Your first question is one that deserves real consideration here, i.e., why are these people, on either "side" of this "debate," any more or less important than the "debate" here? Your second question begs the first: that is, should it be that we had more reason for Harrelson to "matter" when he was just a slow bartender in our fiction than we do when he's an activist in our reality? That would be neurotic, at best, right?
you've confused me with someone who cares too much, what i really said is "modern conservatives are backwoods racists and money grubbing anti-environment globalist bent on world domination. oh yes and bush is a nazi" (tack on ad nausem) as always mel, thanks for you time, it is very valuable and i am always honored. kisses. edit= I DIDN'T USE ENOUGH QUOTATIONS TO APPEAR SMART! NUTS! or as mel would "debate" does the "addition" of "quotations" make a "person" appear "smarter" than they really are? it would "appear" yes as long as you "combine" said "quotations" with "expensive" education
The Miller High Life...you wear it well; or, at least, better than the Mad Dog. "kisses" right "back" at "you."