>> You know how it is in the USA.  We /have/ to protect the "job creators."
>>   Fuck the workers.
>
> Indeed.  Pity that so many of the jobs created by the so-called "job
> creators" are offshore or of a pay standard such that there are employed
> people who live below the poverty line, and who have too few hours to
> qualify for employer-provided benefits (Wallmart, I'm looking pointedly
> at you).

Sometimes I think my country is messed up.

And then I remember that some people live in the USA. :-D

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:18:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> You know how it is in the USA.  We /have/ to protect the "job
>>> creators."
>>>   Fuck the workers.
>>
>> Indeed.  Pity that so many of the jobs created by the so-called "job
>> creators" are offshore or of a pay standard such that there are
>> employed people who live below the poverty line, and who have too few
>> hours to qualify for employer-provided benefits (Wallmart, I'm looking
>> pointedly at you).
> 
> Sometimes I think my country is messed up.

In some ways, it is.  The UK's immigration policy, for example, is such a 
moving target that people who want to immigrate have tons of problems 
doing so.  Even after getting into the system and jumping through all the 
hoops, there's nothing that prevents the home office from changing the 
rules a month before someone's able to get permanent leave to remain and 
they have to start all over.

My wife knows people who have had that happen.

> And then I remember that some people live in the USA. :-D

Indeed.  There's a lot of good here (and in the UK) as well, but there is 
a lot that is completely whacked out here as well.  I'm waiting for the 
day when our government is sponsored by Exxon or BP.  (Oh, wait, we might 
already be there).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Sometimes I think my country is messed up.

Two words: libel tourism.

Also, what's up with the House of Lords Spiritual?  You get to make laws for the
Kingdom just because you're an Anglican bishop?  OTOH, I can't figure out why
the USA looks more like a theocracy than the UK.  I'm glad your bishops don't
think like Pat Robertson or Ali Khamenei.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:18:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> > And then I remember that some people live in the USA. :-D
>
> Indeed.  There's a lot of good here (and in the UK) as well, but there is
> a lot that is completely whacked out here as well.  I'm waiting for the
> day when our government is sponsored by Exxon or BP.  (Oh, wait, we might
> already be there).

If you doubt this, recall how they're all screaming up and down for domestic
drilling, because we need to be energy independent, yet when an amendment was
introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA, it was voted down--by the
Republicans.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:08:28 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

>  OTOH, I can't
> figure out why the USA looks more like a theocracy than the UK.

Because while it would be illegal to have a religious "test" to hold 
public office, candidates who don't espouse their love for Jesus (or in 
rare cases, just God is enough - for the Jewish and Muslim elected 
officials), 79% of the people in the US are Christians who think that 
there's something wrong with those who don't believe in a supernatural 
deity, angels, or other superstitious nonsense that's commonly held 
(don't let them hold some "weird" superstitious nonsense like 
Scientology, though - because their brand of superstition is always 
"superior" to that of the crazy people), and they won't vote for someone 
who they think is "wrong in the head" when it comes to which sky fairy 
they believe in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:05 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> If you doubt this, recall how they're all screaming up and down for
> domestic drilling, because we need to be energy independent, yet when an
> amendment was introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA, it was
> voted down--by the Republicans.

That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote 
for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.  
Then blame him for failing to move things forward.

IOW, blame Obama for not being a Republican or not holding to Republican 
values.  If only he would believe what they believe, then there'd be no 
problem.  Other than we'd have Republican values dictating policy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 05:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:08:28 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>>   OTOH, I can't
>> figure out why the USA looks more like a theocracy than the UK.
>
> Because while it would be illegal to have a religious "test" to hold
> public office, candidates who don't espouse their love for Jesus (or in
> rare cases, just God is enough - for the Jewish and Muslim elected
> officials), 79% of the people in the US are Christians who think that
> there's something wrong with those who don't believe in a supernatural
> deity, angels, or other superstitious nonsense that's commonly held
> (don't let them hold some "weird" superstitious nonsense like
> Scientology, though - because their brand of superstition is always
> "superior" to that of the crazy people), and they won't vote for someone
> who they think is "wrong in the head" when it comes to which sky fairy
> they believe in.

Man, I thought that was just a myth... The USA is seriously that messed up?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>   The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.

Obamneycare comes to mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:48:49 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>   The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
>> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
>> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
> 
> Obamneycare comes to mind.

Yep.

It's amazing to me to watch Republicans who gave Kerry so much shit over 
being a "flip flopper" not have a problem at all with Romney's 
inconsistent and frequently opposing views on different topics.  I find 
it quite fascinating (and somewhat baffling) to watch.

Myself, I'm OK with people changing their views on things when they get 
more information - that's called "learning" and it's important.  Of 
course, there needs to be some validity to the change in view based on 
the new information - in Romney's case, it seems like so much of his new 
"learnings" have to do with convenience for the audience he's talking to 
at the moment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:47:31 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Man, I thought that was just a myth... The USA is seriously that messed
> up?

Go read about Michelle Bachmann for a prime example of the attitudes some 
people have - and she's one who actually got *voted in*.  Ironically, she 
also chairs the house intelligence committee - though she would appear to 
have very little intelligence herself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message