Economic turmoil

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by dunc, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. dunc

    dunc Guest

    Seems to me that the following quote attributed to Marie Antoinette is
    very fitting. "In times of economic crisis, it is of utmost
    importance not to lose ones head". Perhaps she was way ahead of
    dunc, Oct 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    Good quote. But the false quote of "let them eat cake" was probably
    more responsible for her losing her head. Interestingly, one really
    serious side-effect of so many head decapitations was that Napolean
    Bonaparte's ambition to defeat England was thwarted not on the
    battlefield or on the oceans against the Royal Navy but more
    because his field and naval commanders with any experience at all
    were dead! This was especially fatal - literally - to Napolean's
    abortive attempt to invade England by first defeating the Royal
    Navy. It all came crashing down at the Battle of Trafalgar where
    Nelson defeated the combined French and Spanish fleets and sunk or
    captured nearly 20 frigates and ships of the line.

    Fast forwarding to today, I would observe that hindsight is always
    20-20 but the crystal ball is always cloudy. I got out of the
    market as much as I could back in June because I was fearful of
    some as yet unknown and undefined calamity and also worried about
    the Street factoring in a successful presidential candiate's effect
    on the economy, taxes, and regulations. But, in chaos and
    uncertainty there can be profit. I bought GM and Ford last Friday
    on the if come that they may be down but are hardly out. Nice paper
    profit today.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. That said, I would be very surprised to learn that the "economic crisis"
    quote really comes from Antoinette.

    THAT said, did you know that the frogs were still guillotining folks
    as recently as 1977?
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 13, 2008
  4. dunc

    Aardvark Guest


    Her words were the product of her upbringing and certainly NOT
    callousness or insouciance.
    Aardvark, Oct 13, 2008
  5. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    du jour ...
    Not being all that familiar with European aristocracy, especially
    the many excesses of French royalty leading to their revolution, I
    wouldn't be surprised by anthing, Blinky.
    No, but now that you mention it, I do have a fuzzy recollection
    that beheading was still on the roster as the preferred or maybe
    the only form of execution. Interesting, if true, is the belief of
    Dr. Guillotine in inventing a more humane method of execution
    actually resulted in truly barbaric deaths as the steel quality of
    the day, sharpening methods, and the number of heads chopped
    resulted in lots of partial depatitations and, so I've heard at
    least, some poor folks with not much more than a broken neck.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 14, 2008
  6. dunc

    Aardvark Guest

    Yeah, it has a nice ring to it, doesn't it. Get some ad agency to set it
    to a jingle and you might have a winner there :)
    De nada, amigo. :)
    Aardvark, Oct 14, 2008
  7. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    Well, in this example it was true - the way colonies of any
    country work is that the mother country asseses the taxes. Some
    short-sighted and some "obscene" examples managed to fan the
    flames from minor disagreement to armed insurrection to full
    scale revolution.

    BTW, ever wonder what the difference is between a rebellion and a
    revolution? I have my H.S. American History teacher to thank for
    an easy one about that:

    A revolution is a rebellion that succeeded.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 14, 2008
  8. dunc

    Aardvark Guest

    Ah! So you're saying that in some cases it's right and fitting that the
    disenfranchised to take up arms against their oppressors? Interesting.

    So if Ireland was now a 32-county republic instead of the Brits having a
    foothold in the six northern counties then those who fought the
    occupation would be called the noble 'revolutionaries' rather than the
    slightly derogatory 'rebels'?

    Hmmmmm! I like that :).
    Aardvark, Oct 14, 2008
  9. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    If you want to know the multitude of reasons, please read our
    Declaration of Independence but the operative words are
    "inalienable rights". ALL revolutions started as rebellions as I
    state below and the former British Empire upon which the sun
    never set was completely overthrown by it's colonists for the
    very same reasons by good UK friend - the wretched excesses of
    the Crown, including taxation without representation.

    Now, if you want a truly scating account of the Crown's abuses,
    they are fully delineated in the Declaration but you can also
    read the first 10 Amendments of the Constituition, known as the
    Bill of Rights. Each set of rights and freedoms were specifically
    stated to prevent the newly formed American government from being
    able to repeat the abuses suffered during the Colonial Period.

    It is these things that cover basic freedoms such as speech,
    religion, press, guns, speedy trial, writ of habeas corpus, and
    some other things people today take fully for granted but were
    very prized notions in the 18th Century.
    The UN you so fondly speak of arbitrarily partitioned the former
    state of Palestine into a Arab state of Palestine and a Jewish
    state that became modern Isreal. Unfortunately, Jeruselus was
    claim by both Arabs and Jews and fell behind the Palistinian
    border. Worse, some Arabs and Jews found themselves on the wrong
    side of the partion line leading to immediate armed conflict to
    first throw off the former British rule of the region then moving
    right along to fighting with each other.

    I leave it to the world to judge the merits of each side's case.
    This is a simplistic definition as I said. For the terrorists who
    are NOT revolutionaries that can't seem to get along between
    Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland, I say tough.
    Unfortunately, thousands and thousands have been killed or maimed
    over the centuries. That is a tragedy but not one that is
    recognized by anyone including the British.
    Thought you might, but it is still true. Think of another big one
    we had, the Confederate rebellion which was that because the
    South lost. BTW, contrary to popular believe the Civil War was
    NOT fought over slavery. Rather, the South seceded from the Union
    and the North went to war to force them to return, which they
    did. The slavery problem didn't get fixed with the Emancipation
    Proclamation either, it merely freed slaves in the South which
    didn't recognize it's validity. Lincoln signed it mainly to piss
    off the South and encource the slaves to revolt/rebel.

    Slavery was finally officially ended when the 13th Amendment was
    ratified December 6, 1865 but needed the 14th Amendment, ratified
    on June 13, 1866 to be fully implementable.

    I don't bother to keep a digital text version of the Declaration
    of Independence but have a nice one of the Constitution which I
    can post if anyone is interested.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 14, 2008
  10. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    There's at least complexity - or lack thereof - on Mr. & Mrs.
    European Union's side here. In aggregate terms, with a little
    poetic license, the big part of the EU is roughly akin to the US
    GDP/budget thingy but represents nearly a dozen individual
    countries that each are only a state or two in land area and

    That's not at all a cheap shot - or any shot - at my allies, just
    a reality. Europe is very old and has a long history of alliances
    and real or petty hatreds to worry about. I remember making a
    major faux pas while visiting London in 1971, as I described
    earlier, when I asked for "French fries". The English gentleman
    behind the counter said, "do you mean chips, Yank?" Bless you.
    I'll agree with that. Europe has ebbed and flowed wrt political
    and economic thought whereas we are the obnoxious teenagers in
    the family who think their shit don't stink.
    My view of the EU varies widely from country to country as well
    as over time, similarly to maybe your view of us as a whole or
    perhaps regionally. I have always hated the arrogance of the
    French but liked the English more because I can talk to them. I
    admire the Germans for their innovativeness and creativity,
    especially in the face of such strong Socialist tendencies. Take,
    for example, how VW might be able to prosper so much better if
    not constrained by the German AG laws that give the Supervisory
    Board comprised of 50% unions the sway over corporate decisions.
    That I can tell, there is no equivalent to an American board of
    directors in Germany.
    No problem. I don't even know the names of all of yours past the
    Magna Carta!
    After writing the above, I Googled for the D of I and pulled it
    over to MS Word. The language may be more cogent and pithy than I
    realized before in the "he did" and "allowed" passages but I
    still pretty much stand by my general comment that this was a
    highly political document. And,in Ben Franklin's best words, "if
    we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately",
    referring to the signers would all have been executed for treason
    if we'd have lost, or maybe even if the Red Coats had been able
    to capture them.
    OK, one of the best. The meaning of "best" is debatable, at best
    - pun intended.
    The old saw about "never argue about politics or religion" has
    great merit. Just in the Northern Ireland and Palestine examples
    you and I have discussed, there is great danger in a flame war,
    much as in a digital photography NG there is a debate raging
    about Obama and McCain.
    Sorry to hear about your Dad. Mine passed away in 1998. He was a
    WWII Marine who fought at Saipan and Tinian and is captured in
    Pulitzer Prize Winning Joe Rosenthal's follow-on group photo atop
    Mt. Suribachi after the second American flag raising on 23Feb45.
    Yeah, but I forget. I also saw the movie "Cromwell", but forget.
    Lots of history to remember, not all of which is of great
    interest to me any more than my short history is of cosmic
    interest to you.
    There are no deals, this is Usenet! <grin> Of course, gather your
    wits in between other important things in your life. I can easily
    spot your replies in Xnews so I won't miss them no matter what
    you call the subject.
    The trouble with trumpeting patriotism or national security is
    that not everyone sees it quite the same. e.g., the war in Iraq
    is someplace between illegal and just plain ill-advised but this
    much I do know - then Sec. of State Colin Powell, former Chairman
    of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that he KNEW that the 100
    examples of WMD he described in great detail to the UN were
    either false or suspect intelligence. Bless you, George and
    NOw or then? I assume in 1812.
    Country was barely 25 years old and the Constitution itself only
    21 but the burning issue of the day was the allegation that the
    Royal Navy was stopping our merchant ships on the high seas and
    impressing their sailors. Certainly true, and I'm sure the folks
    back home were plenty pissed off, but a clear example of emotions
    overriding reason. We had essentially no navy and no army, we
    barely had any federal budget with which to build them,but had
    these lofty notions of putting the Brits in their place again.

    Washington, DC, was burned and sacked, the White House nearly
    burned to the ground to the point it needed to be entirely
    rebuilt, and the First Lady, Dolly Madison, needed to knife out
    the famous paintings and flee herself. James Madison wasn't
    intown, can't recall where he was.
    OK, now the sharp stick is in my eye.
    Maybe, but from a practical sense, it is infeasible. No sovereign
    country is going to give the UN "teeth" when only one in the
    Security Council's veto stops the whole thing cold. e.g., exactly
    how many teeth should there have been during the war in the
    Falklands with Argentina? Great Britain needed to take some
    decisive action and did.
    The notion of war crimes isn't nonsense but how it is discussed
    and the over a century old law is nonsense, as I outlined in the
    quote below. It is just infeasible for ANY international court to
    rule over sovereign nations or even more so over alliances of
    same from a central location whether it be for war crimes or for
    economic crimes. Again, we may have to agree to disagree but
    please consider at least for a moment the different way your
    political philsophy is different than mine here, or that of your
    country and mine.

    GWB, Rumsfeld, and Cheny might/should be in Leavenworth, but NOT
    in a docket in the Hague or whatever jail there is. Look, what do
    you propose, kidnapping them? That's the only way. We are hardly
    going to allow extradition and they sure as hell won't take Air
    Force One!
    Again, and again, and again! The UN simply cannot issue a
    declaration of human rights that is enforceable nor can the Hague
    with international law and war crimes or the WTO on trade and
    economics. Alliances, treaties, and groups like the UN and Hague
    exist only on reasonable men trying to avert war but if it comes,
    the whole thing breaks down and becomes a sham. That may not be
    right, but it is real.
    No argument from me. If you were to buy into "the Jews stick
    together" form of racism, which I don't think you do, you might
    feel more strongly. But, once we decided to be Israel's ally, it
    became impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. And, our
    "friends" in Saudi Arabia really aren't, but they kinda like
    having the 7th Feet in their backyard pool.

    VERY simplistic, but how else can I describe something so vast
    that I cannot begin to comprehend?
    Yeah, except that among dictators, Tito was aguably the most
    benign in the Warsaw Pact and certainly nowhere near the tyrant
    that Hussein was.
    Keep in mind, please, is that I'm looking through American
    binoculars here. Can't really speak for you, but IIRC, he was a
    Conservative so I'd not expect you to like him any more than I
    might've liked Bill Clinton of Jimmy Carter.
    If there is real change, it generally is for the better, so yeah,
    I believe you were happy.
    Or, more corectly, loyalty to HIS or HER majesty depending on who
    sits on the throne. But, the term is commonly used to mean the
    minority party in the House of Commons keeping the majority
    honest, which is why I like the phrase because it reduces the
    amount of euphemism somewhat.
    Yes, the roots of English common law.
    Don't know if your Bobbies do that sort of thing but I can assure
    you it ain't funny. No, thankfully I've never spent a night in
    the can but friends have on unusual cases where no wrong was
    really done.
    Always like the dusted wigs as well! I'm speaking mainly of
    criminal law but it does carry over into torts because they are
    often used when criminal law doesn't work, i.e., with cigarette
    company execs, or any of the "obscene" corporate excesses we've
    talked about not to mention the minor or major scrapes people get

    Al Capone was nailed for income tax evasion but never for murder.
    O.J. Simpson is sitting in jail right now awaiting sentencing
    next month in his robbery conviction He skated on the murder rape
    in 199x.
    Likewise, in some cases we can ask for a trial by judge only but
    we also have great leeway in asking for a jury trial even if a
    judge can handle it. Probably similar circumstances.
    Interesting narratives, Aardvark. My world history was never all
    that great. I took Economic Geometry in HS instead of World
    History. In college it was Western and Non-Western Civilizations,
    essentially world history, and American History/Government both
    places. That was 45 years ago so you'll have to forgive my memory
    lapses on what was never an in-depth knowledge in the first
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 15, 2008
  11. dunc

    Aardvark Guest

    No, mate. Tony Blair is now and has been for some years a member of the
    Labour Party. His Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, took over
    the reins of power and moved into 10 Downing Street when Tony stepped
    down from the job. Gordon didn't have to move far, though, as the
    Chancellor's official address is 11 Downing Street :)
    Aardvark, Oct 17, 2008
  12. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    Then Blair has to be the most conservative Labour leader I've
    ever heard of! His fiscal policies and war on terror stance belie
    a tradional left-of-center approach to problems.

    But, perhaps a generation after Margaret Thatcher, your Labour
    and Conservatives have shown similar blending to our two parties.
    It is the approach to problems and issues that are the difference
    and not patriotism or goodness of the heart.

    Again, here we are seeing a resurgennce of "get something for
    free" because people are fed up with what they perceive are the
    excesses of a war president and their perceptions right or wrong
    of the result of fiscal policity. Doesn't matter who is right or
    wrong here as change is in the wind. Similar to the demise of
    liberalism under LBJ because of the extremely unpopular Viet Nam
    war and the obvious failure of the Great Society.

    But, I have to fall back on the notion that nothing ANY
    government provides is really free. Somebody pays. I'm reminded
    of the satire of the 1950s/60s quote "Hello, I'm from the
    government and here to help you." It made people run away in

    Look, it is patently impossible to promote a trillion dollars of
    new social spending no matter how altruisticially it is portrayed
    on the backs of the American taxpaper. Any attempt to raise taxes
    to finance this will make the Great Depression look a time of
    economic prosperity. Thankfully, the nature of our system of
    government and the nature of deficity spending itself will
    prevent a reverse scenario of wretched excess.

    FWIW, who's the leader of your Conservative Party today and when
    was it last the majority party? The pariliamentary form of
    government has at the same time a great advantage and a great
    disadvantage to our form, that of a republic.

    The advantage is that an always majority executive and
    legislative branch ensures full accountabilty, hard to blame the
    other side for failure or gridlock. The disadvantage is the very
    real prospect of any kind of errant policies causing damage
    before it can be reined in. To the extent this is true in any
    given chronoloogy can certainly be debated at great length.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 17, 2008
  13. dunc

    Aardvark Guest

    Hehe. I think your capitalism is rubbing off onto me.

    My 18 year-old daughter is a barmaid in a local pub and she asked me to
    iron her uniform because she's in work tonight.

    I refused to do it until she gave me three cigarettes :)
    Aardvark, Oct 17, 2008
  14. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    The fundamentals of capitalism really can be understood by anyone
    who has ever bought or sold something in any sort of open market
    including used cars and used houses. Or, stocks, bonds, and
    securities. The concept of supply and demand in the micro sense
    immediately comes into play and sets the ultimate price. Contrast
    this to Socialist schemes such as price controls which are
    nothing more than government sanctioned versions of price fixing.

    HEMI-Powered, Oct 18, 2008
  15. dunc

    Kusunagi Kei Guest

    Remarks like this makes me glade to live in a European county. It is a
    lack of socialism in the united states. Combined with no control over
    greedy banks and company's that is the root cause of the financial
    crisis we have today.
    Kusunagi Kei, Oct 18, 2008
  16. dunc

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Kusunagi Kei added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...
    I don't know whether to laugh with you or at you. No, amend that,
    you're a fool and an ignorant one at that if you don't have even
    a rudimentary knowledge of what you speaketh of. If you care to,
    try talking about what YOUR country does in pandering to them who
    are greedy and corrupt and what YOUR country is doing to right
    itself. In case you're not aware, I'll help you - ALL major
    countries of the world, the democracies/capitalisitic ones and
    the Socialist/Marxist ones have seen enormouse declines and are
    both part of the problem and part of the solution precisely
    because their economies and central banks are so interlocked.

    Now, if you care to, take a stab at a paragraph or two of cogent
    comments about the fundamental differences between capitalism,
    socialism, Socialism, Marxism, communism, and Communism wrt both
    political and economic doctrine. Move on from there to discuss
    the basics of the proletariat and the bourgeroisis and the entire
    notion of classes based on wealth and then move on to the
    successes and failures of ALL attempts to steer economies

    I won't be waiting with the proverbial baited breath because I
    already know you cannot cite proof or even illustrate your absurd
    position. Now, go away, fool.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 18, 2008
  17. dunc

    Kusunagi Kei Guest

    In short. Looking at the state the US is in now. Who is the fool?
    Kusunagi Kei, Oct 18, 2008
  18. *THIS* is the focus of my remarks to your "reasoning" because it is a
    paradigm characteristic remark which only justifies an emoted decision and
    shows no accurate or deliberative "reasoning" science whatsoever, outside
    of rhetoric to invoke emotional response, which is the science of political
    propaganda. To wit, "you" is a very specific singular or plural pronoun
    whereas "your country" is a non-specific and illusive variant-symbol which
    could be held to represent any number of lesser-included things - be they
    beneficial or detrimental...

    Under your purported reasoning, Blackwater operations might be held to be
    "your country" and anyone who opposes rape, pillage and plunder by 7-figure
    salary earners working under color of Blackwater's diplomat protection
    contracts might be held-up by savvy political pundits as "aiding the
    terrorists" or more obviously "NOT supporting OUR troops." Corrupt
    government employees bought and sold disease-infected blankets within the
    Native American imprisoned populations which were killing people by the
    tens-of-thousands, but any oppposition to the practice was held up as "not
    supporting your government's efforts to provide blankets to needy
    Indians." Not voting for a bill which tacks on billion dollar bridges to
    nowhere and million dollar moose piss study contracts, etc., might be held
    as "voting against our troops..." etc., typical Bush propaganda.

    Well, du'h! The statement "Ask not..." uttered by JFK at his inaguration
    was truly entered in a different time and different age of consciousness.
    On a socio-geo-political stage, ~20 years ago, the western block heralded
    the "fall of communism", purporting to represent the failure of true-
    socialism because its financial-political infrastructure imploded... thus,
    it naturally followed that capitalism had prevailed over our deadly enemy.

    YAY??? Not quite! But a few would hold on to, and perpetrate that
    ideation. What we should gather from the latest history-in-the-making is
    that we are now witnessing the incremental fall of true-capitalism. It's
    inevitable the way it's been working. Corporations, by their very nature,
    DO NOT CARE about people, only PROFITS. Corporations cannot be trusted to
    run our governments because the purpose of government is to insure the
    security and welfare of its people - NOT of its corporations,
    corporations' profits, and/or its own proliferation - like a corporation,
    on since "profit" and/or efficiency is not at issue, it's a
    bureaucratically-inclined "beast". [Deliberate referece to _Revelation_]

    Anything/everything/any-deviation-therefrom else crumbles.

    So, instead of the world talking about how st00pid Bush is, or Sarah
    Palin's wonderfully perky titties, or Yakyak Boombammathon's proclivity to
    eat fried chicken and watermelon on the White House lawn, everyone should
    be thinking in terms of merging the best of socialism with the best of
    capitalism and culling out that which didn't work, or was ultimately
    detrimental to the welfare of ALL of this planet's people.

    And, here, I tend to agree with Shakespeare : "Kill all the lawyers."

    And, I also agree with Thomas Jefferson... Most people have a tendency to
    put more effort into trying to APPEAR smart rather than walking the walk.
    Thus, most people are incapable of making an intelligent decision to the
    benefit of a massive population. A democracy is like wolves and sheep
    voting on who's having dinner and who is dinner. Most people are only
    instinctively and basically concerned about their own, and possibly their
    family's self-interests. And that's NOT a bad-thing because the security
    and welfare of one's self and one's family is a natural concern. It's why
    we maintain family units and merge into groups, from which governments is a
    natural evolution. So, as long as "... your country..." is providing those
    basic needs, or the means to achieve them, on a local/national/global
    scale, then we can work on the part where where we now might ask "... what
    you can do for your country."

    We need an surgeon. And we need a "greed-a-rectomy". Then we can get back
    to building roads and irrigation pipes and naturally generated power
    sources and move away from a short-range-profit-paradigm.

    McCain just doesn't get it. He had a chance to come out with something
    substantiative in response to Bush's rich-guy-bailout scheme. In fact, our
    5th Estate had ample opportunity to discuss the S&L failures in Texas,
    which Bush's brother was on the lead team on that debacle, and then the
    Enron and similar failures which all prognosticated a looming failure in
    our Wall Street's "business as usual," which the entire planet has
    evidently modeled their system(s) after... But, ohhh noooo, McCain just
    sang the same old Bush song, with an added "I'm not Bush" refrain...

    And, that's why I deserted the McCain camp and will vote for the other guy.

    McCain and his chosen camp have amply demonstrated that they are all about
    rhetorical extremes instead of real-life situations and solutions. It's
    Hitler's "Big Lie" perfected!

    (But, I'd still do Palin if she wasn't all married and had 5 kids and all
    that other old-people stuff... She's a M*I*LF for sure! But underneath it
    all, she's just another figurehead for corrupt corporate interests.)


    I *am* Bucky Breeder, (*(^; , and I want a nuclear-powered John Deere!
    Bucky Breeder, Oct 18, 2008
  19. dunc

    Aardvark Guest

    So the demand was that I iron her work uniform while she got herself
    ready and I was the one who was available to supply that service for her
    convenience. I therefore named my own price- three cigarettes- and became
    my own monopoly :)

    But softly, softly catchee monkey :)
    Aardvark, Oct 18, 2008
  20. dunc

    Aardvark Guest

    As far as I am concerned the 'you' in a statement of the kind to which I
    referred refers to each individual within a society. I interpret the
    'your country' in the statement to mean the society to which each
    individual within that society should contribute if they are physically
    and mentally able, for the advancement (economically, politically,
    socially, educationally etc.) of both that individual, those around him,
    and society in general. The society, in return for this individual
    contribution, should be ready, willing and able to take care of its
    weaker and less able members, in much the same way as a family doesn't
    throw a child out into the snow because that child is sickly, or mentally
    impaired or unable to contribute to that family. The family is the
    microcosm template for the macrocosm of 'society' or 'your country'.

    Only after one meets one's responsibilities to society as far as one's
    abilities allow them to should one expect that society to offer any

    Obligations first, 'rights' second.
    That kind of 'all-or-nothing' or 'with-us-or-agin-us' thinking is
    irrational and divisive and therefore ultimately counter-productive to
    what should be a common cause. Disagreement should be encouraged and
    opposing views taken into consideration in a society's decision making,
    not swept under the carpet, or worse- those who disagree should not be
    painted as disloyal to their society (or 'unpatriotic', the most vicious
    of smears).
    <sarcastic mode>Oh really? I didn't realise that.</sarcastic mode>

    I deliberately took JFK's statement totally out of context because it
    could be considered a statement which any individual should ask himself
    frequently, irrespective of governments or geopolitical goings-on.

    Should one only be willing to 'do ones bit' when a communist threat is
    looming large and there are reds under every bed or should one always be
    willing to contribute to theor society?
    There are some who believe that with all their hearts. Poor deluded fools.
    My current tendency is to agree with that statement.
    It doesn't take a genius to work that one out :)
    <sarcasm mode>I wish I had thought of that.</sarcasm mode>

    New Labour here in the UK is a fair example of attempting to merge the
    best of Thatcherite ideas (am I really saying this?) with the best
    socially responsible ideas of the Left. Accepting that the whole world
    has changed in so many ways over the last thirty or so years and
    attempting to make the system, as it is now, work for the maximum number
    of members of society.
    Agreed. With both you and with TJ. That makes three of us so far :)
    As I stated above, I usually consider the order of these things to be the
    other way around, although I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it
    should be a tit-for-tat circular sort of thing. Society scratching the
    individual's back while the individual scratches that of society. Like
    apes grooming one another :)
    Easier said than done, but good luck with that.
    Plutocracy in action.
    And for that, I commend you.
    The Josef Goebbels school of thought. Hide your club foot and maybe no
    one will notice :)
    I'd do her and I don't mind about the kids. Desperate? Me? Nah :)
    And about as bright as a three-watt light bulb. Which makes her easy for
    those interests to manipulate.
    Aardvark, Oct 18, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.