Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Rebecca O'Connell" <rloconne AT unity.ncsu.edu>]

But the idea behind a representative democracy is that we elect
representatives and they act on our behalf. "We" hired "them" (or hired the
people who hired "them") and if "we" don¹t approve of what "they" do then we
have a civic duty to make our opinions known, to vote for better candidates,
and, if necessary, to encouraging better people to run. It seems very
defeatist to me to just say "oh, that's them, that doesn't involve me". I
understand that the richest 1% have a lot of resources that they can use to
make things go their way and that our government isn't always "of the
people, for the people, and by the people" but that's what its supposed to
be and that's what we should be working toward.

On 9/19/03 4:22 PM, "zman" <zman AT gibbon.kungfumonkey.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 brunkb AT ils.unc.edu wrote:
>>> Bush is a monster
>> The monster is in all of us.  I see it in all your posts.  Who is this "we"
>> you all talk about?  I am playing no part in the invasion of other
>> countries, and I take offense to being lumped in with the war party and all
>> that it stands for.  Until "we the people" can understand the our federal
>> government is not "we", "we" aren't going to get very far.  Whenever I talk
>> about this stuff now, I make a conscious effort to say "the government" and
>> not "we" because it is obvious to me that they aren't one and the same.
>> "They" talk about trillions and billions, while "I" struggle to not become
>> homeless.
> 
> I agree it is not "us" but "them" doing this.