Left vs. Right

[The_Darkness]

Look, asshole, the CCC, Civilian Conservation Corps, was a boondoggle of having people dig holes and fill them in again as employment. As was the silly assed Artists programs and National Parks programs...

If you have half the mind you claim, then you lack the integrity to acknowledge that most of FDR's socialist programs were abolished as unconstitutional.

Is a little intellectual honesty too much to ask, even on a Porn site?

Geez...

Thanks for validating your knowledge of what the CCC stands for.
The CCC built bridges, trenched power lines, and kept people from getting bored, something that historically, leads to crime. Boondoggle as it may have been, it kept things from getting a lot worse. They also helped establish recreational areas which are still in use today, many of which are absolutely beautiful and it's a point of pride to have them around. That's in this neck of the woods...it might be different elsewhere.

And no, intellectual honesty shouldn't be expected anymore than humility and etiquette.

 

[rgraham666]

I think that's the big part of it right there. There's two things operating in teaching today that I've seen and I really hate. You said the first....damn near production line career preparation. The other is not teaching a course so much as it is teaching the answers to questions....questions which invariably turn up on the test. I've heard of schools that have been busted for teaching the old ACT/SAT questions, trying to get more grant money from the gov't when their students perform better.

We're not teaching people to be philosophers and thinkers, we're training them to be robotic sycophants.

Darkness, I'll recommend the book Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West. It goes very deeply into the history of our culture, how we got to where we are and why we're having the problems we currently have.

Basically 'Reason', the ability to think in a linear, 'calm' fashion has become the only way to think. All the other human traits have been relegated to secondary status or as outright enemies of 'Reason'.

With such a narrow criteria of the 'proper' way to think, it's no small wonder our society is wandering in the dark.

 

[rgraham666]

And 'friend', thank you for validating one of my better observations.

To whit: "Ideology is not about being good, but about being right. It's quite amazing what you can do when you're right."

 

[The_Darkness]

And 'friend', thank you for validating one of my better observations.

To whit: "Ideology is not about being good, but about being right. It's quite amazing what you can do when you're right."

Not a problem.

And the book has been added to the list of books to find. Thanks for the reference!

 

[rgraham666]

Not a problem.

And the book has been added to the list of books to find. Thanks for the reference!

I don't think you'll regret it. I found it a quite refreshing, non-ideological piece of work.

Most people I know hate the book, and the authour. Of course, they're all experts and the authour is not kind to experts in this book.

Another reason I liked it.

 

[amicus]

I never respond to rgraham as I never hit a drunk who cannot defend himself, you, darkness, are a different sort...you are a sneaky bastard, back door and all, with an agenda you have not yet exposed.

The point of my responding to your glorification of the CCC, was to expose the use of tax funding for useless programs, art, beauty or otherwise while people were starving.

"...And no, intellectual honesty shouldn't be expected anymore than humility and etiquette...."

Humility and etiquette are derivations of intellectual honesty, I display all three, you display none.

Join your other fellow travellers here on Lit and tell us why we should sacrifice our individuality for your grand dream of utopia.

Gee, I can't wait.

amicus

 

[The_Darkness]

"...And no, intellectual honesty shouldn't be expected anymore than humility and etiquette...."

Humility and etiquette are derivations of intellectual honesty, I display all three, you display none.

Join your other fellow travellers here on Lit and tell us why we should sacrifice our individuality for your grand dream of utopia.

Gee, I can't wait.

amicus

*deep sigh*

Okay, this will be the last post for the morning...I gotta sleep and get some real life stuff done tomorrow morning, and it's approaching 5:30 am here.

You're about as courteous as a rabid wolverine caught in a bear trap. So drop the delusion that you're some sort of ethical/political/intellectual beacon. You display none of the three qualities of intellectual honesty, humility, or etiquette. You openly deride, not discuss, you infuriate, not inform. Cut the shit and shut the hell up on that note.

Give up individuality for some grand utopia? You don't read very well....that or you simply do not understand what you read, jump to your own conclusions, and then go beat your war drum from your soap box.

We should never give up our individuality on a personal level. There comes a time when we all need to jump to and do our jobs, but that's so life as we know it continues on. You have no idea how much the last 3 years has pissed me off as I watch civil liberty after civil liberty be stripped away and right-ist jokers like you stand in line and take it, claiming some "Greater Good" philosophical bullshit. I'm not saying it hasn't always been that way; each law written is a liberty stripped, and pound for pound we're still the country that enjoys the most freedom in our actions, possessions, and past times out of all the industrialized nations in the world.

I have no idea where you seem to have gotten the idea that I think we need to strip ourselves of individual need, possession, or drive and strive for some Orwellian idealistic good, but get that thought right the fuck out of your head. I like my steak red, dead, and corn-fed. I like my whiskey to be from Kentucky. I like my politicians to not tell me everything they're doing, because quite frankly, I don't either care or have the time and ambition to research a particular set of issues to the degree that I entrust my elected officals. I believe that a certain amount of corruption in the system is inevitable, and can be put to good use if done properly.

The world isn't perfect. We're not going to make it perfect through some pseudo-intellectual socialist government (which is, I'm assuming, where you seem to think I'm headed). We're going to make it better by doing exactly what we're doing, albeit with better politicians and better planning. I do not want to see workers in the fields earing potatoes instead of cash, but goddamnit, if the situation calls for that to be the best course of action for a short time to work through major crisis, then so be it.

I'm against a military draft, but for mandatory federal/state service. Recruiting and training every person in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 for military service is not going to help anyone. Requiring young men and women to give up 2 years of their life to get a decent paying job and improve the country's infrastructure is something that no one should balk at for various reasons, the least of which is the decrease in expense to the tax payers via an immediate influx of comparitively cheap labor into the work force doing things like postal work, road construction, prison guards, teaching assistants, and other state and federal jobs.

I think we can make the country great. Your idealistic utopia will never happen, neither will anything your mind conjured that I was probably thinking about. Communism and Socialism work only for short periods of time in small groups/countries, and then they need to evolve and be able to be a serviceable part of the world economy.

Utopia is the perfect place. I don't want perfect, I want better....and it's the little things that will get us there, not the uber-extreme left vs right crap. The government works in principle....it's the people in it that cause problems, and that's true not because of the republicans or democrats or independents or green party, or who the hell ever, that's true because of human nature.

 

[davidwatts]

Especially for anyone with an interest in antebellum amrica and the causes of the civil war when combined with the adage "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Winston Churchill said a lot of things best.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

"A fantatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Could be wrong on this one, but didn't Churchill also say something like "If you are young and not liberal you have no heart and if you are old and not conservative you have no brain."

 

[Alex756]

How would you characterize the far right?

I think the extream right was accurate. not I said extream, not the majority of the right , and not my views either. But that segment exists.

-Alex

 

[Pure]

Amicus' religion

Amicus

It is an age old battle between good and evil and there is no 'middle groud' to 'marginalize'. Perhaps one day, one of you will getting a glimpse of my meanings.

[another posting]
What the United States is, by way of a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and the rule of law, is, the first bastion of human freedom and individual liberty the world had ever seen.

Odd, but Amicus, professing freethinker, atheist sounds the most like the far 'religious right,' the Pat Robersons, etc.

US Messianism.

I don't think a country has got 'freedom', let alone being a 'bastion' of it, until: a) Slavery is abolishedm and
b) the working people have a vote (i.e., no property qualification). That's leaving aside
c) the 'women' issue --and we know their freedom is to be a home baking and suckling. I don't know enough international history, but i'd say England, Holland, and Sweden are likely candidates---before the US, in other words.

[Added: aside from the historical debate it seems very questionable if the US is the 'freest' country, esp. given detentions without charges and trials, torture (in US run bases offshore), etc. Again, England, Holland, Sweden are good candidates, though England's 'anti terror' package of late allows almost arbirtrary powers. Maybe no superpower, esp. one considering itself at war, can be very free.]

-----

I think it's worth distinguishing the fascist leaning (or evangelical- religious) right, and the civil-liberties loving right.

The latter are VERY few. Look for more than nomimal conservative 'reservations' about the Patriot Act, or Abu Ghraib.

And note we have not a peep from Amicus in the thread about indefinite detention at the Sec. Defence and President's order; no charges, no trial. That suggests which camp he is in.

 

[oggbashan]

What is more important and truly a turning point in world history, is the emergence of the United States of America.

It is not and never was, an 'empire' existing by conquest and looting as was Rome.

It is not and never was a 'colonial' power, expanding and controlling such as Spain, France, Germany and England and the Dutch.

What the United States is, by way of a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and the rule of law, is, the first bastion of human freedom and individual liberty the world had ever seen.

...
amicus...

Your ignorance of history never fails to irritate. The United States history includes conquest and looting over the Native American peoples. It expanded from the 13 colonies across the continental USA by conquest and purchase of lands part 'conquered' by others. They continued the conquest by breaking treaties with Native Americans with monotonous frequency.

What about the Philippines? Panama? Pacific Islands? Nothing distinguished US rule from other 'colonial' powers.

The first bastion?

The Persians had codifed people's freedoms, including religious freedom long before the Greeks and their democracy. Magna Carta in England was one of the sources from which the US Constitution was derived, along with UK common law. William Wilberforce managed to abolish slavery long before the US and get it enforced by the Royal Navy.

It is about time that you realised that the US does not have a claim to have clean hands from its past history. Other countries, including the UK, have admitted that parts of their past were unpleasant.

It is time that you, Amicus, recognised that however great a force for good the US can be, it has also at times been the 'Empire of Evil' particularly within its own borders.

Og

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One thing's for certain, as long as we personalize this and call each other "pukes" and "slimes" instead of discussing ideas, as long as we preach instead of talk, as long as we lean on the "send" button and ignore the "recive", we're part of the problem and we're not going to get anything but more of the same tiresome, hateful shit.

If this schism in American politics and society can be traced to anything, it can be traced to the day when we started demonizing one another, to that day when the discussion turned from issues to how horrible and ignorant the other side was. Once liberals became "bleeding hearts" and conservatives became "fascists", it was a rapid race to the bottom, which is where we are today, and I think a lot of the anger and rage we see is the result of people knowing that they're being villified and dismissed out of hand, rather than listened to.

Personally, I can usually see both sides of an issue. I can understand why people want prayer in the schools, or why they oppose abortion, or why they oppose welfare. (Some issues give me more trouble, I admit, like why we went into Iraq, although I believe now that we're there we have to stick it out.)

(As a nod to the Katrina thread, yes, I understand perfectly well the argument against welfare and why people would look at it as counterproductive. On the other hand, I spent a long time working with the poor and welfare recipients, and my direct experience teaches me that the perception that all recipients are thieves and bums and that welfare is evil is just not true. If we're going to discuss, we have to start from premises that are as close to the truth as we can get. I'm not, for example, going to engage in a discussion that paints all Arabs as terrorists or all Americans as war-mongers.)

I'm willing to discuss any of these issues, but not the point of hurling invective and vituperation. Attack the idea, not me, and I'll do the same.

If we're totally unable to do that--and I get the feeling from this thread that that might truly be the case--then we are petty much fucked.

Go back and look over your posts on this thread. Insofar as you have insulted and called names, you are part of the problem.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I think the extream right was accurate. not I said extream, not the majority of the right , and not my views either. But that segment exists.

-Alex

Huh?


You clearly posted how you would characterize the far left. I'm curious how you would characterize the far right. I don't understand what your statement above says.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Some time ago, someone on the AH--Pure? Liar? Gauche?--posted a link to a site that took a different view about classifying people's political philosophies. Instead of having a one-dimensional line with left & right on it, they had a 2-D field. the X axis was political left-right (role of government, militarism), and the Y axis was social left-right (moral values and liberalism).

Hard to affix labels in such a system, but that's not a bad idea. I think there's a lot of people who are economic and government conservatives, but morally liberal.

I don't know about the opposite: economic liberals who are morally conservative. I guess if you subsititute "community" for "government", the Amish might qualify. Or Mormons?

 

[oggbashan]

Some time ago, someone on the AH--Pure? Liar? Gauche?--posted a link to a site that took a different view about classifying people's political philosophies. Instead of having a one-dimensional line with left & right on it, they had a 2-D field. the X axis was political left-right (role of government, militarism), and the Y axis was social left-right (moral values and liberalism).

Hard to affix labels in such a system, but that's not a bad idea. I think there's a lot of people who are economic and government conservatives, but morally liberal.

I don't know about the opposite: economic liberals who are morally conservative. I guess if you subsititute "community" for "government", the Amish might qualify. Or Mormons?

That sort of grid depends on context.

What is very obvious to me is that in the context of the US, almost all UK (and probably most European) politicians would be regarded as 'liberal' even if in the context of UK (or Europe) they are split between Right and Left wingers.

Years ago I took one of those tests for my then employer, a commercial enterprise. My result was a significant bias towards people and against the product. Two years later I took exactly the same test with a different employer, a provider of care services. In their context I was seen as a hardline monetarist with no compassion for people at all. I was the same person in a different environment. In the first I saw my role as defending my staff against a tough market-driven management. In the second I was trying to introduce some basic financial and practical management skills to a unit that saw people as individuals having needs that must be met irrespective of cost of resources.

Welfare in US terms is a very different concept from that in the UK. It has general crossparty support here. We believe that the weaker members of society should be protected and cared for. We might argue about how we do that, the cost of doing it, and from time to time attempt to root out those few who abuse the system but we have virtually no one suggesting that it should be abolished or that the bulk of recipients are 'work-shy'. We do try to wean people off dependency on the system but most recipients are unable to support themselves in a free-market environment either temporarily or permanently.

Of course, no UK citizen is denied health care because of lack of insurance or resources. There are charges for some services but those are waived if the patient's income is low.

When discussing left and right, the US experience and the UK experience are far apart.

Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

Colly's pont was, though, right and left have taken a more and more dogmatic and deeply entrenched adversarial positions in the USA. The gloves have come off both in politics and in the culture wars, and the trust and civility that facilitated bipartisan cooperation seems to have vanished. A winner-take-all and fuck-you-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on philosophy seems to have taken over. No more compromise, no more Mister Nice Guy.

At least, that's the way it seems to me, and I often despair that we've begun a race to the bottom here, with no way out. That's probably because I'm on the left, though. I suppose people on the right look at it as finally getting the country back on the right track.

Quite to the contrary. I'm left on some positions and right on others, and know many people who are to the right on nearly everything. None of them thinks that the entrenched hostility and virulent bitterness of our current political climate has done a thing to aid the country, and neither do I. But, with all due deference both to them and to Dr. M, it's always easier to see that behavior in the other side, and it's always harder to ascribe to the other side reasonable motives.

For example, on the topic of Katrina, the general reaction I've seen from the right has not been anything remotely like "Government being extorted to give more handouts to worthless welfare bums who do nothing but rob and steal." Rather, it's been more like "Left-wing politicians entering predictably into full attack mode on the White House when, in fact, the failures are numerous, all-encompassing, and present on every level from local to federal." The ones who are angry don't seem to me to be angry at anyone affected by Katrina or by any expenditure attached to the relief effort; they seem to be angry at being asked to hold the bag for the entire disaster, and for having it immediately turned into a political football. That's not to imply that they are right in this view; one must always be leery of self-interest, and so one is leery of anyone whose party is in federal power claiming that the federal government should not be blamed. However, I have not personally heard anyone so heartless or debased as to suggest that the government has no business aiding people driven to the furthest reaches of desperation.

Unfortunately, all one can really say is, "Read more Orwell." He's right. Emotions are easier to manipulate than intellects. Brand images are easier to construct than coherent party platforms. The simply truth is that being vicious, ugly, and snide seems to make people pay attention, and a large enough percentage of the voters will vote for that to make them the ones worth appealing to. Complexity of approach and even simple good will can confuse people; politics is easier to keep up with when the sides don't change and to "good" and "bad" people are clearly labelled. Thus we degenerate from a discourse of ideas to a discourse of identities. Our politicians spend the majority of their time trying to define themselves as "good" and their opponents as "bad," and the rest raising funds to run for re-election. It doesn't leave them much time anything else.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

A portion of Darkness:

"...I'm against a military draft, but for mandatory federal/state service. Recruiting and training every person in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 for military service is not going to help anyone. Requiring young men and women to give up 2 years of their life to get a decent paying job and improve the country's infrastructure is something that no one should balk at for various reasons, the least of which is the decrease in expense to the tax payers via an immediate influx of comparitively cheap labor into the work force doing things like postal work, road construction, prison guards, teaching assistants, and other state and federal jobs...."

Well Darkness...I have a son and a daughter in that 18 to 25 range and you are stating that you have a right to sentence them to two years of mandatory Federal/State service?

Yeah, sure and you are all for individual freedom and liberty.

Anyone care to cast a vote on forcing our sons and daughters to 'serve' as stated by Darkness?


amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Your ignorance of history never fails to irritate. The United States history includes conquest and looting over the Native American peoples. It expanded from the 13 colonies across the continental USA by conquest and purchase of lands part 'conquered' by others. They continued the conquest by breaking treaties with Native Americans with monotonous frequency.

I love you, Og.

I understand that I'm part of a VERY small ethnic group, but I'm continually disgusted with people who seem to think that our country was "discovered," or that the European immigrants who later turned it into their country are somehow are pure as the driven snow. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Amicus knows better, but it wouldn't fit his tidy little ideas about how "perfect" this country is.

Cloudy ~ Retarded Cannibal

 

[Liar]

Shanglan

Got nothing useful to say in the debate, so I just say:

Hi Shanglan! It's been a while. 'sup?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

For example, on the topic of Katrina, the general reaction I've seen from the right has not been anything remotely like "Government being extorted to give more handouts to worthless welfare bums who do nothing but rob and steal." Rather, it's been more like "Left-wing politicians entering predictably into full attack mode on the White House when, in fact, the failures are numerous, all-encompassing, and present on every level from local to federal."

You're right on that. My intentional distortion and exaggeration of the right's reaction was based on the views of the author of that peice Colly posted over in the Katrina thread. It was meant to be extreme and absurd, and I apologize if anyone took me seriously.

Actually, it seems like the right's response to the disaster has been relatively benign overall. I think that they feel NO got the bulk of the attention, but in general they feel that the gov has pretty much done about all that it was possible to do in the crisis.

In the case of welfare, my feelings are more like Og's. There are a lot of unpleasant people on welfare to be sure, but where else would you expect to find unpleasant people? They naturally gravitate down to the bottom of the heap. In other words, the majority of people on welfare are there because they're unable to take care of themselves, They're not unable to take care of themselves because they're on welfare.

And if not welfare then what? Are you really ready to see women with their babies begging and starving in the streets because we can't begrudge them one half of one percent of our tax revenues?

It just seems strange to me that the people who insist that every pregnant woman carry her child to term are then so willing to let those children grow up in filthy, impoverished households, without the wherewithal to feed and clothe the child. I mean, they force the woman to have the child, then they drop them both into the gutter. I just really don't understand that.

And as I said before, the majority of welfare recipients are single white women.

 

[amicus]

That's right, Mab, if you kill a child, you don't need to feed and nurture it.

However....in reading your piece I had a question arise. What might be your over view or general opinion considering the existence of the poor in society?

Do you see it as 'natural', a part of the greater scheme of things or perhaps the result of the economic system in place?

What system, do you think, would function best to address the problem of poor people?

Or is there no system you would prefer over another?

Although I am indeed asking your opinion, I would ask for a solution that does not involve 'forcing' some people to support others, as any society that uses force to accomplish its goals does not, in my opinion, qualify as 'civilized.'

amicus....

 

[BlackShanglan]

Got nothing useful to say in the debate, so I just say:

Hi Shanglan! It's been a while. 'sup?

Hello Liar. It's a pleasure to see you again. I've been a bit busy galloping from domestic to professional crises and back again; nothing earth-shaking, nor so pleasant, alas, as your own hiatus. I still remember the lovely pictures.

You're right on that. My intentional distortion and exaggeration of the right's reaction was based on the views of the author of that peice Colly posted over in the Katrina thread. It was meant to be extreme and absurd, and I apologize if anyone took me seriously.

Apologies as well. I have not read the Katrina thread, and so did not recognize the reference.

In the case of welfare, my feelings are more like Og's. There are a lot of unpleasant people on welfare to be sure, but where else would you expect to find unpleasant people? They naturally gravitate down to the bottom of the heap. In other words, the majority of people on welfare are there because they're unable to take care of themselves, They're not unable to take care of themselves because they're on welfare.

I agree. The chief flaw that generally strikes me in the policies of the right (and libertarians) on the topic of welfare is that they seem to assume that very few people exist who cannot or will not take care of themselves and their families - or that they don't mind seeing those people suffer. While recognizing that the "will nots" are a great deal more annoying than the "cannots" and that they will infiltrate any system designed to aid the "cannots," I think it's the cost of doing business. Do we deny aid to people who really need it on the grounds that certain unpleasant parasites over whom they have no control will also claim it? I think that a poor model of charitable and humanitarian assistance. I would also suggest that as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we'd be hard put to argue that we're unable to afford it.

It just seems strange to me that the people who insist that every pregnant woman carry her child to term are then so willing to let those children grow up in filthy, impoverished households, without the wherewithal to feed and clothe the child. I mean, they force the woman to have the child, then they drop them both into the gutter. I just really don't understand that.

This has always struck me as the least logical part of the debate on both sides. I agree entirely that "the right" as a whole has undercut itself time and again by insisting only on those elements of morality that involve telling other people what they can't do and not on those elements that involve giving up some of their money for the more needy. How one reconciles allegedly Christian social priorities with persistant cuts in support for the most needy is really anyone's guess. However, I confess that I find the left's passionate defense of nearly every sort of right except the right to life equally baffling. It's intriguing to me that people who can summon passionate commitment to the spotted owl or feel a deep connection with whales and dolphins - all, I might add, causes I think worthy - can find no sympathy when noting, for example, Dr. Richard Selzer's observation of a fetus in the process of abortion fighting the needle.

And as I said before, the majority of welfare recipients are single white women.

Yes, and I think that that is part of the right's issue there. I could be wrong, but I think I see a certain Victorian stubborness there - "If we make divorce/single parenthood hard enough, women will stop doing it!" With Mr. Mill, I would suggest that perhaps they, particularly the gentlemen of their party, might try making marriage more attractive. As Mill points out, it's the slave-driver and press-gang mentality that tries to bludgeon people into a course of behavior that is itself so unappealing that they won't seek it out of their own volition. I think it fascinating that some (including the Vatican) see the rise in divorce rates in modern society as an indication that greater freedom for women has created a terrible crisis, when one might rather more fruitfully suggest that the institution of marriage has failed to adapt sufficiently to an audience no longer captive. Perhaps in time it will.

Shanglan

 

[The_Darkness]

A portion of Darkness:

"...I'm against a military draft, but for mandatory federal/state service. Recruiting and training every person in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 for military service is not going to help anyone. Requiring young men and women to give up 2 years of their life to get a decent paying job and improve the country's infrastructure is something that no one should balk at for various reasons, the least of which is the decrease in expense to the tax payers via an immediate influx of comparitively cheap labor into the work force doing things like postal work, road construction, prison guards, teaching assistants, and other state and federal jobs...."

Well Darkness...I have a son and a daughter in that 18 to 25 range and you are stating that you have a right to sentence them to two years of mandatory Federal/State service?

Yeah, sure and you are all for individual freedom and liberty.

Anyone care to cast a vote on forcing our sons and daughters to 'serve' as stated by Darkness?


amicus...

Having only exited that age bracket a few months ago, I can clearly and definately say HELL FUCKING YES. If you're not willing to help out the country that has given you so much and exist only to dance around like some sort of gad-fly want-to-be, then please, by all means, get the fuck out. You want to wear your patriotism and party support on your sleeve, that's fine. You don't want to do anything to support your country, please, feel free to move to Cuba and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

 

[Alex756]

Huh?


You clearly posted how you would characterize the far left. I'm curious how you would characterize the far right. I don't understand what your statement above says.

As my original post has quote from Lucifer Carrol's (I believe) post of the sides and my comments were directly under his.

One Feminism and War I was agreeing and the issue of 'race relations' (which I find to be a demeaning term personally since we are all humans) I was simply stating that there are racists on both sides and it is not part of the left or the right's policy.

-Alex

 

[amicus]

Any one else want to defend Darkness's position of forcing every 18 to 25 year old to perform two years of mandatory public service?

Love to see a headcount here...


amicus...