George Bush Admits To Being Insane

George dosen't just talk to himself and the concern is, that there are others that listen. They must think he's god as well.

>>>>and he told the Son of Sam to kill too.<
Actual it was his dog! Which is the total opposite.

I'm going to share with you an opinion of mine. Agree and disagree I like both responses.

I'm starting to do allot of reading on the subject of the founding fathers. And learning how the idea of seperation of church and state goes back to when America started. It was an American made idea from what I understand. An idea that the rest of the world I'm sure has been influenced by over history.

With America today having church and state connected politically. With the current American government claiming to know what is right for America. Going against allot of what the founding fathers started America on. Although that could be argued because even that is open to wrong interpretation by some people.

I ask myself if these same group that today is allowing the connection of church and state, are the same types of people who may have opposed the founding fathers. I would love to see George and his other people, including the religious right, to sit down and actually say on national television they believe 100% with the founding fathers and the consitution. I feel strongly that they don't.

Kevin

---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie

You are absolutely correct Kevin.

One of the strongest ideas of the US Founding fathers is that no person should be allowed to get so rich that he threatens democracy. This is supported by numerous letters between the original signer's of the declaration of independance and the constitution.

It was also a strong idiology that corporations were to be kept under tight reign; they were only allowed to form for purposes of direct benefit to the people; they had a built in time-limit, after which they were automatically dissolved; owners (shareholders) were responsible for any wrong-doings of the corporation - incorporated protections were only allowed for unintended consequences; any wrongdoing by a corporation resulted in its immediate dissolution and the owners were prosecuted in appropriate.

The single greatest danger to democracy, as described by the founders, was the unrestricted accumulation of wealth. They felt extreme wealth, particularly in the case of non-dying corporations, would corrupt the political system. If a corporation donated to a politician, directly or indirectly, that was a felony!

America of today is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent. A return of aristocratic rule.

<blockquote>any wrongdoing by a corporation resulted in its immediate dissolution and the owners were prosecuted in appropriate.</blockquote> <p>You mean a tobacco company or a chemical cleaning product company that sell's a product that kills millions with lung cancer would be presecuted? It is so strange how neo-conservatives would consider attacks on a coporation as liberal, while accepting the fact that an individual spends life in jail or the death penality of taking a life. A corporation kills millions and pay's a fine. Something is gone seriously wrong. <blockquote>America of today is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent. A return of aristocratic rule.</blockquote> <p>So obvious for anyone to see. Then why does a far right conservative not see it that way? How can a person who is not rich, not part of any elite, still be supportive of these ideologies? <p>Kevin <p>---<br>Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie

PMPM Denies He IS NOT Insane.

Of course not.

He's canadian. He's just power-mad.

Like all canuks, he really believes a small country, full of delusionally smug, self-satisfied idiots can tell another, neighboring country more than 10 times its size what to do!

Eh.

Funny canuks.

Kevin, 'How can a person who is not rich, not part of any elite, still be supportive of these ideologies?'

I wondered about that too, but it seems that because these people have marketed for many years, a slogan that goes like this, rich people are good, rich people are good because they have been rewarded with riches, if they weren't good they would be poor, and poor people think that if they keep trying hard enough someday they too will be rich. They have been led to believe that rich people earned their money and deserve it, and someday when they are rich, they don't want anyone trying to take it away. The slogans, the media plays on that theme, and no one tries to discount it.

We need to start addressing this issue. It isn't about rich means good, and poor means bad, it is about everyone paying their dues to society. Rich people got rich by using the system, a system built with taxpayers money, a system built by generations, they use the system as do the poor. Rich people must pay their share of their dues to support the system, just as poor people do. All people work to make the system work. Unfortunately many people see a need to keep many poor, and in servile positions, after all who will serve the rich if there weren't any poor uneducated people?

We need to change the thinking. Some people will always be poor in our society, due to circumstances, but most people should be able to make a good living by working, educating themselves etc, and some people will be very rich. Right now the trend is becoming, most people are poor, some are very poor, a few are middle class, and a handlful are very very rich. When a company takes over another company and puts people out of work and onto welfare or unemployment and then welfare, to increase profits for shareholders, they help create more poor and richer rich. When the government subsidizes the company to take over another, that is called corporate welfare, and that is what we need relief from, not taxes!

Corporate welfare is very common, they not only pay too little in dues to the country they are using, but they also have protection for unleashing poisons on the population, they have governments approving products, without proper testing. When people get sick, it is up to the people to prove it was because of the product. The company has lawyers, and deep pockets for long litigation, the public generally does not have access to money for lawyers and finding doctors willing to testify to cause of illness etc.

When a company unleashes a poison or toxic in the environment the fines are not substantial, nor do they end up paying for the cleanup, very often we do. Turner Valley gas plant is a great example, (Alberta) the company walked away, and the province has been responsible for the cleanup. That means we the public, pays. But so far, nobody has been cleaning it up, and the threat to leaching into the water, soil etc is very serious. Why is this allowed to take place?Corporations rate higher on the government priority list than people or environment, why?

These changes in attitudes will take time, but it can happen, if we start thinking differently now.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

<p>Kevin,</p> <blockquote>I’m starting to do a lot of reading on the subject of the founding fathers. And learning how the idea of separation of church and state goes back to when America started.</blockquote> <p>our First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, as originally intended, only applied to the federal government; it had no effect on those states with established churches. It was solely due to individual state legislation that the Congregationalists in New England and the Anglicans/Episcopalians elsewhere were disestablished. (I think that Massachusetts maintained a modified form of establishment until the 1830s.)</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />