If you wan chage, you're going to have to fight for it,

[and-justice-for-all]

It is business as usual on the hill, with bought and paid for reps whom you think you voted for; when in reality they were kindly selected by the corporate poltergeist who, though the rep. haunt the hill. It is repulsive, to say the least, that “our” Government is not ours at all, just a shell painted like an Easter egg to fool us into believing we actually have a Democracy, a Government as it was meant to be in the scribing of this country’s Constitution is not what you see.

What we have is the United Corporate States of America, a nation of and for non-people, entities that are not made of flesh and bone; but steel and wire who have exploited a court ruling that was to protect black land owners.

Both parties are to blame for this, repuke and democract, for continuing to allow corporations to be treated as people. Repukes do not care at all, they actually love this false notion and use it to fill their Swiss bank accounts; Democracts, one may think, would be willing to end this atrocity and corporation exploitation of the peoples Government. But, it was not until recently when Sotomayor questioned this fallacy of “corporations are people too” that it was finally brought forward.

You see, the only way we are ever going to get anywhere, is to rid the hill of corporate favoritism and all the lobbying done on the hill for the sake of special interest. To take ground and to see real progress, it would be a good first step to break the legs of the corporations, to cut out their tongue and leave them for the crows to peak out their eyes. Who allowed these ‘non-persons’ to burn and pillage of Government and country, to allow them to cipher the blood and life from us all? When will a mass of people wake up and realize they have been (are being) robbed blind?

What will it take I ask you, who will stand up and say enough? To see the many being dragged behind the corporate wagon down gravel roads for the sake of a very small percentage of the population is vexing.

History tells us that ‘change’ comes in the form of revolution and a deep desire to crawl out from under repression. Is this what the States need, an internal revolution to dismantle the Government as it is and start anew? I do not think a violent revolution is needed, but something has to be done to get the claw fingers of corporation out of our cookie jar. This is the number one cause of a majority of our issue we cannot get resolved; from environmental issues to health care.

Not only are corporations to blame, but money is also the key factor in what ills America and the world. Why do corporations behave the way they do, not only are they just plain evil, but they want more MONEY. The beast is never satisfied and it never will be as long as money exists, you cannot cure an illness unless you remove the root cause and with corporations, it is money and their insatiable appetite for it. They will kill you and your family if it means they can make money from it, they have no concern for us or our planet; they just want more money and will destroy and kill to get it.

These uncontrolled monsters have to be tamed and placed in a cage under watchful eye, if left to their own devices they will continue their death parade and it is sure to come to a town near you.

[Javaman]

1. Who is this Wan Chage, that you speak of? nt

[and-justice-for-all]

2. crap

[Javaman]

6. It's all good.

always spell check. Then after you post, reread it again.

I always miss stuff.

Cheers!

[caballero]

3. Wasn't he the guy with the killer hat in Goldfinger?

:D
\

[CreekDog]

4. Oh leabe him alode

he probably hab a code.

[Echo In Light]

5. Chomsky: The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?

The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?

Noam Chomsky debates with Hannah Arendt, Susan Sontag, et al.
December 15, 1967

ROBERT B. SILVERS: ... Under what conditions, if any, can violent action be said to be "legitimate"? ...

NOAM CHOMSKY: My general feeling is that this kind of question can't be answered in a meaningful way when it's abstracted from the context of particular historical concrete circumstances. Any rational person would agree that violence is not legitimate unless the consequences of such action are to eliminate a still greater evil. Now there are people of course who go much further and say that one must oppose violence in general, quite apart from any possible consequences. I think that such a person is asserting one of two things. Either he's saying that the resort to violence is illegitimate even if the consequences are to eliminate a greater evil; or he's saying that under no conceivable circumstances will the consequences ever be such as to eliminate a greater evil. The second of these is a factual assumption and it's almost certainly false. One can easily imagine and find circumstances in which violence does eliminate a greater evil. As to the first, it's a kind of irreducible moral judgment that one should not resort to violence even if it would eliminate a greater evil. And these judgments are very hard to argue. I can only say that to me it seems like an immoral judgment.

Now there is a tendency to assume that a stand based on an absolute moral judgment shows high principle in a way that's not shown in a stand taken on what are disparagingly referred to as "tactical grounds." I think this is a pretty dubious assumption. If tactics involves a calculation of the human cost of various actions, then tactical considerations are actually the only considerations that have a moral quality to them. So I can't accept a general and absolute opposition to violence, only that resort to violence is illegitimate unless the consequences are to eliminate a greater evil.

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

[AuntPatsy]

7. K & R