[LINK] "Free Trade" Agreement (was: SCO's Congressional Letter)

[Craig Sanders]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 10:11:17AM +1100, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 09:39 PM 24/01/04 +1100, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> >I don't make this stuff up! It's been going on for fifteen years.  (Well,
> >twelve for NAFTA, another three for negotiations that did not involve the
> >Canadian public)
> >
> >Bushie has LJH naked over a barrel. Unless we save him.

He doesn't want to be saved.  If "Bush has LJH over a barrel", then that is
precisely the position that LJH wants to be in.  When being sodomised by an
Emperor, the *important* thing to focus on is not the act of sodomy but the
fact that it is being done by an Emperor.


> so who is in whose pocket in the media for why this isn't being reported?
> Why are we in danger of making the same mistakes?

it's not so much a matter of who is in whose pocket...it's more accurate to say
that the class of people who own significant percentages of the mass media are
the class of people who will benefit from the FTA.

the FTA is in their interest, even if it isn't in the interest of the rest of
us (in fact, it is decidely against the interests of the rest of us).

The wannabe-"Viceroy", John Howard, apart from being a sycophantic traitor with
his brown nose stuck up Emperor George I's butt, is also in that class of
people - and so are most of his friends, acquaintances, and business-partners
and associates, i.e. the people who matter.



craig

PS: the ABC, being publicly owned, should be at least partially immune to this
(only partially because guess what class of people sits on the board of
organisations like the ABC?), which is why the ABC's performance on this
particular issue is so disappointing.  it's almost as if they are apologising
to the government for their (mostly) even-handed reporting on refugees and on
iraq and on other issues, by caving in completely on the FTA.