How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 I wonder?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

I wonder?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


25 posted 04-21-2010 12:03 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SprinJ/2010/SprinJ20100421_low.jpg
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


26 posted 04-21-2010 12:18 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm arguing in favor of private industry/free markets vs. government control/monopoly, Ron.

There should be a way to address concerns and problems without government takeovers of one section of the economy after the other.


I guess I would say that the baby is the free market system/capitalism and the bath water is any associated problems, Bob.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


27 posted 04-21-2010 06:23 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I'm arguing in favor of private industry/free markets vs. government control/monopoly, Ron.

There should be a way to address concerns and problems without government takeovers of one section of the economy after the other.

So, uh, you don't think the government should be involved in education at all, Denise? It's private school or nothing? Private financing or nothing? You don't believe that we, as a society, need to invest in the education of our children? Especially if doing so is at the expense of the private sector?

Sorry, Denise, but again, I honestly don't think you'll get a lot of support for that perspective.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


28 posted 04-21-2010 08:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Well, Denise, nobody's actually offered you that set of options, have they?  What reality has offered you is something of an in-between situation, and what  you seem to want to argue is the extreme form of the right wing side of things.  It's an extremely confusing argument, because it confuses economic and political systems, which are related but do not have to be identical things.

     The choices you have are between more moderate actual situations.

     There is no actual free-market capitalist system that I know of in the world.  As countries approach that state, the capitalists can't help but try to meddle in the government to tilt it to their own advantage at the expense of other capitalists or other governments, and we have monopolies emerge that try to ossify the status quo forever.  Governments tend to function as controls on the excesses of such institutions.

     We need the tension between both to function.

     Most government has to find someplace between the left and the right where it can function to nurture its institutions and help its people thrive.  It has to find a pragmatic balance between greed and charity in there someplace.  

     My position is that most people have very little trouble with the greed side oif that equation, and it's the charity side of it that we need to work on.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


29 posted 04-22-2010 05:55 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Not at all Ron. I just think there is a better solution than government takeovers.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


30 posted 04-22-2010 08:47 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, don't you see the possibility of government being the biggest monopoly of all?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


31 posted 04-22-2010 04:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Not if they are an elected, representative government, Denise.  

      Also, Monopoly is pretty much an economic thing, isn't it?

     The notion of "a monopoly on power" is pretty much a monopoly by metaphor rather than a literal monopoly, though the word may have stretched its meaning by now.

     Governments retain power by legitimacy, technically speaking; that is, by the acceptance of the governed.  That comes from the bottom up.  Monopoly comes from the top down.

     Of course, you could make another argument.  I'd be interested in hearing it.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


32 posted 04-22-2010 07:27 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

When the government is taking over one economic sector after the other, I'd call that an economic thing, Bob, as well as a monopoly of power.

A government that ceases to represent their constituents, but rather their own party's ideology first and foremost, is no longer a bottom up representative government, but rather a top down monopoly.

Dare I say, aren't we all socialists now? (according to that Time Magazine cover right after the innauguration), and perhaps even heading toward communism, the ultimate goal, after all, of socialism, isn't it? I think Lenin said that, or was it Marx? How much more of our industry has to be taken over by the government before we are taken over that threshold?  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


33 posted 04-22-2010 08:33 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     According to the GM ads, GM has paid off it debt now.  It should be free from the government, if that's true.  Denise, being untrusting is a good thing.  It's protective of you, your friends and your liberty.  It needs to respond to evidence to the contrary as well, however.

     My issue here is that you are not suspicious enough, and that your suspicions are selective — that is that they are directed mostly at the left, and that you seem to ignore the dangers and assaults on your freedom by the right as well.  If you want to be suspicious of the Democrats, that's fine, and probably healthy; but to confine you suspicions there is to be far far too trusting, and to put your liberties at risk.

     Those are my thoughts.  I'm aware of dangers on the left.  I simply don't place them where you do, being a bit more familiar with them than you are.  I know that there are crazy Leftists out there, I simply identify them differently than you do.  The ones that scare me are the ones who say things like, "If you want to make omlets, you've got to break eggs."  Those folks scare me.

     I also get very nervous about people who want to talk about somebody's committment to "the revolution."  They scare me too.

     Just thought you'd like to know.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 04-22-2010 09:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON – Declaring themselves short of patience, Democrats set an initial showdown vote for next Monday on legislation to clamp new regulations on the financial industry while Republicans insisted on more bargaining.

Democrats short on patience?? Who knew???
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


35 posted 04-23-2010 06:01 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     You really wouldn't know it after the delay they had to put up with on the health care legislation, would you?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


36 posted 04-23-2010 07:31 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm not impressed with GM's paying back its debt, Bob, when that was only part of the deal with the government. The other part was the government becoming a majority shareholder in GM as a part of the bailout deal, which they still are.

I am suspicious of more than just the Progressives, Bob. But right now they are the ones who are pounding us over the head with their Marxist ideology and ramming their socialist agenda down our throats and utilizing their Alinsky-style tactics in an attempt to discredit any opposition to their 'vision' of a 'fundamentally transformed America'.

My only wish is that if they feel the need to so fundamentally transform this great country, that they would move to some other country that better suits their ideal.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


37 posted 04-23-2010 08:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Denise, if you check into the facts about the GM payback, you may see how it's a scam.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


38 posted 04-23-2010 09:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thanks Mike. The news of the pay back didn't sit right with me, knowing they were still losing money. I guess good PR for the President is the name of the game.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/more_than_meets_the_eye_to_gm.html
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


39 posted 04-23-2010 10:22 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:

But right now they are the ones who are pounding us over the head with their Marxist ideology and ramming their socialist agenda down our throats and utilizing their Alinsky-style tactics in an attempt to discredit any opposition to their 'vision' of a 'fundamentally transformed America'.

My only wish is that if they feel the need to so fundamentally transform this great country, that they would move to some other country that better suits their ideal.



     Take a deep breath, Denise.

     "Socialist agenda and Marxist ideology?"

     There is only one socialist in the Government that I know of.  His name is Bernie Sanders, and he was elected.  If you don't like him or his ideology, speak to his constituents.  The rest of the elected officials were also just that — elected officials, and if you don't like them, speak to their constituents.  I seriously doubt that many of their constituents would believe that that are either Marxist or Socialist.  I voted for the President, and I think he's barely a Democrat, let alone a Marxist, let alone a socialist.

     Now this isn't the sort of thing where we can have polls to determine what the truth is, these fellas either are or aren't Marxists and socialists, and the fact that  calling them that is popular in your neck of the woods has very little to do with what the reality of the situation actually is.

     If you think these accusations are actually true, then why not lay out what you think the actual definition of a Marxist is.  Then we'll try to get it honed down to something as measurable as we can in terms that are as concrete as we can get them, and we'll actually try to check it out instead of just throwing nasty (to many people) accusations and hoping that they stick.

     As for your wish that "they would move to some other country that better suits their ideal," I am not surprised that you would feel that way.  Imagine how the indians felt.

     In a Democracy, so long as they conform to the constitution, what makes you think your ideals have a better right to be here that theirs?  Especially since it's not entirely clear to me that you have any clear idea of exactly what their ideas actually are.  You seem to be pretty heavy with misinformation,  and whatever the folks on the Radical Right have been doing to this country for years doesn't seem to have moved to you criticism of their actions along the way.  Even now, you remain critical of this administration rather than the actions of the last one, which got us into this mess in the first place.  I don't have to tell you that you have a right to your opinion; you've voiced it very clearly.

     While I won't say that this administration is faultless, I do say that my areas for disagreement would probably be different than yours in many ways.

     And what, specifically, did you find so objectionable about Saul Alinsky's tactics that you would condemn them in this fashion?

      
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


40 posted 04-24-2010 11:02 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Some common sense from Sarah Palin about Financial Reform:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/note.php?note_id=382303098434&id=24718773587

How many in the current administration are former Goldman Sachs employees?

I know what Marxism, Socialism and Communism are, Bob, although I'm sure we have different views of their ideologies. How many of the people that this president surrounds himself with are self-professed Marxists, Socialists and Communists? How many are Mao admirers?

In what sense does the Left conform to the Constitution, you know, that document that Obama disparages as being a list of negative liberties, one that attempts to constrain government and also the document that he believes didn't allow the Warren Court 'to go far enough' in addressing redistributive justice?

What I find objectionable about Alinsky tactics are its 'ends justify the means mentality'.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


41 posted 04-24-2010 11:07 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Some common sense from Sarah Palin about Financial Reform:

What do you think should be done to reform the financial sector Denise.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


42 posted 04-24-2010 11:23 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

This article goes into detail about what could work:
http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/curbing-risk-on-wall-street
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


43 posted 04-24-2010 11:27 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


What do you think will work Denise?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


44 posted 04-24-2010 03:41 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I like the idea of moving beyond the 'too big to fail' concept and requiring banks to have a sufficient capital to debt ratio, enough of a cushion to make corrections, and the concept of senior and junior debt and to pay off the senior debt in full if it goes into receivership.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


45 posted 04-24-2010 03:50 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

So you’d reduce leverage? So far so good, leverage is a major issue and I agree that the current system needs some serious reform in that area. How would you regulate and measure the rate of capitalisation?

BTW so far you aren’t a million miles from the currently proposed legislation.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


46 posted 04-24-2010 04:03 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:
    
How many in the current administration are former Goldman Sachs employees?



     I give; how many?

quote:

I know what Marxism, Socialism and Communism are, Bob, although I'm sure we have different views of their ideologies.



     That's an oxymoron, Denise.  You are conflating Marxism, Socialism and Communism here with "evil," I suspect, and then acknowledge that their ideologies don't reflect that definition.  Perhaps, even, that in Italy, France, Germany, Spain and many other countries where these parties function as part of the regular political structure there are many who would be quite puzzled by what you're saying, since they live with these parties on an ongoing basis with very little trouble at all.

     Social Democratic parties, which are a bit further to the left than our Democratic party are often the party of preference in many of these places, and they do very well indeed.

quote:

How many of the people that this president surrounds himself with are self-professed Marxists, Socialists and Communists? How many are Mao admirers?



     Again, I give; how many?

     And so what?  Are you worried that their ideas are so appealing that they'll take over the country by acclamation?  This is the same sort of thinking that the Radical Right expresses about homosexuality, that it's like a disease that you can catch.  This is a country that supposed to be founded on the open discussion of ideas.  If I can listen to you, you can listen to me, too.  Or at least we can try.  

quote:

In what sense does the Left conform to the Constitution, you know, that document that Obama disparages as being a list of negative liberties, one that attempts to constrain government and also the document that he believes didn't allow the Warren Court 'to go far enough' in addressing redistributive justice?



     When was the last time you read The Bill of Rights, Denise?

     For your convenience, I’ve reprinted the original 10 for you, below.  As you read them, I ask that you look at the way the language is cast.  Only one of the ten Amendments is cast in the positive.  That is amendment six, the one about trials and due process.  All the rest are in the negative to limit what the government can do.  The sixth is in the positive, telling the government what it must do.

     Obama was correct.  That is the way the framers put it.  He is not disparaging the constitution, he is looking at it with a clear and exact focus, at the actual text.  You might try the same.

     I have no idea what you mean by “Redistributive Justice.”  Perhaps you could clarify that for me by giving me a reference to the text of some speech that President Obama gave so I could get some notion of the context he used the phrase in?  Sometimes, these phrases crop up from the right without there being any support at all, like “death Panels,” which was a fiction made up out of the whole cloth, so a clear reference would help me address your question.  I do assume it was a sincere one, and I’ll try my best to give you a straight answer.


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

quote:

What I find objectionable about Alinsky tactics are its 'ends justify the means mentality'.



     If I’d said that about The Tea Party folks, you’d really want to know where in the Dickens I’d come up with such an absurd notion, wouldn’t you now, Denise?  So I hope you won’t fault me when I do the same here.  Where did you get such an idea?  Not from the Alinsky I heard speak.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


47 posted 04-24-2010 05:36 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'd have to leave that to the experts, Grinch. My main concern is that any new regulations do not give the executive branch the ability to bypass congress for the approval of any proposed 'rescuing', and that politics play no part in the picking of winners and losers.

Yes, Bob, I know it is a list of negative liberties, as it should be, to constrain the government. That is what Obama disparages. This is from a speech he made while still an Ill senator:

quote:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/457

I would say that Social Democrats have taken over our Democratic Party.

You'll have to define 'very well indeed'. Have these other countries that you mention had the same level of liberty and economic freedom that we have had here? Or are they saddled with ever increasing taxes and regulation in an attempt to fund their cradle to grave entitlements?

I only have to look at Alinsky adherents to see what his philosphies have wrought in society, ACORN and SEIU for example.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


48 posted 04-24-2010 06:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
My main concern is that any new regulations do not give the executive branch the ability to bypass congress for the approval of any proposed 'rescuing', and that politics play no part in the picking of winners and losers.


That’s pretty much the essence of the proposed legislation too Denise, though the idea of ‘rescuing’ is replaced with a controlled break up of any financial entity that fails.

It won’t work though. The proposed legislation doesn’t go anywhere near far enough to regulate the financial industry. They’ve already gone back to doing the kind of things that caused this mess in the first place, only now they’re emboldened because they know that the government will bail them out when it all goes pear shaped. Which is likely to be sooner rather than later.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 04-24-2010 11:35 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:
Denise responds to Bob:

Yes, Bob, I know it is a list of negative liberties, as it should be, to constrain the government. That is what Obama disparages. This is from a speech he made while still an Ill senator:

quote:
Now She quotes from a Speech by Then State Senator Obama:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/457




     So what you're saying is that The President felt that if we really wanted to address the racial and economic inequities in the country, we'd need to do it through community action such as voting drives and job training programs and educational programs rather than simply by bringing law suits.  He felt that law suits really didn't do enough to establish the goals of the civil rights movement.

     I tend to agree with him.  Voting and political action are the ways that most minority groups have found redress historically against the difficulties they've faced.  The Italians, the Irish and the Jews all faced many difficulties, and while the courts may have helped, it was really becoming part of the electorial and social fabric of the country that helped them the most.  The Irish back in my old neighborhood in Boston still remember bitterly those times when there were signs out for rooms to let and for jobs with No Irish Need Apply as part of the Ad; and with No Dogs or Irish as part of the housing Ads as well.

     They had to organize to make sure they were accepted, as did the Italians and the Jews as well.

quote:


I would say that Social Democrats have taken over our Democratic Party.



     Wish it were so, Denise, but they're still simply Democrats, and mostly middle of the road Democrats at that.  In England, Labor has drifted to the right, and they're starting to look like our Clinton Democrats where they used to look more like socialists, and I'm afraid that here in the United States it's very much the same.

     I'd be interested in knowing what the Observant Mr. Grinch thinks about this, first because he's in a much better position than I am to comment on Great Britain and her politics (not to mention the politics in the various parts of the Common Market), but he has a different take on U.S. politics than I do — much more objective, I think — and I'd simply like to know what his observations are.

quote:

You'll have to define 'very well indeed'. Have these other countries that you mention had the same level of liberty and economic freedom that we have had here? Or are they saddled with ever increasing taxes and regulation in an attempt to fund their cradle to grave entitlements?



     I'd say that they feel they have much the same, but I couldn't swear to it, Denise.  I know that some Britons I've known feel they have more because their constitution and bill of rights is unwritten.  I was surprised to hear that, but it does make sense from their point of view.  

     Some of them feel saddled with debt, others feel that they get well taken care of for what they pay and that the trade off is good.  All of them vote, and can and do change their governments from time to time, depending on what they feel they need at the time.  They are democracies, and mostly their democracies fit the countries that vote the democracies into power.  They go through the same swings of feeling about us as we go through about them, I suppose.  Feeling that this sort of thing is entirely one sided would be a mistake.

     Almost all of them are justifiably proud of themselves, as we are as well.  That shouldn't be a surprise to you, though.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> I wonder?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors