Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Easy E wrote: I always got the feeling that wargamers tend to be more conservative than liberal.
I'm interested to hear anecdotes and see the polling data either way.
There are 5 guys in my gaming group, we're all friends. 3 of us swing to the left, 2 to the right. It's no coincidence that the ones on the right also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with immigrants and prisoners. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Hey! Check this out:
It's no coincidence that the ones on the left also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with greedy bankers and privileged people in general. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the right has a monopoly on spouting ill-informed, half thought-through dogma. If anything, the left is more guilty of this at the moment - people are being encouraged to genuinely hate the wealthy, which is a little odd, considering that not many of them took out sub-prime mortgages...
The left are objectively more educated than the right.
People are angry at the rich because virtually all GDP growth of the past 30 years has flowed directly into their pockets, yet they pay feth all tax on it.
In New York, if you make over 500 thousand a year you pay about 45% of your income back to the government, and tax breaks do not make the wealthy come out on top with their taxes, it just makes them lose less. I am sorry, but to me a massive taxation for ANY class should not be the case, what needs to be done IMO is just to remove tax returns flat out (Yes I understand it would hurt many people, both lower and middle class). Besides, the wealthy have always been in power, it is quite frankly a waste of time to bitch about it.
DA 4000 points W/L/D 6e 3/2/0
IG 1500 points W/L/D 6e 0/2/0
And 100% Primed!
Romney will accuse others that if they don't release their returns and they're spouses, they're hiding something. was it a Freudian slip? is he projecting? or just a lying sack of ?
I consider MSNBC in the same light that you see FoxNews...
You know what season it is??? It's the Political GOTCHA season!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney and Bain:
is Romney committing a felony or is he just lying to the public?
If I was going to save 5 million a year on taxes under his tax plan, I'd vote for him. But he has no interest in helping anyone other than the top 1% in the country. Its not hating on him, its looking at him and realizing what a lying sack of he is, and wondering if he flips flops so often he's called an etch a sketch, why would anyone vote for him?
Bain?
Do you understand US corporate laws related to the president/CEO board vs. SEC?
Romney will accuse others that if they don't release their returns and they're spouses, they're hiding something. was it a Freudian slip? is he projecting? or just a lying sack of ?
I consider MSNBC in the same light that you see FoxNews...
You know what season it is??? It's the Political GOTCHA season!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney and Bain:
is Romney committing a felony or is he just lying to the public?
If I was going to save 5 million a year on taxes under his tax plan, I'd vote for him. But he has no interest in helping anyone other than the top 1% in the country. Its not hating on him, its looking at him and realizing what a lying sack of he is, and wondering if he flips flops so often he's called an etch a sketch, why would anyone vote for him?
Bain?
Do you understand US corporate laws related to the president/CEO board vs. SEC?
Did you watch the video and hear what Romney was saying in his own words about tax returns? You should watch the video before you just dismiss whats in it.
do you understand either by his own admission Romney is either lying to the american people, or he committed a felony by lying to the government? so which is it? Is he a liar or should he face felony charges?
Romney will accuse others that if they don't release their returns and they're spouses, they're hiding something. was it a Freudian slip? is he projecting? or just a lying sack of ?
I consider MSNBC in the same light that you see FoxNews...
You know what season it is??? It's the Political GOTCHA season!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney and Bain:
is Romney committing a felony or is he just lying to the public?
If I was going to save 5 million a year on taxes under his tax plan, I'd vote for him. But he has no interest in helping anyone other than the top 1% in the country. Its not hating on him, its looking at him and realizing what a lying sack of he is, and wondering if he flips flops so often he's called an etch a sketch, why would anyone vote for him?
Bain?
Do you understand US corporate laws related to the president/CEO board vs. SEC?
Did you watch the video and hear what Romney was saying in his own words about tax returns? You should watch the video before you just dismiss whats in it.
do you understand either by his own admission Romney is either lying to the american people, or he committed a felony by lying to the government? so which is it? Is he a liar or should he face felony charges?
I'm work blocked from that link... got a transcript somewhere?
Irregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
Also, as a corporation, you must file quarterly/annual releases to the SEC which names the officers of that company. If memory serves me right, he took a leave of absences to take care of the Winter Games (which implied, that he'd be back), but he never went back to that old position. What I don't know is how/when (or now long) a transfer take when you leave a corporation. I don't think you can just say "I quit" and "thats that".
Also, there's a big distinction between privately held companies vs publically traded companies. Bain wasn't traded publically.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
Easy E wrote: I always got the feeling that wargamers tend to be more conservative than liberal.
I'm interested to hear anecdotes and see the polling data either way.
There are 5 guys in my gaming group, we're all friends. 3 of us swing to the left, 2 to the right. It's no coincidence that the ones on the right also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with immigrants and prisoners. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Hey! Check this out:
It's no coincidence that the ones on the left also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with greedy bankers and privileged people in general. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the right has a monopoly on spouting ill-informed, half thought-through dogma. If anything, the left is more guilty of this at the moment - people are being encouraged to genuinely hate the wealthy, which is a little odd, considering that not many of them took out sub-prime mortgages...
The left are objectively more educated than the right.
That's not really relevant to the post of mine that you quoted, plus I'd like to see some sources for that, in the interests of fair debate. Also, I happen to be educated and a Conservative Party member. In fact, I'd wager that I've been exposed to as much (if not more) left-wing political writing as you. It's largely illiberal horsegak, based on paternalist intellectual elitism. Sorry, but this tired argument that people are right-wing because they're somehow intellectually inferior to those on the left just doesn't wash. It's a myth. It's basically just name-calling.
People are angry at the rich because virtually all GDP growth of the past 30 years has flowed directly into their pockets, yet they pay feth all tax on it.
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard the rhetoric before. The fact is, we've spent beyond our means on social welfare for far too long, in an attempt to mitigate the social damage done by the collapse of our competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. We left ourselves incredibly exposed to the financial crisis, a crisis caused by all of us - lenders and debtors. We all enjoyed the party, but the party's over.
Wardragoon wrote:
In New York, if you make over 500 thousand a year you pay about 45% of your income back to the government, and tax breaks do not make the wealthy come out on top with their taxes, it just makes them lose less. I am sorry, but to me a massive taxation for ANY class should not be the case, what needs to be done IMO is just to remove tax returns flat out (Yes I understand it would hurt many people, both lower and middle class). Besides, the wealthy have always been in power, it is quite frankly a waste of time to bitch about it.
Theoretical tax is not actual tax. If you earn a serious amount of money you can avoid it altogether. Very highly paid professionals tend to pay tax, but businesses/corporations evade tax on a horrific scale.
Albatross wrote:
That's not really relevant to the post of mine that you quoted, plus I'd like to see some sources for that, in the interests of fair debate. Also, I happen to be educated and a Conservative Party member. In fact, I'd wager that I've been exposed to as much (if not more) left-wing political writing as you. It's largely illiberal horsegak, based on paternalist intellectual elitism. Sorry, but this tired argument that people are right-wing because they're somehow intellectually inferior to those on the left just doesn't wash. It's a myth. It's basically just name-calling.
It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
Also I definitely did not say *all* right-wingers are of a low intelligence. Please don't assume I would write off the intellectual contributions of millions of people based on their political beliefs.
Albatross wrote:
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard the rhetoric before. The fact is, we've spent beyond our means on social welfare for far too long, in an attempt to mitigate the social damage done by the collapse of our competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. We left ourselves incredibly exposed to the financial crisis, a crisis caused by all of us - lenders and debtors. We all enjoyed the party, but the party's over.
I'm not going to defend the financial policy of the last Labour government, although economically it was decided right-wing so feel free to dig into it.
The size of the state does not stifle the private sector. If I'm running a market stall, do I care if the people buying my goods are paid by the state or by the private sector? How will the state stop me competing with other apple carts?
Businessmen just don't like paying tax. Our economy is insanely productive, it is one of the most efficient in the world. Diverting profits from shareholder dividends (i.e. the rich) to public investment is not an economically damaging thing.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Albatross wrote:
That's not really relevant to the post of mine that you quoted, plus I'd like to see some sources for that, in the interests of fair debate. Also, I happen to be educated and a Conservative Party member. In fact, I'd wager that I've been exposed to as much (if not more) left-wing political writing as you. It's largely illiberal horsegak, based on paternalist intellectual elitism. Sorry, but this tired argument that people are right-wing because they're somehow intellectually inferior to those on the left just doesn't wash. It's a myth. It's basically just name-calling.
It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
You'd be wasting your time, because that wouldn't have any bearing on a discussion of UK left/right debate. The political culture is very different, as pointed out in this very thread. Have you read that Daily Mail article, incidentally? That study sounds spurious, putting it kindly.
Also I definitely did not say *all* right-wingers are of a low intelligence. Please don't assume I would write off the intellectual contributions of millions of people based on their political beliefs.
Oh, absolutely not! Perish the thought! You'd just make sweeping generalisations about them, citing a Daily Mail article as 'objective' proof. Well done, you. Good show.
I'm not going to defend the financial policy of the last Labour government, although economically it was decided right-wing so feel free to dig into it.
Actually, no. It was the worst of both worlds. 'De-regulation! Also, spending!!!' It was insanity.
The size of the state does not stifle the private sector. If I'm running a market stall, do I care if the people buying my goods are paid by the state or by the private sector? How will the state stop me competing with other apple carts?
By opening a rival apple cart, exercising artificial deflationary pressure on pricing (with the taxpayers picking up the tab), eventually forcing you out of business. It's ok though, one day the state market workers will decide they want to be paid twice as much and the whole thing will come crashing down because it's not economically viable to run a business that loses money as part of its business model.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/29 22:15:46
I'm work blocked from that link... got a transcript somewhere?
Irregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
Also, as a corporation, you must file quarterly/annual releases to the SEC which names the officers of that company. If memory serves me right, he took a leave of absences to take care of the Winter Games (which implied, that he'd be back), but he never went back to that old position. What I don't know is how/when (or now long) a transfer take when you leave a corporation. I don't think you can just say "I quit" and "thats that".
Also, there's a big distinction between privately held companies vs publically traded companies. Bain wasn't traded publically.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
First, go watch the videos when you get the chance, second the fact check site does not include the fact that romney continued to get paid by Bain for the next 2 years, nor does it address the fact that Romney was still running bain for the next 3 years.
http://theweek.com/article/index/230528/mitt-romneys-big-lie-on-bain-6-ways-it-hurts-him "which said that despite Romney's repeated insistence that he left private equity firm Bain Capital in February 1999, he was actually listed in SEC and Massachusetts legal filings as its "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002, pulling in an "executive" salary of at least $100,000 a year."
01So wait til you get a chance to see the videos, they explain all this better than I can type it out, then try to post a reply to defend him.
As president, Mitt Romney’s first step in improving labor policy will be to ensure that our labor laws create a stable and level playing field on which businesses can operate. As they hire, businesses should not have to worry that a politicized federal agency will rewrite the rules of the employment game without warning and without regard for the law.
Translation: feth anyone who thinks they shouldn't have to pick strawberries and cotton for third-world wages. feth you if you might get pregnant. feth you if you don't want to work in unsafe environments. And feth you if you think there should be a minimum wage.
•Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Translation: Non-corporation COO's need not apply.
•Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
Translation: feth you, employees. You'll get paid if your boss thinks you deserve it.
•Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor
Translation: feth you, employees. You try to unionize and you'll get fired and beaten.
Mitt Romney believes in the right of workers to join a union or to not join a union. To exercise that right freely, workers must have access to all the relevant facts they need to make an informed decision. This means hearing from both the union about the potential benefits and from management about potential costs. This also means being able to act on that decision in the privacy of the ballot booth.
Translation: Go ahead and join a union! The company doesn't have to recognize it! But they can threaten to close down the entire site if you unionize, so go vote and feth you!
•Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
Translation: It's much easier for companies to coerce and intimidate employees via secret ballot, so Mitt will only allow that method.
•Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
Translation: No fething way is Mitt going to allow the company going to get caught off-guard by the formation of a union.
•Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
Translation: You wanna be part of the union? feth you, you won't be hired. Mitt will hire the guy that doesn't join the union, instead.
As matters currently stand, unions can take money directly from the paychecks of American workers and spend it on politicking—each election cycle, unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars. In non-Right-to-Work states, employees have little choice but to watch their money go toward such expenditures, even if they do not support the union and its political agenda. The result is the creation of an enormously powerful interest group whose influence is disproportionate to its actual support and whose priorities are fundamentally misaligned with those of businesses and workers—and thus with the needs of the economy.
Translation: Mitt thinks that union employees dislike being part of a union; perhaps because Mitt believes that the smiling guy that greets you at Wal-Mart is actually happy with his job.
•Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks
Translation: feth you, unions. If it weren't for you, employees would have absolutely no power, just the way Mitt thinks it should be.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
I'm work blocked from that link... got a transcript somewhere?
Irregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
Also, as a corporation, you must file quarterly/annual releases to the SEC which names the officers of that company. If memory serves me right, he took a leave of absences to take care of the Winter Games (which implied, that he'd be back), but he never went back to that old position. What I don't know is how/when (or now long) a transfer take when you leave a corporation. I don't think you can just say "I quit" and "thats that".
Also, there's a big distinction between privately held companies vs publically traded companies. Bain wasn't traded publically.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
First, go watch the videos when you get the chance, second the fact check site does not include the fact that romney continued to get paid by Bain for the next 2 years, nor does it address the fact that Romney was still running bain for the next 3 years.
Okay... just watched it.
It was awkward... but, I don't see a problem. Maybe I'm just weird or too dense...
http://theweek.com/article/index/230528/mitt-romneys-big-lie-on-bain-6-ways-it-hurts-him
"which said that despite Romney's repeated insistence that he left private equity firm Bain Capital in February 1999, he was actually listed in SEC and Massachusetts legal filings as its "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002, pulling in an "executive" salary of at least $100,000 a year."
01So wait til you get a chance to see the videos, they explain all this better than I can type it out, then try to post a reply to defend him.
Right... he was basically the OWNER of Bain! Its not like you can disengage yourself from this business overnight...
But, hey, if you wanna ding him for this, go ahead. It's a weak-sauce attack...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, sorry for the garish colouring. I intended to use blue as well, but the contrast was even worse, and was too lazy to remove the red.
Wow... just... wow.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 02:11:10
You'd be wasting your time, because that wouldn't have any bearing on a discussion of UK left/right debate. The political culture is very different, as pointed out in this very thread. Have you read that Daily Mail article, incidentally? That study sounds spurious, putting it kindly.
It was a Canadian study. Unless your right-wing intelligence prevents you from acknoledging the broad trend in left/right across the Western world? References to the study here and here. The study itself is linked on the Guardian website if you'd care to click through.
Actually, no. It was the worst of both worlds. 'De-regulation! Also, spending!!!' It was insanity.
As I said, deregulation is a right-wing principal, don't expect me to defend it. I also won't defend Labour's PFI program, or gross overspends on virtually every public project.
By opening a rival apple cart, exercising artificial deflationary pressure on pricing (with the taxpayers picking up the tab), eventually forcing you out of business. It's ok though, one day the state market workers will decide they want to be paid twice as much and the whole thing will come crashing down because it's not economically viable to run a business that loses money as part of its business model.
In what sector does the state compete with the private to the private's detriment?
In sectors where private and the state compete, the state is almost always worse off. Just look at health, where the NHS spends billions of pounds training up doctors and nurses, only for many of them to leave to highly paid jobs in the private sector.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 02:30:12
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
whembly wrote: But, he's still going to govern they way he has in the past.
I'm not convinced.
He chose Paul Ryan after all.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I mean, just imagine how much ranting and raving that Fraz would give if Obama chose Pelosi as his running mate.
Actually, I'd pay to see that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 03:05:47
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Testify wrote: It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
You said left-leaning types were more intelligent, not that they'd completed a higher level of education. I've known some absolute fethwits with Master's degrees.
Also, is the correlation you point out proof that liberals are simply more intelligent, or is it proof that if you spend five to seven years being taught by an unquestionably liberalized establishment, you'll tend to think more liberal when you get out? Food for thought.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 03:16:06
Automatically Appended Next Post: One more before I go to bed.
This was funny:
We’re a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we’re a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I’ve heard on the campaign bus ...and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies. I said, I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts withAC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.
Awesome-sauce.
@d-usa, this was what *I* was trying to say in the other thread... Ryan articulated it better:
Behind every small business, there’s a story worth knowing. All the corner shops in our towns and cities, the restaurants, cleaners, gyms, hair salons, hardware stores— these didn’t come out of nowhere. A lot of heart goes into each one. And if small businesspeople say they made it on their own, all they are saying is that nobody else worked seven days a week in their place. Nobody showed up in their place to open the door at five in the morning. Nobody did their thinking, and worrying, and sweating for them. After all that work, and in a bad economy, it sure doesn’t help to hear from their president that government gets the credit. What they deserve to hear is the truth: Yes, you did build that.
Okay... be nice folks .
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 04:25:51
Seaward wrote:Also, is the correlation you point out proof that liberals are simply more intelligent, or is it proof that if you spend five to seven years being taught by an unquestionably liberalized establishment, you'll tend to think more liberal when you get out? Food for thought.
I think the proof is that liberals typically don't believe man rode dinosaurs 6000 years ago when the Earth was new. That being said, statistically the left wingers will be better educated simply because they have a lower percentage of willful ignorance (eg. Earth- and life-sciences). The statistics reflect the answer originally posted, but not for the reasons generally assumed.
...which brings me to an interesting point: I'm honestly saddened to see the melding of the Republican party with the Christian crazies. Imagine the discourses on current issues that could be had between the Democrats and the Republicans of pre-1980 (which is approximately when the Christian fundamentalists truly started to permeate the Republican base)
whembly wrote:To those outside of US... does it get this silly?
Silly? I'm afraid so. However, it gets nowhere near as pathetic.
Roll that cowboy around in some dirt....its just...to clean looking
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
His face... it's... no. It doesn't work. Not a cowboy.
He's a poser.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
DAaddict wrote: PersonallyI don't think the Dems plan - or lack there of - holds any water. The general stick-your-head-in-the-sand and keep running up the debt on things we would LIKE to have is getting to be alarming.
Now I think the Republican austerity plan is going to be highly unpopular unless they can really communicate.
My prediction is the populace will vote for bread and circuses. All of you non-US citizens get to watch Rome burn. While we continue to hope we have a little change left in our pockets.
Budget growth has been largest during Republican administrations since Regan.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
RAGE
Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Melissia wrote: His face... it's... no. It doesn't work. Not a human.
He's a snake.
Fixed.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
DAaddict wrote: PersonallyI don't think the Dems plan - or lack there of - holds any water. The general stick-your-head-in-the-sand and keep running up the debt on things we would LIKE to have is getting to be alarming.
Now I think the Republican austerity plan is going to be highly unpopular unless they can really communicate.
My prediction is the populace will vote for bread and circuses. All of you non-US citizens get to watch Rome burn. While we continue to hope we have a little change left in our pockets.
Budget growth has been largest during Republican administrations since Regan.
Meanwhile, the claim that the Democrats don't have a plan is based off of ignorance.
Often willful ignorance.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
You'd be wasting your time, because that wouldn't have any bearing on a discussion of UK left/right debate. The political culture is very different, as pointed out in this very thread. Have you read that Daily Mail article, incidentally? That study sounds spurious, putting it kindly.
It was a Canadian study. Unless your right-wing intelligence prevents you from acknoledging the broad trend in left/right across the Western world?
Listen, if you're going to be snide, at least try not to make yourself look foolish in the process. I was replying to this:
Testify wrote:It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
And yes, I am aware that it was a Canadian study. It sounds distinctly dodgy. Testing the intelligence of British kids in the 1950s, then recording their political leanings in 1970? And that is supposed to be objective proof? There are 'scientific' studies 'proving' that black people were less intelligent than whites. It's a wonderful thing, bias.
And also, I find it hilarious that you assume that only people ostensibly on the right are socially conservative. Go to any (post-)industrial northern Labour town. Seriously, do it. Won't find many social liberals there. In fact, trades unionists were some of the most vociferous racists, historically.
By opening a rival apple cart, exercising artificial deflationary pressure on pricing (with the taxpayers picking up the tab), eventually forcing you out of business. It's ok though, one day the state market workers will decide they want to be paid twice as much and the whole thing will come crashing down because it's not economically viable to run a business that loses money as part of its business model.
In what sector does the state compete with the private to the private's detriment?
In sectors where private and the state compete, the state is almost always worse off. Just look at health, where the NHS spends billions of pounds training up doctors and nurses, only for many of them to leave to highly paid jobs in the private sector.
Which is a tiny fraction of the size of the NHS. Case in point. Incidentally, my example was a fairly obvious microcosm of what happened to British manufacturing in the 1970s. I'm sure you picked up on that, what with you being a super-intelligent lefty, and all...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 10:59:47
Melissia wrote: I mean, just imagine how much ranting and raving that Fraz would give if Obama chose Pelosi as his running mate.
Actually, I'd pay to see that.
He effectively did when he let her handle health care while he was off golfing, instead of focusing on the economy.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
[quote=whembly 473021 4710902 39c390908b09e54f8e65b630e8dd196c.jpgIrregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
This part was just too precious!
More like if he did something illegal, the SEC would fine him a pitiful amount in exchange for signing a document that said he didn't agree he did anything illegal or wrongful. If you consider that one big-mutha fething hammer.... shrug.
In November 2011, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court in Manhattan, threw out a settlement between the S.E.C. and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.
The judge ruled that the S.E.C.’s $285 million settlement, is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest” because it does not provide the court with evidence on which to judge the settlement.
The ruling could have thrown the S.E.C.’s enforcement efforts into chaos, because a majority of the fraud cases and other actions that the agency brings against Wall Street firms are settled out of court, most often with a condition that the defendant does not admit that it violated the law while also promising not to deny it. That condition gives a company or individual an advantage in subsequent civil litigation for damages, because cases in which no facts are established cannot be used in evidence in other cases, like shareholder lawsuits seeking recovery of losses or damages.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
SEC actions are public. Do you have any proof of SEC actions against Romney or Bain related to whatever the hell you are supposedly accusing him of?
A reminder if you lie here you may open yourself to legal liability. Just a reminder.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
W/L/D 6e 3/2/0
W/L/D 6e 0/2/0
?
