The Magical World of Terrorists and Liberals

There really are two ways of looking at the world. To most of us, the world works in rational, linear, fairly predictable ways. Drop a hammer, for instance, and it will always fall, accelerating at thirty-two feet per second, every second. Science works. Reason works. We're capable of understanding the world, and using our understanding of it in small ways to advance ourselves. The world around us makes sense.

Then there are people who see the world through emotionalism, symbolism and magic. The world makes sense to them, too, but in a completely different way. They believe in Grand Gestures and symbolic attacks. They can't merely disagree with someone, that person must become a larger-than-life Enemy of All Humanity. Their emotions drive their thoughts and fears. Those who believe in a symbolic world don't see the universe as working along the same rational, linear lines as the rest of us. Liberals and terrorists both belong to this latter group of people.

Terrorists attack representative symbols of things they hate. Innocent people are symbolically representative of the larger group they want to hurt -- they're emotionally incapable of separating the individual from the group. To attack America or Israel, they kill random Americans or Israelis; to attack America's military, they attack the Pentagon or blow up a truck full of American soldiers; to attack America's economic might, they attack the World Trade Center and other financial buildings. Even the symbolic gesture of burning American flags is, by magic, supposed to be an attack on America itself. Rational people would strive to build a better economy or military to increase their position in the world. By making the Grand Gesture of killing themselves along with the symbol that represents their chosen enemy, terrorists ensure that their attack "means" something -- it's the magic that translates the attack on the symbol to the hated real thing. Because their world functions by magic instead of rationality, they believe that they can hurt America by hurting symbols or representatives OF America.

Most Liberals have the same magical, emotional worldview as terrorists. Liberals feel that magic, of a sort, actually works. Their speeches are full of metaphor and emotional overtones instead of fact and realism. Like terrorists, they are fond of the Grand Gesture and symbolic attacks. When you see them dancing wildly and chanting obscenities in the streets of New York City to protest the Republican convention all next week (ironically using their freedom of speech to protest other people's freedom of speech), understand that what they do makes sense in a magic-run emotion-driven universe. If they can out-shout the Republicans, they can "beat" them. If they can project their hate loudly enough, they can "win." That is why arguments with Liberals almost inevitably devolve into shouting matches. When they burn American flags, they're burning a symbol that represents America -- and in their minds, they are burning America itself. Their weird costumes, hate-spewing signs and slogans are all designed to symbolically attack the things they hate -- law, order, capitalism, common decency and morality, freedom (to disagree with them), American power, the rational world and George W. Bush -- the current symbol of all these things. It doesn't matter that their arguments are irrational and not based on all the available facts -- they feel right, and, magically, they can become right by the power of emotion. As for the giant puppet heads... okay, no one can explain the giant puppet heads.

Knowing that they can't possibly hurt any of these things only makes protesters redouble their efforts. Watch them carefully through the week and ask yourself whether they represent your way of thinking. Where terrorists kill themselves to seal the magical deal, as it were, Liberals merely get more outrageous and outlandish in their symbolic street theater -- wearing hateful, scary costumes, staging "die-ins," painting their faces and bodies, making criminal accusations without proof (or even evidence), running around naked and so on. The shock value of their appearance and actions, they feel, is sufficient to translate their attacks from the symbols of the things they hate to the real thing. Having felt better for making the Grand Gesture, they return to their comfortable world, bought and paid for and protected by the very things they profess to hate. Their main difference from the terrorists lies in this hypocrisy.

We survived the Cold War only because our enemy was generally as rational as we are. We could foresee the Soviet response to any action on our part because they thought the same way we do -- in rational, linear terms. Each move, like a chess game, led to a response from a set of rational responses. We're not so lucky this time. Terrorists are not really crazy, though they appear so to the rational thinker. Their belief in symbolic magic merely makes them seem insane to us. Liberals, likewise, view the world in an irrational way... they're only slightly less incomprehensible.

UPDATE: As expected, some protesters in New York City are acting like animals in their zeal to attack Americans exercising their right of free speech.

Posted at Saturday, August 28, 2004 by CavalierX


	Jamie from Alabama August 28, 2004 08:01 PM PDT After reading about the madrassas in the Middle East and seeing footage of all those young boys and men rocking back and forth, hour after hour, repeating the phrases that they are taught, I realized that many men in the mideast have been, in effect, brainwashed for most of their lives. Combine that with the fact that they are rarely, if ever, exposed to the unbiased news about the U.S., are living in extreme poverty, are unemployed, etc, it will be next to impossible to change what they believe. As for liberals? I haven't a clue.


	JM August 29, 2004 02:04 AM PDT >As for liberals? I haven't a clue. Neither do they. :)


	dahvid August 29, 2004 01:50 PM PDT Jamie posted: "As for liberals? I haven't a clue." Well, I do have a clue. The human mind you see is easily manipulated. The most intelligent and imaginative people are the most easily hypnotized or brainwashed. People are like sheep, their minds follow what it is told. Think about the power of mass media and TV...that glowing orb that entrances billions of people worldwide as they stare blankly at the screen flashing suggestions, searing, searing into their minds. Thus the symbolic acts of the liberals are indeed powerful manipulations of mass or mob psychology. In the mideast they started throwing stones and graduated to full guerilla warfare. Note that they are not all poverty stricken, indeed some have been educated at the finest universities. But the import of this article is correct...magical thinking (a psychiatric term) vs rational thought. The ultimate reason we are at cold war is bercause of the differences between tribialism and the judeochristian ethic. The tribalists (magical thinkers) resent having to become self-conscious and would prefer to live in a primitive world state where ethics and self-consciousness are unnecessary. That is the reason that they hate the western judeochristian civilization, because they have to grow up and act like civilized humans. It is much easier to exist like a wild animal...with no self-consciousness, doing whatever pleases whenever.


	The Big Fat Lobster August 29, 2004 06:10 PM PDT Of course it's impossible to change what the Fundamentalist Muslims believe, because as long as the Fundamentalist idols continue to use the western world and Israel as the scapegoats of their tyranny we'll never be able to appeal to the rationality of Islam in any way. The word of Islam will always usurp any action we take, and to protect the social ethic that Islamic Fundamentalism has created, we will always be painted with the brush of damnation no matter what course of action we take. It's precisely the method that Fundamentalism uses to reinforce itself. They can justify any course of action, any religious rule, and outlandish demand on the fabric of society by declaring it necessary because of western decadence and evil. It's exactly how facism has always worked, only the primary difference is that Islamofacism is religiously reinforced on a social level independent of the direct influence of government. (Since most suspect governments are, anyhow, controlled by the Islamic Facists.)


	Skip Mendler August 29, 2004 11:10 PM PDT For a post ostensibility concerned with rationality and logic, your argument is peppered with a surprising amount of disingenuousness ("shouting matches"? And how does Mr. O'Reilly conduct most of his business, prithee?) and internal contradiction. You highlight common (granted, all too common) rhetorical elements deployed by both left and right and try to make it seem as though they are the exclusive domain of liberals. But then, maybe you don't read Ann Coulter... And you want to talk about ritual magic?? Sean Hannity (for one) invokes the same mantras so often, they become invocations, call-and-response reflexes... All you guys seem to think is needed to defeat an opponent is utter the magic formula, which litters most conservative campaign ads: "TAX-AND-SPEND *LIBERAL*!!!" And let's not even talk about the blind, mystical faith in the "invisible hand" of the free market. I don't think conservatives hold any particular monopoly on rationality, no sirree.


	JM August 29, 2004 11:34 PM PDT >I don't think The key words in that little diatribe. I notice Skip there repeated the same old Liberal hate mantra against Conservative pundits... I'm shocked that he left out hating Rush Limbaugh. The difference is that Conservatives base THEIR opinions on reality, fact, logic, proof and reason. Tax-and-Spend Liberals aren't mythical, like unicorns... they're everywhere you look. Tax me, spend my money. Tax me more, spend that too. Yet Lib defenders try to pretend there's no such thing. Then, like children in a schoolyard, they pout, "well Bush spends money too!" The difference between Conservative and Liberal spending is Conservatives try to ensure they get the most return for our money as opposed to the way Liberals throw our tax money away on shiny junk.


	EliphasMonte September 2, 2004 11:27 AM PDT Its funny when you speak of rational world view, and of basing things off of facts. Where as a liberal mind is incapable of and can only use the irational. That is very interesting since most of conservatives tend to be of a very fundamental faith. Primarily conservative christains.Which if I'm correct is the base of the Republican party and its followers. Now faith itself requires no rational explanation or tangible proof.The defitnion being, " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Logically is the key word there. With that I can believe in anything I want without any proof. Like unicorns. Since most republicans are conservative christians , who like the president have a strong base in faith. This means that, these indivuals entertain ideas that are not rational whatsoever. Not based on the 'reality' we know. On the 'facts' we know. So to lump liberals as irrational thinkers, who are no different than terrorist other than the methods of mayhem they choose. While being irrational to you maybe protesting, to some one else it may be waiting for the 'rapture' to take you away. Its a relative to perception. The symbols you refer to of protestors naked, or in goofy costumes parading around like loons. May be no different than the symbolisms used by both parties and the conventions. Its a giant ritual itself, with mantras being shouted like choir choruses. Signs and symbols held up high, words used to invoke emtions. 911, Freedom, Terror, God, War. Everything from hand gestures, to the backdrops have been planned out to perfection. It is a ritual, where the speakers build its audiences to a fenzy until the grand pooba appears. Releaseing their tension and providing the final to the show they came to see. The people in this ritual are as emotionally effected as the so called loons outside. It seems that conservatives are using this same sybolic magic you have reffered to. It all boils down to that the conservative mind is wired differently than the liberal mind. When a conservatives prays to their God, they find nothing irrational about that act, as an Athiest liberal would. Where one sees no doubt at all about a God they believe, the other sees no tangible, logical proof of it. Both of which see each other has irrational loons. The point of contention about liberal minds being more irrational is just unfounded. Choose your own form of 'magic' its all the same.


	JM September 2, 2004 03:30 PM PDT Thanks, Eliphas, for proving my point by spewing your paranoid hate and fear. Do crosses scare you? Does the First Amendment scare you? Maybe you'd better take a long hard look at your own perceptions and fears before attacking other people for having different beliefs than yourself. There's probably a Bible verse about that, but not being a religious person myself, I don't know it offhand. Whoops, another Liberal myth shattered.


	EliphasMonte September 3, 2004 09:55 AM PDT It wasn't an attack, just a point which you could not defend. The argument being that most liberals live in a irrational state of mind is bogus. Its funny to see convservatives squirm when it comes to the issue I raised . I dont fear crosses, or the first amendment. One means nothing to me, the other I cherish dearly. My argument had nothing to do with that. I was trying to point out that, irrational liberals are no more, no less irrational than their conservative counterparts. "those who believe in a symbolic world don't see the universe as working along the same rational, linear lines as the rest of us" . I find that funny, because some conversative who would aggree with that statement and happens to be a person a faith, must acknowledge that thier belief is totally based on the illogical. Hence the definition of faith I previously posted. Anytime someone mentions faith, people immediately need to defend it. Im not try to bring forth a theological debate. My argument is just using it to show that the magical worldview claimed that only terrorist and liberals have, is an inaccurate statement. Because our conversatives counterparts have these very same magical worldviews and symbolisms.


	JM September 3, 2004 10:10 AM PDT So if a person believes in a religion, they can't be rational? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You're getting your subsets mixed up. There are non-rational people everywhere, but most Liberals fall into that category. Note that I NEVER said that ONLY terrorists and Liberals share a magical worldview. Thanks, but if I want a strawman, I'll look for a cornfield. Your attacks on religion are ridiculous. At least most religious people believe in something besides their own immediate self-gratification, something more important than their own egos.


	EliphasMonte September 3, 2004 10:36 AM PDT Its funny you make these assertions, yet you cannot back them up. Just statements without out anything to hold them up. "So if a person believes in a religion, they can't be rational? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard" . I never said that, I said that having a faith based view , is an irrational one by definition because its contrary to logic, and science. "Then there are people who see the world through emotionalism, symbolism and magic." My arguement is that these things mentioned that are said to be only inherrent in liberals and terrorist are no different among conversatives. Your zeal and fanatisism is apparent through your post. Especially in your attacks towards me, which contain no mention of the argument at hand. Especially On why liberals are irrational. "There are non-rational people everywhere, but most Liberals fall into that category". I never mentioned freud, egos, or ids or any of that. My point is that the base of conservatism is faith, if faith is something which goes against science , logic and reasoning. Than I can assert that conversatives have a magical worldview(god) , driven by emotion(faith) and symbolism (ten commandments rock,cross). No better, nor worse than a liberal.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 11:07 AM PDT If funny you talk about symbols and meaningless mantra's. The RNC Convention was one big symbol gesture. You talk about ideologs and people that are way to driven by symbols and irrational thoughts. The Republicans are masters of manipulating symbols and appealing to the emotional side of its constituents. I was VERY impressed by the dog and pony show put together by Karl Rove's group for the convetion. It was like a WWF wrestling match for the somewhat more educated. Every little detail is meticulously planned out with its emotional impact on its watchers as the primary consideration. All of these references to 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 are meant to bring forth an emotional response and create fear in those that watch it. People that are afraid do NOT make rational decisions. They make snap judgements ad go with what FEELS right to them, When people are paralyzed with fear you can make them do anything. This is one of my favorite quotes that applys well to the current state of the US: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


	Tony September 3, 2004 11:38 AM PDT Hey scipio, I think your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight, pal! You need to up the dosage or something. Nice article, cavalierx!


	JM September 3, 2004 11:41 AM PDT It seems that Liberals can't tell the difference between "a terrible thing happened and we need to work hard to prevent it from happening again" and "AAAHHHH! Bad guys! Run and hide!" Sad.


	JM September 3, 2004 11:42 AM PDT Oh, and scipio? The only person denouncing anyone's patriotism is Kerry. Which makes your little Goering quote apply to him rather well...


	JM September 3, 2004 11:44 AM PDT >My point is that the base of conservatism is faith Wrong.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 11:56 AM PDT My main point was the irrational symbolism employed by the Rebuplican party. The Democrats are no different - they just suck at it. They are after the same rabble of irrational voters as the Republicans and use the same techniques with less success. The true conservatives and liberals are very rational. They just have different goals. The conservatives make decisions that have an immediate impact. The liberals try to build for the future. I don't pass judgement on either point of view. If you think most people vote for Bush based on rational thought (for the most part) then you truly have been suckered in like the rest.


	Tony September 3, 2004 12:00 PM PDT Liberals don't build anything ecept fences to keep people from fulfilling their potential. Liberals don't think there IS a future. They're all about instant gratification. Conservatives work to make sure that theres a future for liberals to whine in. Most people capable of rational thought will vote for Bush.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 12:21 PM PDT How about someone address my assertion rather than spouting a bunch of crap. Symbolism in the Convention: - Flags Flags Flags Everywhere - That Stupid Pitcher's Mound Crap - All of the little human interest stories ... etc - could go on forever I felt like I was watching a tent revival not a speech that is supposed to cater to my better senses. You mentioned flag burning in your post. If conservatives are so rational and even tempered, why do they get their panties in a bind about flag burning. Could it be their emotional response to their symbol being destroyed?


	JM September 3, 2004 12:24 PM PDT You're really filled with an overwhelming hatred of America and most Americans, aren't you? I'll just bet the sight of the flag fills you with disgust. Good thing they didn't have any of those nasty things at the Democratic convention, eh? They replaced them with UN flags, I imagine.


	EliphasMonte September 3, 2004 01:33 PM PDT It appears that you will not even begin to touch the points I've mentioned because you simply do not have a leg to stand on. I'll consider my point firmly upheld. Your responses have been nothing but attacks and you trying to lump me into some sort of right wing liberal stereotype. You make statements and you cannot back them up. You say my comment on faith being the base of conservatism is wrong, yet you don't allude to why that is? It seems that you right wingers have been reduced to child like acts of saying mean hurtful things without cause. "Liberals don't build anything ecept fences to keep people from fulfilling their potential. Liberals don't think there IS a future. They're all about instant gratification. Conservatives work to make sure that theres a future for liberals to whine in". Can you explain exactly how that is, is there any proof to your claims. Sounds to me like you people are just as emotional and out of touch as the article stated. "That is why arguments with Liberals almost inevitably devolve into shouting matches." Quite the contrary, it appears that the conservatives have degraded themselves into that position. I came here to try to discuss this article and see how it can be supported , yet all I get is a bunch of name calling and acusations. How about addressing my counter claims.


	JM September 3, 2004 02:02 PM PDT >You say my comment on faith >being the base of conservatism is >wrong, yet you don't allude to >why that is? I am a Conservative. I am not religious. QED.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 02:13 PM PDT Yes I hate Americans thats why I live here. I hate all of my American friends and I hate all of the American places I grew up and I hate all of the American sporting events, hollidays etc that I have had so much fun going to. See the thing is that YOU in fact cling to ideologies and symbols. You have this idealized version of "America" that gets you all misty eyed when you are watching the fireworks on the 4th of July. In fact all of your decisions about politics and government are based on emotion and not rational thought. I on the other hand care about what happens in reality. Our leaders espouse policies with their narrow interests in mind. If it helps their constituents that is all that matters. Whatever it take to get elected is what they will do. Bush, Kerry they are the same. If something goes out of vogue then they drop it for the next thing that will get them votes. Both conventions were complete shams full of idealized bullshit. Most of the voters, like you, eat it up like its fucking ice cream. Just put on a tough guy speech about what badasses we are and hear the lustful screams of fury. This bellicose attitude is going to bring us nothing but trouble. Our economy is headed into the shitter. Opportunities for everyone are disappearing. I don't want an entertaining president, I want a boring one that I never see or hear about that just goes about doing the job of making our country a better place to live. This administration has captivated the US electorate, not because of their substance, but because of their style. Bush is all hat and no cattle.


	JM September 3, 2004 02:29 PM PDT >Our economy is headed into the shitter. So much for reality. With new jobs -- good jobs -- being created at a sustainable rate, NOT force-fed by artificial government money injections but driven by real growth, and the unemployment rate down to 5.4% -- keeping in mind that it was at 5.6% when Clinton touted it as the greatest thing ever -- you have a damned funny idea of what a "shitter" looks like. And in future comments, you will restrain your profanity. Especially when it involves ice cream. >Bush is all hat and no cattle. That line sounded outstandingly stupid and contrived when Kerry used it only last night, and it doesn't age well at all. I thought Liberals considered themselves incredibly individualistic and creative, and yet you all repeat each other's terribly lame talking points like a flock of moulting parrots.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 02:42 PM PDT Actualy I didn't know that Kerry used it last night. I read it in a Robert Kiyosaki book. I see you asked me to curb my profanity. Yet another indication that you are beholden to symbols. A truly rational person is not upset by profanity. I mean what is this kindergarten? As for the economy, the relatively weak job growth in the last year or so is mostly in the service (McDonald's) and defense (Cash in on Death) industries. Bush still has a net loss of jobs during his tenure and the jobs that have been created are low paying (can I take your order sir). You can talk economic policy until you are blue in the face but the single most important factor in an economy is that people spend. Pretty simple concept. In times of uncertainty (like WAR WAR 911 911 Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist) people (consumers, investors ...etc) are less likely to spend and invest as they are not confident that their income from salary and investments will continue to grow. Bush is all about fear. Fear kills the economy. Hope you are a burger flipper or a defense contractor because otherwise you may be in trouble.


	JM September 3, 2004 02:55 PM PDT >I mean what is this kindergarten? No, it's my comments section, where I make the rules. Some people are offencded by profanity. >relatively weak job growth in the >last year It's been phenomenal. Oh, you're only paying attention to the Payroll survey, not the household survey which covers small businesses, entrpreneurs and startups. You'd think Liberals would be happy to see Big Business overtaken by growing small businesses. Go figure. As far as the lie that the jobs have been low-paying, that's just another Democrat talking point. It's amazing how you guys are all in lockstep. When are you going to say the magic words, "Herbert Hoover?" >most important factor in an >economy is that people spend And isn't it great that Bush allows people to keep more of their own money, so they can spend it? And how's spending doing? "NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Personal income and spending rose in August, the government said Monday, mostly meeting Wall Street expectations. " Thanks for playing.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 02:55 PM PDT I took your america hater quiz: http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/minority/intellectual.html How is this a bad thing?


	JM September 3, 2004 02:57 PM PDT >I took your america hater quiz: Well, it's not m ine, but okay. >How is this a bad thing? Proof Liberals have no sense of humor.


	JM September 3, 2004 03:27 PM PDT I didn't think it would be necessary to explain the difference between HAVING symbols and losing the distinction between the symbol and the reality of whatever it symbolises, but I AM apparently dealing with Liberals, who lost the ability to do so. Let's take the flag. It's a symbol, but it's just a piece of cloth. When a Liberal or terrorist burns it, it's annoying NOT because of what it means to ME, but because of what the act of doing so symbolises to THEM. If that's not really comprehensible to you, I understand. Symbols mean things, but they are NOT the things they stand for. If it's necessary to say it any plainer, I'll get my four-year-old nephew on the phone and ask how HE would say it.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 03:41 PM PDT Bush may pay lip service to being a fiscal conservative, but he has spent more and created a larger deficit than any president ever. Even worse, his spending only helps a few - there is little worthwhile economic investment. When FDR spent we got something tangible that helped our country and made it stronger (too many public works to mention). When Eisenhower spent on the interstate system we got a system of transportation that boosted the economy. South Korean's all have broadband. These are all examples of positive government spending. Bush's spending only helps out his corporate buddies. More on our terrible spending habits: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/EconomicGrowth.htm


	Scipio September 3, 2004 04:09 PM PDT I notice you are removing BlueEagle's posts. He works in my office and told me about your site as I am always telling him what an idiot he is. He often uses your posts to back up his drivel. Looks like you want to hide the true ideas that you inspire.


	JM September 3, 2004 04:59 PM PDT The difference between Liberal and Conservative spending is between getting something for your money and blowing it on cheap baubles. As for your "friend," he was a troll and you know it. You're getting to be one, too.


	Scipio September 3, 2004 10:54 PM PDT Cheap baubles? I made a good point. Read the article and respond pls. BTW I am not a liberal. I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative - AKA libertarian. I just hate conservatives. They are socially conservative and fiscally liberal.


	JM September 4, 2004 11:57 AM PDT Yeah, I think we've all heard the Libertarian party platform before. In the real world, the Libertarians have about as much chance of getting a President elected as the Constitution party. Libertarians are basically Republicans without the moral values. If you want to ignore the fact that we had a massive recession, the bursting tech bubble, major corporate fraud, 9/11 and its aftermath, and were forced to go to war with a decimated military (thanks, Bill!), then you go ahead and moan about government spending. Then, in five years when the deficit is down to half of what it's currently projected to be, we'll see whether a little spending to get out of a recession is a good idea. You don't want to see what will happen to government spending if Kerry gets into office.


	Scipio September 4, 2004 01:02 PM PDT Who was the last Republican president that reduced the deficit. If you think Bush is going to cut the deficit, then you are living in a dream world. He will continue to spend on things that only help a few Americans. on another note: There is no such thing as conservative and liberal. I like the political compass as a measure of ones politics. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Here is my result: http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=printable_graph&X=-1.62&Y=-6.67 I'd be interested to see yours.


	JM September 4, 2004 01:42 PM PDT The test is badly flawed. Statements like "Our race has superior qualities" is meaningless, as the concept of race is more or less meaningless. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea" leaves no room to say "maybe, but it's also a fundamentally unworkable one." "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress?" That may be true, but does that make it right? No room for that, either. The test is flawed. In any case, I came out a bit to the left of Tony Blair.


	JM September 4, 2004 01:45 PM PDT >He will continue to spend on >things that only help a few >Americans. Yeah, like community health centers in poor counties and more money for schools. You think those are a bad idea? No one is voting for Bush because he's going to reduce spending (the proper way to reduce the deficit, not increasing taxes). He will increase it a GREAT deal LESS than Kerry would, and that's a fact.


	Scipio September 4, 2004 02:25 PM PDT Post the chart. Where were you on the vertical axis?


	Scipio September 4, 2004 02:26 PM PDT How is that a fact. They said the same thing about Clinton. Bush has spent quite a bit more; even adjusted for inflation.

Leave a Comment:

Home