Your post reminded me... This cracked me up on Cheers:

Woody: Yah, too bad we lost the Revolutionary War.

Other guy: Uh, Woody, we won the Revolution.

Woody: Oh yah? Then why do we speak English?

Is this the pot calling the kettle black? We all have some sins in our pasts. The US and England have more than a place like Australia because we are pretty small fry really and weren't big enough to do the same things. Won't say we are pure though just smaller.

Regarding Ireland I did see a quoted letter in Montgomery's Biography from when he was in charge of the Army in Ireland in about 1932 in which he says, 'if anyone gives us any trouble we just shoot them'. He did enjoy some success and it appears he was getting on top of that situation before the IRA sought an accomadation with the politicians in London. Of course at about that time he was also sent to Southern England to prepare defences there. So that one could be argued to death for no result.

What were we talking about?

Stephen

I guess it's all heading toward the same questions, no matter which
of these political threads ya refer to.

The point I keep trying to make is;
The folks with the mega-millions always seem to get behind the wheel,
once we get past grubbing for a sustainance living.
As soon as sociaty gets eficient enough to have "extra" or even "exexss"
The dukes and earls resurface.

I'm saying we (US) little guys are in the arena, like Kirk Douglass
and I forget the other guy, in Sparticus.
We are a war with each other while they ? Peter Ustinov ?
sit there eating grapes and paying others to run interfereance for them,
and clean up after their power-orgies.

Why not reunify the little guys and take it all back?
m1m

Knudsen,

Please forgive my rant, but the tone taken by Mark, (seemed to me) was that I was somehow calling for the blood of innocent Muslims, and he chose to make his cheap rhetorical point on the Blood of 3000 (give or take) New Yorkers.

In following this thread, I saw a reference to Pershing, OT, of course, but added an story I had heard, all anecdotal, relating to an alleged suppression of Moro insurgents in the Philippines. As much to clear up the time line of Pershing's service, as anything. I also noted that Snopes.com, the de-bunking site, had found it impossible to verify ether way.

In that particular response, I also posted a poem, by Kipling, "White Man's Burden" that articulated the futility of foreign entanglements, which I DO NOT support.

I make no claims about the purity of America's actions, past or present, or even the purity of her intentions, but I will not be preached to, by someone who is apparently unaware of his own country's bloody-handedness, and let it go unanswered.

Mate I think we come from a similar place with a few variations. I think that we will always have the rich and there is no getting rid of them. There might be some changes but there will always be an establishment or an upper class. No point to me being upset about it.

Making more laws and regulations doesn't seem to help most people but the wealthy and powerful seem to do well out of it. Just thing how much lawyers and accountants make out of the various regulations. Other people in the loop or big companies with money to spend and resources to allocate tend to do well enough out of new laws. Small and medium sized people and businesses will often struggle with all of this stuff such as changes to the law. They are attempting to bring all their limited resources to bear in making a basic crust.

To me it boils down to how equality is defined. Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. I go with opportunity myself although I admit the need for some type of welfare or safety net for those less capable smart lucky or whatever. I would like to see limitations on the net as I think if you let it go too far it strangles society rather than catching those less fortunate.

What I personally see often times when there are people on the evening news crying out about some injustice or another is a wealthy guy trying to get a favoured place with easy money and easy work. What economists call a rent seeker.

It's not that we want such a different world just that we believe in different methods.

Stephen

Not really to try and negate your point(s), but they (the rich) do even better with less laws and regulation. They need to be THE RIGHT LAWS and regulations for the particular problems. Not that there is TOO much hope of politicians getting that right.

Jeff

Jeff I can agree with you about having the right laws are regulations. I do think that too many laws and regs hurt enterprise and favour entrenched interests. I don't want to getting into an argument about it, but I think it is fair for me to say what I believe. Often with this stuff it depends on the details in the particular situation.

Stuff like the lack of regulation in the derivatives market led to a major mess, I think there are people that made money out of that and others that lost money and got bailed out. Although I am sure there are a stack of stories about businesses trying to make an honest living and employ people who struggle with many regulations that are a serious cost to their business.

Stephen

And do you wonder that a Health Bill is 2000+ pages? If they do not cross every T and dot every I, the lawyers will read it and say it does NOT say we can't charge this.

There is not a single phrase that can be concocted by human legislators that cannot be twisted by lawyers to allow them to take money from any law ever written.

It does NOT mean that. This comma is over on this side of a word, so we CAN charge that.

I will have to find the page that cost the US Gov one million bucks a hundred years ago that was just because the comma was one word to the left.

This is WHY Laws are so voluminous. The 18 pages that the Reps said they had, I would bet had at least a thousand loopholes in it. That is what lawyers do.

That is also what Reps do. Make laws that do not hinder their "base". Does the last 8 years bring any of those to mind?

Cheers,

George

George, You are right about the comma; A couple of years ago I got into a question with my tax guy about 'writing off' tech data as a business expense, and there was a case in the legal literature, where hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes and fees were paid (or not paid) based on a 'comma' in the wording of tax law, instead of a 'semi-colon'. Went to the state supreme court. Seems the company in question owed the tax ( that was the intent of the law) but that semi-colon saved their ass.

And nobody seems to think lawyers have any bearing on health care expenses?

yeah, right.

Thru,

That is why your insurance does not come with a one page, binding, synopsis. Wiggle room has to be built into it.

"We will pay for your stay in the Hospital". Small print, "You are not SUPPOSED to use this part of this contract, and we will fight you to the penny."

Obama Admin is supposed to have given some teeth to the USDA or FDA to actually require recall of toxic product, including tainted onions and tomatoes, which you would think, when we had the e-coli scares, would be automatic.

Another was a 25 MILLION pound ground beef contamination the processor stretched out so long that nearly all of it was sold and eaten before the processor agreed to recall what was left.

I do not study this, so I cannot honestly tell you if there was even another voluntary recall of a product, other than the Tylenol poisoning of about 15 or 20 years ago. They recalled every bottle on the shelves and in the pipeline.

I would wager you rarely see another company voluntarily recall ANYTHING, and only a legal requirement to do so WILL make them recall poisonous or dangerous product.

Cheers,

George