American elections

There is a lot of confusion between the Libertarian Party and the Tea
Drinkers. Although the Libs (like myself) desire limited government and a
closely regulated tax system, it is bound up in notions of personal freedom.
Yes that includes the freedom to sink or swim by your own abilities. The
Tea lobby demand limitations of Fed government and taxation but come from a
very different direction and somewhat from within the Republican party. They
also want to see the country ruled within the Constitution and Bill of
Rights and remove the ability of the Supreme Court/Fed ability to ride over
it.

In all these things you have to remember however that America is 50
different countries and in matters of "House" and Party elections they can
be as different as France, Britain and Germany. For instance Republicans
and the attitude to illegal immigration varies hugely across states. So
really you have matters of Congress, Senate and Presidency X 50. It is quite
as complex politically as the EU, so considering in parallel to UK politics
leads you astray.

Then add in a considerable consideration of race with the three main groups
caucasian, black and hispanic voting along racial lines. But they are also
each fractured down Democrat, Republican (and Libertarian) lines. Finally
add in the Jewish and East Asian/Oriental groups, who are typically
successful, numerous and have their own inscrutable agendas.

 

See my other comment in this thread. It depends which of the 50 countries in
the Fed you happen to be in and which sector of industry.

 

Indeed.

And that's why *everything* that comes from Govt these days is geared
to "The Markets". If "The Markets" won't like it, it probably won't
happen, or will be watered down to limit the effect on "The Markets"

 

And then how it's been taken to the furthest extreme with share
buybacks.

 

I just didn't want to make it that complicated!

 

Their primary problem is that the good protestant peoples of Britain,
Ireland, Scandanavia and Germany who made it a great nation will soon become
a minority in a sea of Untermensch. Hence aforesaid are cashing up and
moving out, or getting ready to do so.

So there ;o)

 

Assumption makes an Ass out of U and mption.

<fx: horrible flashbacks to ISO9001 / TQM "motivational" videos with
Andrew Neil in, from the late '80s>

I was a key stakeholder in a Fast Action Response Team once, you know.

 

I used to lead IT for a billion dollar business.

It's best not to look back ;o)

 

what's wrong with being responsible for the death/torture/general
persecution of people in South American countries just to try and
prove/justify an intellectually-bankrupt economic theory that most
people even slightly left-wing of Genghis Khan can see is a load of
fucking bullshit?

Give the guy a break, FFS - I mean, it could have been worse...

 

actually, you are incorrect. Growth and the provision of liquidity are
not wrong inherently. Read some Stiglitz.

It's the cunts that try to game the system / just flat-out lie, cheat,
and steal are the problem with Capitalism.

 

well, the F.A.R.T. I was in was sort of an in-joke...

The amount of documentation we had to generate to get ISO9001
accreditation still makes me shudder to think of, so yes you're right,
it's best not to look back.

 

Snouts in troughs. No offence intended to anyone with a porcine posting
name naturally.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Aprilia Shiver Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

How is that any different to the attitude shown by many on this here NG?

I'm surprised equal rights were ever recognized in this country.

 

and communism. and facism.

 

communism assumes the concept of tabula rasa[1], and hence inherently
flawed, as humans to in fact have a "nature", and that nature is to be
nasty, greedy and vicious. Having said that, I can't think of a single
"communist" regime that actually adhered to the principles of
communism, probably for the reason I've just mentioned.

Fascism assumes that individuality can be subsumed into the dream of
the group/state/nationality, but also ignores (or worse, embraces)
nastiness greed and viciousness.



[1] Marx was *such* a doofus. And he had the temerity to criticise
Engels. Oh, and putting it into practice, the only "communist"
revolutionary that would retrospectively appear to not have been a
complete **** was Guevara. Lenin was a bully, Stalin was a psychopath,
Trotsky was a self-deluded fool etc. etc. And don't even start on the
cunts that ran "communist" regimes in South East Asia. But hey, the
Shining Path - they were pretty cool.

 

You just don't have enough to do it seems.
But I'd certainly agree that any politicians with communist skeletons in
their family closets should have to excoriate themselves

 

That's a nice generic overview, but it ignores the fact that several
specific decisions were made that caused this "correction" to be far,
far worse than it needed to be.