NADER
j.rennie1
"Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W
Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is
critical."
The WRONG year was 2000 - now it hardly matters.
Kelwin Delaunay
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:J4k_b.2215$Vv....@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Must admit I don't understand this John. Do you think Bush is not going to
do more harm if given another four years?
Kelwin
Martha Bridegam
Kelwin Delaunay wrote:
I wouldn't dare to speak for John, but in my mind it hardly matters now
because Nader will not get enough support this year to be a spoiler.
/M
j.rennie1
"Kelwin Delaunay" <kelwind...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103kfqq...@corp.supernews.com...
I said 'it hardly matters' which doesn't mean that it doesn't matter but
compared with the crazy, crazy decision to vote for a third candidate
in 2000 it is small beer. Iraq is occupied and fragmenting; every day
bring news of not just more killings but that the opposing forces are
becoming better organised. Any newly elected president will
have for a time have to follow in Bush's footsteps before instituting
his
own policy. And what can that be? Some Americans think that
another President can bring improvements in domestic policy but
even they must realise that Iraq has to be paid for and that unless
the US hands over control of Iraq to the UN ALL the costs will be paid
for by the American taxpayer. That's a charge that will bite deeply
into funds that might have previously been available for welfare
or education. No, Kelwin. The damage has been done and all
another president can do is try desperately to tidy up. BTW
you may be interested to know that one or two subscribers here
believe that Gore would have done the same as Bush after 911.
Do you think so? If you do I suggest it isn't worth voting for
anybody next November - go fishing.
Alan Hogue
> BTW
> you may be interested to know that one or two subscribers here
> believe that Gore would have done the same as Bush after 911.
> Do you think so? If you do I suggest it isn't worth voting for
> anybody next November - go fishing.
>
>
That seems like an incredible stretch to me. Why on earth would someone
think that Gore would have used a terrorist attack as a pretext to
invade Iraq?
Alan H.
Martha Bridegam
"j.rennie1" wrote:
John, don't be silly. This election is a choice between conventional flawed
politics and right-wing radicalism. The choice matters. And we seem likely to
make the right choice this time. See
<http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm>.
/M
j.rennie1
"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:403A5DE9...@pacbell.net...
snip
>
>
>
> John, don't be silly. This election is a choice between conventional
flawed
> politics and right-wing radicalism. The choice matters. And we seem
likely to
> make the right choice this time. See
> <http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm>.
>
> /M
>
I wasn't silly pre 2000 (some here were) and I'm not silly now.
You are four years too late.
Paolo
"Alan Hogue" <aho...@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:c1djgi$2sld$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
John could have been bolder - I believe the "one or
two subscribers" he is referring to is me (and possibly
others, I don't know). Not too long after the terrorist
attacks I stated here that I felt that Gore would have
reactyed in the same way as Bush. This was, as John
knows, before the Iraq imbroglio.
I was referring to Afghanistan, and the fact that the
American gov't chose a military response over treating
the attacks as a criminal act and reacting as such.
As I said then, Gore would have felt the need, as most
Democrats do, to appear tough and, I think, would have
undoubtedly declared "war" on terrorism.
Would he have carried it as far as an invasion of Iraq?
I'm inclined to doubt it. But I wouldn't dismiss it so
completely as you seem to. Let us not forget that this
guy was a part of an administration that not bombed
Iraq in order to distract attention from the Presidents
penis, but also had the staggering gall to name it after a
Nazi war commander.
Let us also not forget, in the almost Nixonian cleansing that
Gore's image seems to have undergone since 2000, that Gore
also has ties to oil.
paul.
Paolo
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:J4k_b.2215$Vv....@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Oh John, still beating that dead horse. You were wrong then, and
you're wrong now.
For the record, I am sorry to see Nader declare his candidacy,
if only because, as Martha said, anyone with half a brain can see
that his support will be so miniscule as to make his candidacy
embarassingly irrelevant. Also, if he's running as an independent
then the argument that he's trying to build a third party is obviously
moot. So one wonders: what's the point?
I have changed my posting name as a favour to Martha.
Solidarity forever, mab!!
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Paolo wrote:
Yr most kind. Thx.
BTW I do remember quite vividly why I did not vote for Gore in 2000 but I
won't rehash it here now.
/M
j.rennie1
"Paolo" <paula...@look.ca> wrote in message
news:eLWdnflULKK...@look.ca...
>
> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:J4k_b.2215$Vv....@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1154010,00.html
> >
> > "Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000.
George W
> > Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is
> > critical."
> >
> > The WRONG year was 2000 - now it hardly matters.
>
> Oh John, still beating that dead horse. You were wrong then, and
> you're wrong now.
I am beating those stupid Liberals who believe that they
can indulge themselves at the expense of common sense.
I am reminded of the small socialist party of America when
led by Eugene Debs. When strikers were being shot
by the steel and coal mining bosses they were arguing
over the merits and demerits of free love. That is what
is called 'taking your eye off the ball'. Which is exactly
what you did. You were wrong - dreadfully wrong.
Even from as far away as I am from America I had no
doubt that Bush represented what Republicans from
the previous Reagan and Bush eras regarded as the
'crazies'. He also appeared (and has subsequently
proved) to be a buffoon. Nader with his 2.9 million
votes put him into power. You produced figures at
one time of a poll which said that if Nader had not
stood a majority of that 2.9 million would have voted
for Bush. I never believed that nor did I see that
particular statement quoted elsewhere. I think that
quite a chunk of that particular vote would have abstained
but of those who voted most would have been for Gore.
For the record:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
OK to indulge yourself in California but not in
Florida.
j.rennie1
>
>
> BTW I do remember quite vividly why I did not vote for Gore in 2000 but
I
> won't rehash it here now.
>
> /M
>
>
I remember quite well. You thought your reasons
important - now you know they weren't.
Kelwin Delaunay
>
> >
>
> I said 'it hardly matters' which doesn't mean that it doesn't matter
but
> compared with the crazy, crazy decision to vote for a third candidate
> in 2000 it is small beer. Iraq is occupied and fragmenting; every
day
> bring news of not just more killings but that the opposing forces are
> becoming better organised. Any newly elected president will
> have for a time have to follow in Bush's footsteps before instituting
> his
> own policy. And what can that be? Some Americans think that
> another President can bring improvements in domestic policy but
> even they must realise that Iraq has to be paid for and that unless
> the US hands over control of Iraq to the UN ALL the costs will be paid
> for by the American taxpayer. That's a charge that will bite deeply
> into funds that might have previously been available for welfare
> or education. No, Kelwin. The damage has been done and all
> another president can do is try desperately to tidy up
No, John. A lot of damage has been done and if Bush is re-elected, he and
his will have the power to do much more.
> BTW
> you may be interested to know that one or two subscribers here
> believe that Gore would have done the same as Bush after 911.
> Do you think so? If you do I suggest it isn't worth voting for
> anybody next November - go fishing.
>
LOL, no, I do not believe Gore would have done the same as Bush. This idea
is one of the recent propaganda lines of the Bush Administration and its
supporters. It seeks to establish justification for Bush actions by
asserting the premise that anyone else would have done the same thing in his
position. It can then be twisted as the user requires: either he had no
choice or what he has done is good for the world, neither of which would
pass muster with any thinking person.
I believe that the vast majority of people would have handled differently
almost everything Bush has mangled, especially the lives of millions of
people.
Kelwin
Kelwin Delaunay
"Martha Bridegam" <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:403A4808...@pacbell.net...
I hope you're right.
Kelwin
Paolo
No, I didn't. Please don't start acting like Bayle.
> I never believed that nor did I see that
> particular statement quoted elsewhere. I think that
> quite a chunk of that particular vote would have abstained
> but of those who voted most would have been for Gore.
>
> For the record:
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
>
> OK to indulge yourself in California but not in
> Florida.
But there's so much more to it than that, isn't there? We've gone
over this a hundred times and I don't think we need to again. So
I'll summarize: Nader didn't lose Gore the election, Gore did. It
should have been, as the Americans say, a slam dunk...
paul.
Kelwin Delaunay
>Nader with his 2.9 million
> votes put him into power.
Earlier in your post you seemed to support the idea of common sense. I
suggest that asserting that Nader is *responsible* for Bush's current
occupation of the White House is simply not rational. Nader didn't cast 2.9
million votes for himself. Nader voters didn't know what all other American
voters were going to do before they cast their ballots. Given the pattern of
your assertion, one could blame the millions of people who voted against
the interests of humanity when they voted for Bush, or the millions of
people who could have voted for Gore, but didn't vote, or Katherine Harris,
or the U.S Supreme Court, etc.
I don't care for Nader, but he did not "put him into power." Nader's
candidacy was only one of many factors that the created the awful result of
the Presidential Election of 2000. To single him out for blame is not
reasonable.
Kelwin
Paolo
Oh, wait a minute, no he didn't, Bush did.
paul.
Paolo
>
> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:AyH_b.677$bJ1.342@newsfe1-win...
>
> >Nader with his 2.9 million
> > votes put him into power.
>
>
> Earlier in your post you seemed to support the idea of common sense. I
> suggest that asserting that Nader is *responsible* for Bush's current
> occupation of the White House is simply not rational. Nader didn't cast
2.9
> million votes for himself. Nader voters didn't know what all other
American
> voters were going to do before they cast their ballots. Given the pattern
of
> your assertion, one could blame the millions of people who voted against
> the interests of humanity when they voted for Bush, or the millions of
> people who could have voted for Gore, but didn't vote, or Katherine
Harris,
> or the U.S Supreme Court, etc.
Katherine Harris. Very good point. To blame Nader for costing Gore a state
where the election was rigged, and in the name of common sense, defies
comprehension.
> I don't care for Nader, but he did not "put him into power." Nader's
> candidacy was only one of many factors that the created the awful result
of
> the Presidential Election of 2000. To single him out for blame is not
> reasonable.
That seems like a reasonable statement.
paul.
j.rennie1
> news:AyH_b.677$bJ1.342@newsfe1-win...
>
> >Nader with his 2.9 million
> > votes put him into power.
>
>
> Earlier in your post you seemed to support the idea of common sense. I
> suggest that asserting that Nader is *responsible* for Bush's current
> occupation of the White House is simply not rational.
I didn't say that Nader was responsible. However 2.900,000
Marthas and Pauls were.
Nader didn't cast 2.9
> million votes for himself. Nader voters didn't know what all other
American
> voters were going to do before they cast their ballots. Given the
pattern of
> your assertion, one could blame the millions of people who voted
against
> the interests of humanity when they voted for Bush, or the millions of
> people who could have voted for Gore, but didn't vote, or Katherine
Harris,
> or the U.S Supreme Court, etc.
Read what I have said about keeping one's eye on the ball.
>
> I don't care for Nader, but he did not "put him into power." Nader's
> candidacy was only one of many factors that the created the awful result
of
> the Presidential Election of 2000. To single him out for blame is not
> reasonable.
>
> Kelwin
>
>
This idea that voting for Nader was one of many factors that put Bush
into the White House was hammered out here at the time. Gerrymandering
by Jeb Bush was one of those factors; the disallowing of many of the
votes of black constituents in Florida undoubtedly swung the vote
there by more than the requisite 500 or so. However, that and other
factors were not in the control of the Marthas and Pauls. Who they
voted for WAS. I make no apology for returning to this act of supreme
stupidity. Anyone who supported Nader's campaign in 2000
committed a grievous offence, not only against the best interests of the
American people, but against the interests of the rest of us.
Alan Hogue
>"Alan Hogue" <aho...@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote
>
>
>>That seems like an incredible stretch to me. Why on earth would someone
>>think that Gore would have used a terrorist attack as a pretext to
>>invade Iraq?
>>
>>
>
>John could have been bolder - I believe the "one or
>two subscribers" he is referring to is me (and possibly
>others, I don't know). Not too long after the terrorist
>attacks I stated here that I felt that Gore would have
>reactyed in the same way as Bush. This was, as John
>knows, before the Iraq imbroglio.
>
Well, that explains it. I agree that Gore would probably have initiated
some kind of military action in
Afghanistan.
>
>I was referring to Afghanistan, and the fact that the
>American gov't chose a military response over treating
>the attacks as a criminal act and reacting as such.
>
The problem with this approach where Afghanistan is concerned is that
there wasn't really much of a modern state or a legal system there,
AFAIK. It didn't become a mutually exclusive proposition until Iraq,
when most of the rest of the world suddenly realized that the US wasn't
serious about all this "war on terror" stuff.
>As I said then, Gore would have felt the need, as most
>Democrats do, to appear tough and, I think, would have
>undoubtedly declared "war" on terrorism.
>Would he have carried it as far as an invasion of Iraq?
>
Invading Iraq didn't carry the "war on terrorism" anywhere, as we now
know. It was also something the administration wanted to do long before
the attacks in New York and Washington.
>I'm inclined to doubt it. But I wouldn't dismiss it so
>completely as you seem to. Let us not forget that this
>guy was a part of an administration that not bombed
>Iraq in order to distract attention from the Presidents
>penis, but also had the staggering gall to name it after a
>Nazi war commander.
>
They named Clinton's penis after a Nazi war commander???
>Let us also not forget, in the almost Nixonian cleansing that
>Gore's image seems to have undergone since 2000, that Gore
>also has ties to oil.
>
>
Yeah, but having ties to oil does not automatically make you Satan. I
would wager that a solid majority of old money in the US has ties to oil
of some kind, and the reasons for that are pretty obvious. I wonder how
many of these politicians have ties to steel?
On the other hand, I would characterize the Bush family's involvement in
oil as something more serious than "ties".
Alan H.
user1951
not have a vote in your election....if I had one I would vote for
Nader...."sometimes it is better to vote for what you want and not get it
than to vote for what you don't want...and get it! (Eugene V Debs)
j.rennie1
this remark about the sameness of Bush and Gore
after Bush's Axis of Evil speech (29/01/2002)
(and when some of us guessed that Iraq was to be
invaded which was at least a year before the actual
event.) Do you think that Gore would have made
such a crass speech?
Paolo
I agree. Bush's nefariousness is in a league of its own.
My point is that Gore is not the peace-embracing remedy
that many who are frustrated with Bush like to remember
him as.
paul.
Paolo
No. But a bit of a search through Google discovers that I
made my statement on 26/01/2002, before the speech.
I did, however, also state that I thought Gore would have also
at least threatened invasion against Iraq. I was, as usual,
pretty convincing. But it is worth pointing out, as I did at the time, that
most Democrats were supporting the war at the time.
It's also worth noting that the idea of war against Iraq was
pretty embryonic at the time - this was also well before
the opposition at the UN and in the streets.
In hindsight, I'm not sure that Gore would have actually
gone to war in Iraq.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
"j.rennie1" wrote:
My stomach prevented me from voting for Al Gore. My stomach persisted in
recalling a rubber bullet injury to the forehead of a gray-haired ACLU lawyer
who had been peacefully serving as a legal observer at a political event
outside the convention. If you want to persist in deploring my 2000 vote you
will have to take it up with my stomach, which does on occasion overrule my
head.
/M
j.rennie1
snip
>
> > I believe, but I stand to be corrected, that you made
> > this remark about the sameness of Bush and Gore
> > after Bush's Axis of Evil speech (29/01/2002)
> > (and when some of us guessed that Iraq was to be
> > invaded which was at least a year before the actual
> > event.) Do you think that Gore would have made
> > such a crass speech?
>
> No. But a bit of a search through Google discovers that I
> made my statement on 26/01/2002, before the speech.
> I did, however, also state that I thought Gore would have also
> at least threatened invasion against Iraq. I was, as usual,
> pretty convincing. But it is worth pointing out, as I did at the time,
that
> most Democrats were supporting the war at the time.
>
> It's also worth noting that the idea of war against Iraq was
> pretty embryonic at the time - this was also well before
> the opposition at the UN and in the streets.
>
> In hindsight, I'm not sure that Gore would have actually
> gone to war in Iraq.
>
> paul.
>
I feel that certain acts committed by Bush
had already defined the unique awful nature
of his administration. The establishment of
Guantanamo for instance. Unlike you I am
prepared to say when I was wrong. I was
wrong to support the invasion of Afghanistan -
that country is now very much worse off than
it was under the Taleban and so is the rest
of the world. We now have the restoration
of the flourishing heroin crop (the largest in
the world) that the Taleban had managed to
stamp out. Women, with the exception of
the capital Kabul, are no better off than they
were. The war lords run most of the country and
that is why the Taleban are making a comeback.
Perhaps more importantly Al Qai'da has been
forced to spread into other areas. When
they were in Afghanistan at least we knew
where they were. If America had had an
administration that had a minimum of patience
Al Qai'da could have been infiltrated and
destroyed or at least negated from within.
What was America to do after 911. I
didn't know then but I do now. Instead of
trying to take the whole world on by itself
it should have endeavoured to find allies.
Countries who were just as frightened by
fundamentalist Islam as America was.
Who were those countries? They were
MUSLIM countries ruled by secular
governments. With the exception of
Turkey they are under non-democratic
rule. They Include Morocco, Algeria,
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia
AND Iraq. Yes Iraq! If Bush was ever
one bit serious about his War on Terrorism
he should have made Saddam his ally.
Saddam was the enemy of Osama. In
his recent speech Osama didn't grieve over
the fate of Saddam. He said that Saddam
had suffered the fate of all American lackeys.
It would have been so easy to turn Saddam
into a friend instead of an enemy. Send
someone he knew obviously Rumsfeld.
They shake hands again, Saddam offers
commiserations for the attack on the WTC
etc. Rumsfeld outlines his administration's
plans for a Muslim security pact and in
passing says that the sanctions will of course
be lifted. Saddam rolls over on his back
purrs and just Gaddaffi today becomes a
firm member of the alliance against extreme
fundamentalism. Unless the Arab world
is included in further globalisation plans
and the millions of unemployed Arabs were
offered at least the hope of a job that
alliance wouldn't last too long. However, I am
assuming that an administration that was
far sighted enough to do the above would
understand that it and other well off
countries were obligated to extend
globalisation to Arab countries. How
about the poor Iraqis living under a cruel
dictator? Well no one seem to be
worrying that much about the fate of
the Libyans today are they? For
myself I am sure that the war will not
bring long term advantages for the
Iraqi citizen; it certainly hasn't in the
short term.
Kelwin Delaunay
>
> "Kelwin Delaunay" <kelwind...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:103mt65...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:AyH_b.677$bJ1.342@newsfe1-win...
> >
> > >Nader with his 2.9 million
> > > votes put him into power.
> >
> >
> > Earlier in your post you seemed to support the idea of common sense. I
> > suggest that asserting that Nader is *responsible* for Bush's current
> > occupation of the White House is simply not rational.
>
> I didn't say that Nader was responsible. However 2.900,000
> Marthas and Pauls were.
>
>
Gosh, John, look at your statement (quoted above.) The subject is "Nader."
The predicate is "put him into power." If that isn't assigning
responsibility, then what is it?
Kelwin
Paolo
I should apologize to everybody for the nastiness that I have done.
Although I didn't vote for Nader because, as John knows, I can't,
nevertheless by supporting him on this ng I am directly responsible for Bush
coming into power and for everything that has resulted, including
the war in Iraq, apparently. All the dead are dead because of me,
I see that now. Thanks to John's airtght logic. The fact that the people I
voted for opposed the war was, obviously, just a cover for my more
nefarous intentions, as is everything else I have ever done to oppose
the policies of Dubya and others like him. John has now unmasked
these as a clever front for my real goal which was, as he says, to "put
Bush in power." And all this based solely on the strength of my postings
on abg-o!
Whoda thunk that my influence is so vast?
paul.
j.rennie1
Of course your influence is vast - certainly larger than that
of a Bayle for instance. Seriously what I object to is the
passing of responsibility to others. You as a Canadian
have no direct responsibility . Neither does Martha.
After all she voted in California in 2000 and her vote
did not affect Gore. However, in your own way you
backed his campaign and that campaign persuaded
97,000 Florida residents to vote for Nader. If Nader
hadn't stood perhaps a third of that vote would have gone
to Nader, may be a tenth to Bush and the rest would have
abstained. The 25 electoral votes would have gone to
Gore and we would NOT be facing the same wrought
situation today. We all have some influence no matter
how small - we shouldn't try to pretend that we haven't.
Paolo
Well, that a given. What I was really trying to do was show Gene what some
high rent sarcasm looks like, compared to the cheap satuff he's always
pawning off on me.
Seriously what I object to is the
> passing of responsibility to others. You as a Canadian
> have no direct responsibility . Neither does Martha.
> After all she voted in California in 2000 and her vote
> did not affect Gore. However, in your own way you
> backed his campaign and that campaign persuaded
> 97,000 Florida residents to vote for Nader. If Nader
> hadn't stood perhaps a third of that vote would have gone
> to Nader, may be a tenth to Bush and the rest would have
> abstained. The 25 electoral votes would have gone to
> Gore and we would NOT be facing the same wrought
> situation today. We all have some influence no matter
> how small - we shouldn't try to pretend that we haven't.
>
May I put this tired dog to bed by saying that I still think
you're wrong and that I still think Nader was the most worthy of a vote in
all 50 states, and I would have voted for him if I could have. My opinion
hasn't changed nor will it - it is as implacable as yours. Let's move on
shall we?
Your friend,
paul.
j.rennie1
snip
>
> May I put this tired dog to bed by saying that I still think
> you're wrong and that I still think Nader was the most worthy of a vote
in
> all 50 states, and I would have voted for him if I could have. My
opinion
> hasn't changed nor will it - it is as implacable as yours. Let's move on
> shall we?
>
> Your friend,
> paul.
>
>
Move on to what, Paul?
Your friend
John
Martha Bridegam
"j.rennie1" wrote:
How about this?
"...Punk Voter's roots stretch to the 2000 elections, when NOFX bass player Fat
Mike suffered from insomnia after the Florida recount,..."
See
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/25/politics0804EST0524.DTL>.
Paul, you're the closest thing we have to an expert opinion on a project like
this. What effect do you think it will have?
/M
Henry
> How about this?
>
> "...Punk Voter's roots stretch to the 2000 elections, when NOFX bass
> player Fat Mike suffered from insomnia after the Florida recount,..."
>
> See
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/25
> /politics0804EST0524.DTL>.
That's got to be better than 'Voting is for Old People'
See
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=37
40&itemType=PRODUCT&RS=1&keyword=voting
cheers,
Henry
Martha Bridegam
Henry wrote:
Thank you. That's shocking. I'm putting it on my weblog, with credit.
<http://home.pacbell.net/mabjo/martha.html#326>
/M
Paolo
I'm aware of the site: punkvoter.com.
Who can say. I know that Fat Mike made a point of urging people to vote for
Gore,
à la Rennie, but as to what influence this can have, it's hard to guess. Fat
Mike is a
pretty influential guy, as far as punk rock goes; NOFX is a very popular
band and
Fat Wreck Chords a very successful label. On the other hand, Rock the Vote
is a
dismal failure. But I think that's why he's doing it. Rock the Vote was
pathetic because
it couldn't voice an opinion which renedered as flavourless and lame as the
corporation
who ran it, MTV.
This one has lined up a lot of support from bands that the kids are into.
Compare that to the right wing competitor that the artcle mentions, who can
claim
Michale Graves of the Misfits as it's celebrity endorsement. He's not even
the original singer.
Certainly it should do more good than harm.
paul.
Paolo
What's really sad about this is that this ultra-ironic encouragement
of apathy comes to us as manufactred hipness from a corporation
of the type that thrives on apathy. A very underhanded type of
pre-packaged cool.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Paolo wrote:
Yep. "Commodify Your Dissent."
/M