Help me rebut my lib uncle's scathing Bush thrashing (how would you respond?)

a flaming neocommunist ^ | 4 11 04 | paulsy

[Swordmaker]

The foaming-at-the-mouth uncle uttered:

"I know my tax bill is down, but that's because as a lawyer representing poor and working people who've had their civil rights violated under a regime that favors only rich and corporate interests, my income is down."

To which you rebutted:

See above.

You (and all of us till now) missed the great dis-connect in this line. He claims his "income is down" because he is representing "poor and working people who have had their civil rights violated under" George W. Bush.

This does not make sense. If these people were hiring Uncle Foamer to protect them from the INCREASED civil rights violations of the "evil regime", then his income should be UP, not DOWN!

If his complaints and accusations were true, Uncle Foamer should be rolling in legal fees from all the poor, down trodden victims of the Bush Administration he represents. He should be making LOTS more money. Simple logic.

[I_dmc]

Here's some ammo on the issue of the war in Iraq.

Trafford Publishing: The Foolish, The Feckless and The Fanatic

[MrB]

If you want to get in and mix it up with "liberals" the first thing to do is stop using that term. They are NOT liberals.

The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism

They are leftist, collectivist, socialists - with a fascist totalitarian bent. (School choice, vehicle choice, smoking, fat foods, private property, forced "charity", speech codes, etc).

After that, if their head is still attached to their neck, you can start rebutting them with good old fashioned Constitutionalism.

Remember - the Constitution limits the fedgov to the enumerated powers, and clarifies that in the 10th amendment, and these powers can only LEGALLY be changed through the amendment process. IOW, almost everything >= FDR has been illegal.