Glen Beck, becoming a libertarian?

H/T Libertarian Republican.

 I generally have little time for ‘opinion makers’ and pundits, and the rightist or conservative ones are only slightly less irritating than the lefties. I would find a frontal lobotomy more stimulating than the morbid Allan Jones, and don’t fantasise over the generally histrionic Ann Coulter, (although, I’m a somewhat partial to Elisabeth Hasselbeck.) Keith Olbermann would delight the average masochist but lefties love to be talked down to by authoritarian figures, its part of what they stand for.

 There is an article in the Miami Herald relating to Glen Beck, which I find interesting: –

 Glenn Beck goes on the air with Fox News for the first time Monday afternoon, and he’s got a surprise for you: He’s not a conservative anymore.

”Every day that goes by, I’m more and more libertarian,” says Beck, whose new show (titled, coincidentally, Glenn Beck) will air from 5 to 6 p.m. weekdays. ‘I’ve always been a conservative. But every day I find myself believing more and more in states’ rights, individual rights — let people alone, get the government out of everybody’s lives, let everybody rule themselves.”

That might seem startling news from somebody who’s built a multimillion-dollar one-man media conglomerate out of jauntily acerbic conservative commentary. In nine years he’s gone from a rookie talk-show host on a puny Tampa radio station to a syndicated powerhouse heard on more than 300 stations (including Miami’s WIOD-AM 610). …..

”I’m not so sure that he was ever a conservative to begin with,” says Bill Shine, senior vice president for programming at Fox News. “He’s one of those guys it’s hard to put into a corner or give a label to. I think that’s what makes his show interesting. I think that’s what makes it unpredictable.”

What will be different is Beck’s political perspective. Libertarians eschew the culture wars, think drugs and pornography should be legal, favor an isolationist foreign policy and generally believe in shrinking the government to about the size of a walnut — all of which appalls most mainstream conservatives. Beck, in fact, regularly ridiculed libertarians on his CNN show for their beliefs about foreign policy and drugs.

Beck is what I would call a developing libertarian.

Generally he is in favor of a strong military and not afraid of using it. He seems to display enough intelligence to reject the idea of immediately pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which would place him at odds with the LP, but appears like many libertarians rather soft on preemption.

His statement, “I think we’ve got to say to the world, `If you come after us like they did on 9/11, we will pound you into rubble. Otherwise, we’re minding our own business,” sounds promising on the issue, but why wait till they do it? There should be a requirement for a damn good case prior to hitting the other guy first but Israel’s recent attack on Gaza proves that even retaliation for unprovoked attacks is not a good enough reason to satisfy the anti-war element.

Despite almost wrecking his career and life with grog and drugs and pulling back from the brink, he is willing to countenance legalization but his statement about selling heroin in vending machines is a fairly stupid and provocative one. I doubt that any but the far out radical drop kicks are using such an analogy, it is better to decriminalize ‘soft’ ones first, then explore the possibilities. The war on drugs is not working and will never work, but this kind of talk makes our name stink among voters.

He ends that statement fairly sensibly though with; ….. “saying heroin should be legal, that’s fine, as long as you as a society are willing to step over the guys in the street,” Beck says. “Real, true libertarianism will only work when people will govern themselves and not make special exceptions for their feelings. You can’t be libertarian and let everything go to pieces and then do all kinds of special programs for the people who screw up.

“But when everybody is willing to self-regulate and take responsibility for their own actions, count me in.”

37 thoughts on “Glen Beck, becoming a libertarian?

  1. I don’t see how Israel can be used as an excuse for starting a war. Israel didn’t start their conflict with Hamas. They responded.

    There is a big difference between starting a war, and fighting back. If we (as libertarians) forget the difference between initiating coercion and self-defence, then our philosophy falls apart.

  2. I agree. I think that old statement by Teddy R sounds good to me about war and self defense. Tread softly but carry a big stick.

  3. Ann Coulter: Ughhhhh.

    This guy sounds much better.

    I think it’s very very rare for people to change their minds on big ethical and political issues after about the age of 30 at the latest.
    Still, I hope to be someone that will always be open to a well reasoned argument and genuine knowledge seeking.

    For those interested in the process of changing common beliefs in society, I recently came across these videos from 1983 on YouTube. A KGB defector and propaganda expert discusses how the USSR subverted foreigners to sympathize towards their way of life. See http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=cj0Id3BLFco&feature=PlayList&p=66245842658CE1AF&index=0
    See http://www.scribd.com/doc/10195288/Love-Letter-to-America for his book.

  4. I’m way soft on pre-emptive war. It sounds like naked aggression with an excuse tagged on.

    It’s not that I can never imagine a scenerio where pre-emptive war (or the threat of it) is a good idea, it’s just that in practice it’s a really rare critter and a generally stupid idea. And if you are going to use it as a manipulative threat then make sure you leave room for your opponent to comply. Demanding that Iraq prove it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction was a most stupid demand backed by naked aggression. In essense the USA did to Iraq what Iraq got in trouble for doing to Kuwait. In fact I think Iraq had a stronger basis for a war of aggression against Kuwait than the USA had for it’s war of aggression against Iraq. And in terms of weapons of mass destruction what we should worry about anyway are nuclear ones and we knew Iraq didn’t have them and wasn’t likely to. A bit of mustard gas was never worth fighting over.

    In terms of the rockets that Hamas fires at Israel. Clearly they should stop. Likewise the USA should stop it’s periodic bombardment of bits of Pakistan. Both are playing at tactics whilst ignoring the strategic impact.

    Perhaps this wasn’t meant to be another war thread. Oh well.

    I like Glenn Beck. He has the ability to have and articulate a strong opinion on a position and still leave space for those that disagree. Sometimes he almost manages to blend arrogance with humility.

  5. I agree with the soft on pre-emption.

    If you look at the spectrum of military actions, you have:

    initiation -> pre-emption -> defensive response -> retreat and surrender

    I want my pre-emption to be so close to a defensive response and not at all to be mistaken with initiation. The Iraq War, as much as I hate Saddam, was much to close to an initiation.

    But even worse than the war, is the nation building. Every libertarian should shudder at the thought.

  6. I’m not at all certain that’s true, Jono. That’s not meant to suggest that you’re wrong.

    To suggest that all forms of nation building is wrong would be to say that the US was wrong to remain in Occupied Axis countries after the war. I’m not all together certain the outcome of non nation building in that circumstance was wrong.

  7. I’d say it was a good idea, but only to keep the imperialistic Soviet regime of Joe Stalin away.

    Maybe there are certain institutional advantages, less than actually coming in and setting up infrastrucutre.

    Japan for example needed constitutional and religious reforms. They got their economics mostly right from the 1950s onwards until the late 1980s.

  8. I’m with Terje and Jono regarding pre-emption – I think it’s permissible only if it is so close to self-defence that calling it one or the other falls within error margins.

    And I also agree with JC – nation-building isn’t an automatic negative. There are complicating factors. For instance, there are good kinds of nation-building and bad kinds. And does an invading power have a moral duty to the general populace of the country it invaded to rebuild the damage it caused in the process of defeating the threatening government?

  9. America is having a steadily growing libertarian population. People such as Glen Beck now identifying as a libertarian is sort of an indicator of this growth. The good thing is that he will influence more people and those people will look further into the ideas and some may go on to consider themselves libertarian as well.

  10. John; Perhaps if you go back and read what is there rather than what you expect to be there you will realize that Israel was not being used as “an excuse for starting a war,” but was used to demonstrate that even measured retaliation to unprovoked attacks does not satisfy the requirements of some of the anti-war types. Here I’ll save you the trouble: –

    There should be a requirement for a damn good case prior to hitting the other guy first but Israel’s recent attack on Gaza proves that even retaliation for unprovoked attacks is not a good enough reason to satisfy the anti-war element.

    This clearly indicates that there should be a provable ‘clear and present danger’ prior to a preemptive strike, so I am not really sure what you guys are bleating about.

    In fact I think Iraq had a stronger basis for a war of aggression against Kuwait …. Could you please enlighten me as to what that case was?

    For an example of justifiable preemption, think of the 6 day war in 1967 where Israel was surrounded by massive hostile forces and the Gulf of Aqaba was closed preventing any oil deliveries. The Americans had warned that if Israel initiated hostilities she was on her own. In a brilliant attack the Israeli airforce wiped out most of the Arab air forces on the ground, then in 6 days had defeated the lot.

    Perhaps those who are against nation building would have preferred Andrew Johnson, the 17th President who came to power on the assassination of Lincoln. Being a Democrat, (he was VP on a unity ticket) he vetoed the attempts of Congress to pass the civil rights acts and prevented any attempts to stop the South going back to its old ways, thus setting the stage for Jim Crow.

    I am not in favor of nation building either, but after an invasion it would be irresponsible to walk away and leave chaos.

  11. There are a couple of good books on German nation building if you can find them.
    Prosperity through Competition by Ludwig Erhart and The fourth and Richest Reich by Edwin Hartrich

    I have just finished the Hartrich book and it is excellent. I have just started the Erhart book and it is very interesting.

  12. Terje – there is a lot to be said for pre-emptive action. You understimate it’s power.

    The bully will only hit you if he is sure you won’t hit back.

  13. Should I go around pre-emptively hitting people that look mean? I doubt it is a healthy way to live. Growing up I was physical hit, kicked and beaten more than enough times (kicked unconscious on one occasion, strangled on another, winded several times) to know that fighting back is essential and effective. However the pre-emptive idea does not work for me. The name for the pre-emptive fighter is bully.

  14. So, er Terge, If the US knew the Japanese Navy was heading toward Pearl Harbor, they should have done exactly nothing and waited until they were attacked as that would have been preemptive and wrong in your book, right?

    Great idea. Not.

    Look (and this apples even to libertarians) the primary responsibility of any government is national security and the security of the people. Any government has the right and indeed the responsibility to act and protect its people from harm as anything less would be criminal negligence.

    Attacking and destroying Hitler’s army in 36 would have been a great idea, however it would have been preemptive and wouldn’t have met you high standards. But Hey, the 50 million dead from WW2 didn’t die as a result of a preemptive attack though so that at least is a good thing, right?

    See that what happens hanging around left wing sites. You end up catching fleas.

  15. Well Terje; I don’t know you personally but I don’t find you that irritating, perhaps it was a bad area. Try doing the first 8 years of your education in a one teacher country school where you are seen as an outsider and the teacher hates your father. We all have things to get past.

    There is a considerable difference between personal problems, with which I can empathize, and problems at a national or international level, although there must have been times where you had known you were going to be hit, and couldn’t talk your way out and decided to land one first.

    In a situation such as I described above the term bully could hardly be used.

  16. And here’s another example.

    Israel existence has been threatened more than once by the Iranian thug. If you take into account Iranian actions toward Israel which is menacing and deadly as a result of Iranian financing of weapons used against them their proxies. If you take into account that Iran is fast moving toward nukes, Israel has a perfect right to destroy the operational capacity of Iran without any shadow of a doubt. That’s preemption and why it has a rightful place in the suite of responses by any peaceful country to protect itself.

  17. JC – hindsight does not prove your point. In hindsight we should have murdered a particular infant called Adolf Hitler a long time prior to 1936. However murdering infants to prevent future invasions is also a policy I would not support.

    And the US did know the Japanese were planning an attack on Pearl Harbour. They had radio intercepts and the Japanese had already virtually delivered the threat. The US chose not to act on that intelligence. However if they believed their intelligence then they certainly should have mounted a defensive force. Avoiding aggression is not the same as avoiding defensive measures.

    Having the initiative to buy yourself a gun because there is a mean looking guy in your neighbourhood is not the same as having the initiative to shoot the mean looking guy.

  18. JC – hindsight does not prove your point. In hindsight we should have murdered a particular infant called Adolf Hitler a long time prior to 1936. However murdering infants to prevent future invasions is also a policy I would not support.

    Are you actually serious, Terje. You’re implying that people could time travel before the war (look for Hitler and then kill him when he was a kid)? You’re using this silliness to argue against the destruction of the rearmament of Germany in 36? Yikes, you have been hanging around left sites for too long, haven’t you?

    And the US did know the Japanese were planning an attack on Pearl Harbour. They had radio intercepts and the Japanese had already virtually delivered the threat. The US chose not to act on that intelligence. However if they believed their intelligence then they certainly should have mounted a defensive force. Avoiding aggression is not the same as avoiding defensive measures.

    So now you’re supporting preemption then? Huh?

    Having the initiative to buy yourself a gun because there is a mean looking guy in your neighbourhood is not the same as having the initiative to shoot the mean looking guy.

    Silly analogy. If the mean looking guy bought a gun too or brandished a gun and made it clear he was going to attack me is the correct analogy.

    Basically what you’re saying is that you only want to defend yourself if a good chunk of your country has been destroyed first and only then would you take up arms. Ok, that’s a position

  19. I think TerjeP and others are simply pointing out that pre-emption should only be justified if there is good, solid evidence of an attack. that’s what made Iraq so hard to call- some evidence said ‘yes’, some said ‘no’. As an outsider, I thought they just had enough evidence to say he had some WMDs, though I was thinking biological or gas (because Saddam gassed the Kurds at the end of Gulf War 1). His own troops thought he had weapons, because of his habit of boasting. He didn’t have weapons, so leaving him alone might have been better. Internal plotting might have bought him down, or he might have become like Cuba, defiant but impotent.

  20. I think TerjeP and others are simply pointing out that pre-emption should only be justified if there is good, solid evidence of an attack.

    How exactly would that work for the Israelis? The Iranian thug has said numerous times that he wants to see Israel destroyed and by all accounts is enriching uranium to do build a nuke. Israel doesn’t have the luxury of waiting especially since they ought to be working on the well proved assumption that if someone says they want to destroy you, you ought to believe them.

  21. Does this mean Israel should have unlimited right to pre-emptively attack any country in its’ neighbourhood? Does every other country have to become a minion, or a toady?

  22. Any action Israel took against Iran would not be pre-emptive. It would be self defense.
    Iran is threatening and impacting on Israel’s security.
    They are openly hostile to the Jewish state and western way of life generally, they harbouring terrorist groups, allow death threats and fatwas in their society, and they are arming Hamas.

    The pre-emptive argument is a strawman.
    Just because country A hasn’t explicitly declared war on country B doesn’t mean that the actions of the government from country A can’t destroy the freedoms of citizens in country B. And for country B’s government to fulfil its rightful role, it should protect the freedoms of it’s citizens.

  23. no of course not, common sense and an IQ of over 100 should suffice in these circumstances.

    As I said, if you have an idiot calling for your destruction, financing operations that are to get you with proxies using rockets etc. and building a nuke that would destroy your civilization, the thought of preemption should cross your mind, no?

    Or should Israel be a dense bunch of freaking idiots and wait to see if the idiot lobs one over?

  24. It would be better for Israel if they could trick Russia into attacking Iran. If they could just build a plausible case that Iran is funding the Chechens, look out, Teheran!
    Then Hamas would be a lot easier to deal with. And Israel’s hands would look clean.

  25. There seems to be some confusion as to what preemption is.

    If for example NZ was to get a bit stroppy, it would be simply a matter of using diplomatic efforts to find out what the problem was other than ‘small nation syndrome’. There would be no justification for a preemptive strike.

    If they threatened war, then its a bit more serious and would require genuine negotiations possibly with the assistance of a third party in good standing with both countries, based on the most appropriate of the following lines:-

    (1) Look neither of us can benefit from a war so lets just settle down and see what we can do to resolve this.

    (2) Bring it on, arsehole.

    (3) Laughter.

    There would be no justification for a preemptive strike.

    If they moved a warship to a point where they could lob a missile at an Australian city and announced their intention of doing so unless their demands were met, then it is considerably more serious and would require continuing diplomatic efforts while the Air Force takes off and blows it out of the water, then ask if there is anything else we can negotiate on while we are in the area.

    That is a preemptive strike.

    Iraq is not by my definition a preemptive strike.

  26. Same effect, Nic. But now you’re asking proxies to do it for you through lies.

    It still achieves the same purpose, no?

  27. If somebody points a gun in your face and says they are considering killing you then of course action is warranted. However Iraq wasn’t pointing a gun at the USA and it wasn’t even in a position to. In fact the USA had been pointing a gun at Iraq for a long time and had been making attack noises for a long time. The idea that the USA had to act because Iraq may have some mustard gas is ludicrious. It’s like saying Australia should invade Tonga because they have sticks.

  28. Jim — what you call pre-emption was already widely acceptable. The new doctrine of pre-emption is much broader. It basically hands the government an open cheque to start any war they like and then say that it was based on their hunch that there might be some sort of trouble in the future.

    It’s the military version of the “precautionary principle”. The argument runs (and I’ve heard these exact words from an otherwise intelligent person) that we must attack them now because otherwise they will get stronger and it will be harder to beat them later.

    This is a view that encourages perpetual war and large scope for discretionary government action. It is hard to think of anything less libertarian.

  29. OK Terje, here is some stuff that is not widely published on those left wing sites JC alludes to.

    Iraq provided safe havens for Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, “Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who made the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103, Abu Abbas, of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Families of palestinian suicide bombers were paid US$25,000 by the regime.

    Mustard Gas was only one of many agents. The Iraqi WMD program is known to have produced and utilised, mustard gas, sarin, tabun, VX, and hydrogen cyanide. They are also known to have been producing or experimenting with, botulin toxin, mycotoxin, anthrax, West Nile virus, botulism, Brucella melitensis, clostridium perfringens, and ricin. Evidence exists of possible human experimentation.

    “I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received…information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.” … Vladimir Putin

    I have already said that I do not consider Iraq to be a preemptive strike in the context of what I consider one to be. In the context of 2003 however there is a different perspective. Hussein was refusing to repudiate WMDs which he was known to have possessed and used both against Iran and his own people, and was associated with terrorists, as described above.

    After 9/11 most nations hostile to America pulled their heads in. Even Muammar Ghadaffi who was widely regarded as a madman, and had engaged for years in low level hostilities with the US was smart enough to understand that they would be dangerous to cross after losing nearly 3,000 people in a terrorist attack on their own soil and pulled back, even cooperating in rounding up home grown terrorists. (Some of these admittedly were interested in getting rid of him.)

    Hussein kept up the rhetoric to the point where the US had damn good reason to consider him a threat, especially given the WMD thing and the terrorist connections. It may not have been libertarian, but in my opinion it was understandable.

  30. Jim – firstly how about you and JC take a long walk together with the “left wing sites” rubbish. If you two are keen to paint me as a left winger then just come out and say it. “Terje the left wing extremist!! Terje the patron saint of Stalin and all that is evil. Blah, blah, blah”. Perhaps you have both spent too long at all those “right wing websites”. Nasty places those right wing websites. If opposing the Iraq invasion makes me a left winger then I am a LEFT WINGER and proud of it. Where do I collect my hammer and sickle?

    Secondly your not telling me anything new about Iraq or Saddam. I know Saddam was anti-western. I know that he was a nasty dictator. I know that he liked guns and gas and all those nasty, nasty things. I’m also aware of the spefics you mention.

    Lots of countries refuse to repudiate WMD. Including several of our allies that have signed documents saying they would give up the habit. Should we pre-emtively invade them all. Heck why not!! It would be “understandable”. Although it would also be stupid. Just as invading Iraq was stupid. Not just unprincipled but stupid. As in lots of death and lots of expense for very little worth while strategic benefit. Did I mention that the idea was stupid. As in that hindsight shows it was not a very smart idea. And lots of people are now dead. As in not alive.

    As an aside I notice that Obama says he will be talking to Iran. Radical stuff. I see that Bob Baer supports the idea. He is part of my left wing conspiracy you know. 😉

    Okay thats probably an over reaction. But really, do you think calling me scary names like “left wing” is an effective form of argument? What are you and JC hoping to achieve. Tribal solidarity. Spontaneous repudiation of reason and sanity. Cessation of thinking. What exactly?

  31. Terje; There is a considerable difference between “hanging around left wing websites,” and calling you a leftie or, as you suggested we are saying, “Terje the left wing extremist!! Terje the patron saint of Stalin.” The fact is that over the last week or so your comments etc have lacked your usual commonsense and seem to be somewhat emotional and disturbed, as this one (33) appears to be. If there is some problem, contact me, I would be glad to help. Your childhood reminiscences are no basis for international strategy.

    The fact is that you are arguing like a left/right winger in that you are glossing over facts, such as “A bit of mustard gas was never worth fighting over” and “Iraq may have some mustard gas.” (Why hell, aint mustard gas sooooo 1916.) When confronted with the facts you then admit you knew about them when you were minimizing them. I know that he liked guns and gas and all those nasty, nasty things. I’m also aware of the specifics you mention. You are starting to sound like Sukrit.

    Lots of countries refuse to repudiate WMD. Including several of our allies that have signed documents saying they would give up the habit. Should we preemptively invade them all. aren’t you ignoring the fact that none of those allies have a habit of using them on other countries or their own dissidents.

    As an aside I notice that Obama says he will be talking to Iran. Radical stuff. I see that Bob Baer supports the idea. He is part of my left wing conspiracy you know. Am I supposed to think that’s bad, Terje? I notice that he referred to “the power of American diplomacy” over what it called “Iran’s illicit nuclear programme, support for terrorism, and threats towards Israel,” so it seems he isn’t just bending over. I also note that his Secretary of State has indicated she will, “totally obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel.”

  32. I can understand Terje frustration. The argument for invading Iraq was so amazingly and transparently bad that it was a point of acute embarassment for me to see some libertarians falling for the old “be really scared, and hand the govt a trillion dollars and your liberties” line.

    But it’s gone now. Six years have past and even some of the warnicks are starting to make the realisation that sometimes government programs don’t always work 100% how you want them to go… and some of them have negative unintended consequences.

    Of course, a few are running the line of “yeah, the government failed this time, but next time we give them a trillion dollars and some of our liberties then I’m sure things will work out well”. But I hope that others are increasing their skepticism of government.

    Skepticism is a very necessary thing to have when considering government projects. Pro-state people are always quick to come up with a thousand and one excuses why their project was necessary and urgent… and without a healthy skepticism, some people are prone to accepting these arguments.

    The misjudgement doesn’t normally come from blatently wrong information, but simply from unbalanced information. It is quite easy to overwhelm people with enough targetted information so that they see a certain issue as super-important, while losing perspective on how this information fits into the broader world. Nurses are certain that hospitals are #1 priority. Teachers are certain that schools are #1 priorty. Eric Bana is certain that public funds for arts is #1 priority. The list goes on. These people aren’t generally evil and the facts they have about their own area of knowledge are often close to true. But they are not balanced by a broader understanding.

    The same applies for defence. The fact that Saddam killed people is bad. But in the context of a proper understanding of wars, civil wars and authoritarian governments around the world… it is not very exciting. The fact that he has some links to terrorist groups is likewise entirely ho-hum. There are very few (if any) governments of the world who haven’t had some sorts of links with similar dodgy characters.

    But this information is easy to package in a way that bamboozles those people who lack skepticism in government. And when we have a climate of fear, then it is even easier for people to jump to the wrong conclusions, and endorse shockingly bad policies.

    Fear is the life-blood of government. Don’t be scared. 🙂

  33. Jim – suggesting that my ideas come from “left wing websites” or that I sound like Sukrit or that I have emotional problems steming from my childhood are all just Ad Hom attacks or inverted forms of argument by authority (the implied assumption being that left wing websites and Sukrit are always wrong). Which side of the left/right tribal divide I may decide to occupy on any given day or where my ideas may or may not come from isn’t relevant. The fact that you and JC see these as smart debating tactics is sad and rude but mostly just very boring. Other than disagreeing with your point of view I don’t know what I have done to invite your scorn. I’d really prefer if you left such things to JC so that I may continue to regard you as somebody who is not boring.

    Back on topic.

    I’m not ignoring what our allies have or haven’t done. My comment about WMD was not specific to our allies. I asked you if having weapons of mass destruction (eg mustard gas or sarin gas etc) is sufficient reason for us to invade a country. The question was rhetorical in that I definetly don’t think we should invade countries simply because they have nasty weapons or want to acquire nasty weapons.

    Do I think using WMD against their own people is relevant? Yes. However not sufficiently relevant in the case of Iraq given that the supposed incident happened in 1988, was not ongoing, happened on a battlefield in the midst of a grizzly war and may have been undertaken by the Iranians anyway. To me it seems like a really weak piece of pre-invasion propaganda draped over a bad policy to try and cover up the stench.

  34. Terje; you misunderstand what I am saying. I at no time suggested that you have emotional problems stemming from your childhood. Go back and reread what I said. We have had enough contact for you to know that I do not scorn you.

Comments are closed.