Post #17,956
11/12/01 7:30:59 PM
|
OK I think we have a platform here
1) (Actually) reform campaign financing - even in the face of massively financed lobbying against any such thing.
2) Elect new folks, soon as possible - preferably of the sort for whom #1 would have been redundant; no Sales Price tag on the new group (except for the inevitable practiced scum as will slip through).
3) Ensure that 2) possess minimal business comprehension.
4) Employ 2) to ferret out practitioners of that sleazy bizness behavior as also proves to be illegal activity: after overhaul and *enforcement* of anti-trust and other business regulations, undertaken after 1) made the rules more conducive to overall social survival.
5) Live happier ever after - with a fresh agenda of problems to keep us busy solving - replacing the sleaze problems formerly untouchable.
6) Eventually die - opening up new spots.
The Reformat Reload and Reconfigure Party ? R\ufffd fer ads.
May we expect a generous Founders donation from you?
Ashton Party Creators Ltd.
Tell us how you want to live.
We'll write the Code.
|
Post #17,964
11/12/01 8:08:43 PM
|
Wow...
except for the R3 tag...cause who needs a Republican raised to the 3rd power...but you could end up as the MS Tech Support Party (except there's no reboot on the platform...just >the boot<...so you would be the "boot, reformat, reload and reconfigure party."
Make my check payable to you I'd imagine ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,977
11/12/01 8:54:35 PM
|
Yes, bad association: *The Nothing Party* it is!
After all:
Nothing lasts forever.
Nothing will eliminate war, famine, plague, pestilence, even graft, corruption and Government waste in a New York minute.
Nothing will enable you to double your IQ in the time it takes to brush your teeth.
Nothing will endow politicians with the ability to answer a yes or no question with a "yes" or "no".
In a Nutshell, NOTHING is Perfect!
[\ufffd 1992 by Franko Toth] - the Nothing Party is Nothing if not Principled.
Now which PR Corp do we hire for recruitment? (Wagg Edd has a Good Bizness credential there - successful, pervasive, predictable - unencumbered by ethical quandary or by any substantive factual content within any 'Product')
Could that be Fluffy Bunny ^h^h er Nothing's first representative? Nothing could better represent the Murican Corporate Ethic better than Wagg-Edd. No?
Operators are standing by for your Pay-Pal contribution.
Nothing matters more than this!
Sartre Productions Ltd.
Being and Nothingness - what Else ya got?
|
Post #17,993
11/12/01 11:35:22 PM
|
Re: OK I think we have a platform here
>1) (Actually) reform campaign financing - even in the face of massively financed lobbying against any such thing.
One thing that I never could understand is folks are totally pissed off when there's financing from corps/countries over US's politics, but no one really speaks out abt US arbituarily selecting who should rule other countries.
Witness Afghanistan right now. Because the current ruling government refuses to turn over OBL without any proof (that's another thread), the US is assisting the NA to take over the country.
???
|
Post #17,999
11/13/01 12:17:49 AM
|
reread the treaty of the high seas
as well as the history of war against the pirates (afgans landlock is no excuse) and the history of the indonesians, malays moros, Japan vs Korea, China vs British (HONG CONG) china vs mongols etc.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #18,002
11/13/01 12:32:24 AM
|
Correction...
...we do not want the NA to take power.
And just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean there is not proof. Something must have been offered to the leaders of the major members of the coalition that convinced them that this was the correct course.
Just think...the French government is still in support. That would take proof...considering they wouldn't even return a convicted murderer to the US because they thought convicting him in absentia was "bad form"...even though there was ample proof of guilt.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,015
11/13/01 8:34:03 AM
|
Re: Correction...
>...we do not want the NA to take power
That's not how it appeared, and it appears now that the NA has taken power.
>And just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean there is not proof. Something must have been offered to the leaders of the major members of the coalition that convinced them that this was the correct course.
Like I said, that's another thread... don't want to get into that... but it seems quite a number of folks share the opinion that the US should have "conceded" to the Taliban's request to produce proofs and THEN will the US have the moral high ground when it then went ahead to attack the Taliben. I share that opinion too.
>Just think...the French government is still in support. That would take proof...considering they wouldn't even return a convicted murderer to the US because they thought convicting him in absentia was "bad form"...even though there was ample proof of guilt.
That's relatively easy. It's NOT them that's at the receiving end, no? :)
|
Post #18,048
11/13/01 11:15:26 AM
|
I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
And neither are the Taliban. And if, by chance, the Taliban were shown proof (the debate over its existence aside), they would have rejected it (naturally) and the intelligence sources used to gather that proof would have been forever compromised.
Sorry...in war...which this is...I don't think trading strategic info for moral high ground is a very good idea.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,518
11/16/01 3:58:05 AM
|
Re: I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
BP, I hope you understand what I'm trying to get here.
I've never defended the terrorists' action. Nor do I support any nation that "harbour" terrorists and "support" terrorism KNOWINGLY. I believe folks with sanity will probably have the same stance.
What we differ in is the way things are being handled, or rather mishandled.
9/11 was a tragedy.
However, a little introspective will reveal that such a tragedy was one that was waiting to happen in view of US foreign policy, past and present. Justifiable, no. To be expected, yes.
After the 9/11, the US could have had a legitimate WAR against terrorism. Instead, it has become a "hand over OBL or we'll bomb you, fuck the proofs" "terrorist action" in the eyes of many. Almost every nation denounced terrorism. Whether they are paying lips service or not, we won't know. Is the US really against terrorism itself if it wasn't the victim?
Nevertheless, many "allies" in this war are allies because they can't afford to be in the "against US" category, economically and militarily. So are they victims of terrorism? "You're with us, or you are with the terrorists" (and you know what we will do to the terrorists, don't you?)
And then, the biggest irony of all, the US "ally" itself with the NA, a bunch of looters and rapists no less, which is at war with the then-ruling regime in their civil war, thus again ignoring the sovereignty of another nation and propping up the US-preferred faction.
So does the end justify the means? How really different is the US from the terrorists of 9/11?
|
