>>Wait a second. You were saying that we should not have freedom of speech a few posts ago.
Now you are saying we don't? I'm confused. <<
I was saying, freedom of speech, taken by your definition and interpretation is an impossible goal in these times.
>> The government would not be there except for the money of the rich and the power of the media. <<
Oh yes, every one in the government is taking kick-backs, and the media bossess are the puppet masters of the Prime Minister. Gimme a break...certainly the media has an influence over politics, but do you honestly believe that they control the government? At the end of the day, its those living in the electorates that decide who is in government.
>>I don't know you and trust ME even less<<
You said you trust yourself even less, then why before did you say "Or is it that you do not trust the rest of us to be able to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong" ? How can you make your own decisions if you can't trust yourself?
>>>>I don't know you and trust ME even less<<
I don't trust myself not to be influenced by the offer of large quantities of money and power.
But by understanding my strengths and weaknesses, and in others, I can use them to my advantage.
And yes I do think that the PM would not be there if the media monsters decided together he should not. I think that most politicians get into it for the right reasons but soon discover that there is very little they can change. Why not enjoy the perks?
Look at former senator O'chee(?). Not as honest and upstanding as he once was. What has changed? Is it that he no longer needs to keep up the pretence or is it the he has become corrupt?
Or Clinton who is a proven liar, even under oath, and not be charged with a thing. (In the J Flowers case he said he did not have any affairs, specifically denying one with ML and rested on his reputation as a family man an Pres of USA.)