't need anyone's help for that...

Ever been to your local post office? Ever waited for your package that never arrived or took 8 weeks?

Now imagine the same government running health care.

I know, I live in Canada.

[qeuqheeg222]

is it that boring up there that you are so obsessed with our politic?eh?how much for a pack of export a's and a o'keefes extra stock(six pack)?

[White_Male_Canada]

is it that boring up there that you are so obsessed with our politic?eh?how much for a pack of export a's and a o'keefes extra stock(six pack)?

Not as obsessed as the kook brigade is with me.

I don`t drink beer, or smoke cigarettes so I can`t tell you. If I did it wouldn`t be Export A green packs. Too strong. And it wouldn`t be O`keefe. Too skunky.

When I do it is rarely and it is preferably Maduro No.35 with a large glass of Glenlivet.

I`m sure that Leni Riefenstahl, oh, I mean Michael Moore smokes Cubans. And if he`s admires the health care system there so much why not move there. While he is there perhaps he can ask Castro why he imported doctors from Spain, with all their specialized equipment, to save his life. 8)

[Cuchulain]

In a single payer system like Medicare, the government doesn't 'run' health care. You go to the doctor/hospital of your choice and they present the bill to Medicare. Medicare overhead is about 3%. Insurance company overhead is 22 - 31%. Why should we pay for the insurance industry to make outrageous profits by finding ways to deny us the medical care we need? FUCK 'EM! I know it just kills the REICHwingers to think that WE THE PEOPLE might actually exercise our power and make government work for the common good instead of padding the pockets of the ultra- wealthy but get used to it. As a wise man once wrote "the times they are a-changin".

[guyone]

I know it just kills the REICHwingers to think that WE THE PEOPLE...

WE THE BOLSHEVIKS you mean.

You should stop repeating the liberal canard that Medicare is "efficient." True, Medicare's overhead costs, as a ratio of expenditures, are extremely low. But that is a sign of inattention, not efficiency. Take a tour of, say, the Medicare mills that line the strip malls of South Florida to confirm that Medicare pays almost all bills of any kind, no questions asked. Granted, the "incentive" fee structures--so dear to market theologians' hearts--mostly generate only a waste of paperwork. But the medical technology has outrun the ability of the average practice to cope, and intelligent medical management is sorely needed. A dollar-shoveling machine is not a model for reform.

And before any of you babies start with the name calling accusations READ:

REICHwingers

Again National SOCIALISM is a left wing organization. There are no mentions of socialism on the right. Just good people and clear thinking. People who work hard, are not lazy bums, and contribute their fair share to society without wanting any hand outs.

[LG]

Look I don't trust doctors. The bad one's let you die and the good doctors kill you. When my time comes I'm just going to bow out with dignity and grace. And I don't need anyone's help for that...

Ever been to your local post office? Ever waited for your package that never arrived or took 8 weeks?

Now imagine the same government running health care.

I know, I live in Canada.

Maybe they just don't like you. I'm pretty sure you've given them good reason. :roll:

[White_Male_Canada]

Look I don't trust doctors. The bad one's let you die and the good doctors kill you. When my time comes I'm just going to bow out with dignity and grace. And I don't need anyone's help for that...

Ever been to your local post office? Ever waited for your package that never arrived or took 8 weeks?

Now imagine the same government running health care.

I know, I live in Canada.

Maybe they just don't like you. I'm pretty sure you've given them good reason.

The government runs the industry, period, end of story .

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/C-6///en

What you dislike is truth, so keep filing those complaints, encourage the local villageidiot to spam and hi-jack, you may get your wish and have all dissent banned. 8)

[trish]

The only babies crying here are you guys who don't want to shell out a little cash to do the decent thing and help your fellow human beings. I do believe you two have presented yourselves as christians, haven't you?

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I've never had any complaint about the U.S. post office. It's relatively cheap, it's reliable and it's fast. I have had packages delayed in transit for weeks by UPS and I've had packages damaged by FED EX.

So yeah, I would like to see the gov take health care out of the hands of private insurance companies. So how's it workin' up there in Canada? Not the post office, the heath care. Why are drugs sooo fuckin' cheap up there?

[Cuchulain]

Guyone says :"no mentions of socialism on the right."

The REICHwing hates socialism, except when they benefit from it, as in:

"Corporate socialism" -- the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct -- is displacing capitalist canons. This condition prevents an adaptable capitalism, served by equal justice under law, from delivering higher standards of living and enlarging its absorptive capacity for broader community and environmental values. Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation of corporation and state.

Capitalist enterprises are expected to compete on an even playing field. Corporate lobbyists, starting with their abundant cash for political campaigns, have developed a "corporate state" where government lavishes subsidies, inflated contracts, guarantees and research and development and natural resources giveaways on big business -- while denying comparable benefits to individuals and family businesses. We have a government of big business, by big business and for big business, even if more of these businesses are nominally moving their state charters to Bermuda-like tax escapes."
http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

Guyone continues:
"Just good people and clear thinking. People who work hard, are not lazy bums, and contribute their fair share to society without wanting any hand outs. "

You must mean fine lads like "Shooter" Cheney, Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, Rupert Murdoch, Scooter Libby, Michael (Wiener) Savage, Ann Coulter and Adolph Hitler - REICHwing role models all.

[White_Male_Canada]

So yeah, I would like to see the gov take health care out of the hands of private insurance companies. So how's it workin' up there in Canada? Not the post office, the heath care. Why are drugs sooo fuckin' cheap up there?

Drugs are "cheap" for one reason, the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board. And not all prescription drugs are cheap. That`s an issue for another day.

The CHA was indirectly challenged by a citizen of Quebec who was stuck on massive waiting lists in a multiple-tiered system, he won. The high Court stated, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care,". The ruling stopped short of declaring the national health-care system unconstitutional only because that was not the germane issue.

[guyone]

You must mean fine lads like "Shooter" Cheney,- Great American


Jack Abramoff Worked for both right wing and communists


Ken Lay, Gave money to Right wings and communists. The fiasco occurred during the gangster Clinton era.


Rupert Murdoch, Really Great Australian. Should be president of USA


Scooter Libby, Crucified by the commies for their own sins.


Michael (Wiener) Savage, Maniac & idiot. Pretty much the same as Randi Rhodes just has a lot more listeners.


Ann Coulter- Extremely intelligent and would love to plough her love field


and Adolph Hitler - Socialist that's your side of the aisle.



...and by the way Trish. I'm not a Christian.

[trish]

glad to hear it.

[Cuchulain]

Quote:
You must mean fine lads like "Shooter" Cheney,-
Great American

Quote:
Jack Abramoff
Worked for both right wing and communists

Quote:
Ken Lay,
Gave money to Right wings and communists. The fiasco occurred during the gangster Clinton era.

Quote:
Rupert Murdoch,
Really Great Australian. Should be president of USA

Quote:
Scooter Libby,
Crucified by the commies for their own sins.

Quote:
Michael (Wiener) Savage,
Maniac & idiot. Pretty much the same as Randi Rhodes just has a lot more listeners.

Quote:
Ann Coulter-
Extremely intelligent and would love to plough her love field

Quote:
and Adolph Hitler -
Socialist that's your side of the aisle.

LOL! Thanks guyone! That was the best laugh I've had in days. I laughed so hard I almost fell off the chair. Seriously, I needed that; good job. My fav was the part where you exhumed the REICHwing fable that Hitler was a socialist. The 'National Socialist Party' woohoo! Andre the Giant (rip) could wear a black cocktail dress and pumps and call himself Allanah Starr but that wouldn't make it so. LOL! Thanks again pal. Keep up the good work.

[trish]

Hello Cuchulain. Indeed the roots of the NAZI party are in reaction against Boshevism, but guyone never let a fact get in the way of a good quip.
My fav was the remark about how'd he'd love to plough Coulter's love field. If anything she'd plough his!

Keep dreamin' guyone.

[Cuchulain]

Hi trish. Coulter is probably as big a bitch in the sack as she is on tv - yuck. He took a little shot at Randi Rhoades too, bet she'd be a lot more fun than Ann.

[guyone]

Why are you talking as if I were not in the room?

[trish]

I addressed you rather directly when I told you to keep on dreaming, guyone. Hi again.

[guyone]

Okay.

[qeuqheeg222]

dessicated and bleached chicken with a flat blonde wig.."you can never be too rich or too thin"............