 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
So I write instead:
We can cut the bullshit and get to the point. I propose, now, a debate where I take one perspective and the other average Joe (forgive my literal presumption) takes an opposing perspective; like play acting only the same thing. Life is but a play and we are the actors.
One perspective will be Mr. USA.
The other perspective will be Mr. China. I can take either side and still be me, speaking for me, because I can act. My act may not resemble any one but me and so my Chinese act may be somewhat of a stretch of the imagination.
Example:
Setting the stage:
http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=63&forum_id=1
Acting out the parts:
Suppose Mr. USA and Mr. China get together for a little open and honest talk just for fun and perhaps a little more; to chip away at the barrier and let the chips fall.
Mr. USA may not want to participate, the idea may be unwelcome, and so it just won't happen. This thing must be open, honest, and voluntary.
Mr. China has already offered to deal as others too have been inspired similarly; Mr. Iran being a particularly significant example.
Mr. China is the big dog. Mr. China represents a whole lot of Chinese INDIVIDUALS who are particularly adept at getting on the same page; somehow acting as one for one land - Our Land.
Talking at each other, rather than negotiating, is a fad. All of us don't follow the herd, yet, a herd can exist as a result of negotiating voluntarily, openly, and honestly.
I can act my part by calling up my experience during the congressional elections in 1996
Here:
http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/1996/96Stat.htm#5
40.
Jerry Lewis, Republican
98,821
Robert `Bob' Conaway, Democrat
44,102
Joseph T. Kelley, Libertarian
4,375
Hale McGee, American Independent
4,963
Debate happens, now and then, but as a rule the object is to prey upon each other; to talk at each other and to avoid listening; at all cost.
That is a current herd mentality. It is a measure of just how low our species can sink. Like this measurment:
http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/81/81_aut.html
Autopsy Report of Mt. Carmel Doe 81
Allegedly Michael Dean Schroeder
I picked that one at random.
While debating, on the campaign trail, my partners were often not listening to my spiel concerning complicity in mass murder. Four Thousand may have been listening. Some of the petition signers expressed aggreement. I didn't have much time and so my end of the exhcanges were cut short. I can go on and on and on about complicity in mass murder. It stinks.
When a public debate is conductied the "Public" is farmed out.
Let me check that term:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=farm%20out
To send (work, for example) from a central point to be done elsewhere.
That is what I mean. The public is one central point that just happens to have a whole lot of voices if something resembling the rule of law exists. All for one and one for all. Everyone equal in the eyes of the law. I can go on and on and on about that too. It doesn’t stink.
When a public debate is conducted - the public is gagged. This is quite a feat. Please consider this:
Mr. USA and Mr. China debate with paint ball guns. The first one to get painted loses the debate. I'd use brown paint or not paint at all; the first one to get egg on their face loses the debate.
Debate is a word. I won't look it up. I'm scared. How about negotiated settlement?
I won't look that up either. Some things just don't stay in fashion long enough to stick and become solid; public record.
The law of the land
Time now for pursuing happiness
My guess is that the other Joe is good at that too.