No wonder the lefties are distrusted.

Let's address insurance vis a vis Katrina.

Studies have shown - though I don'thave the time to get the citations - that poor people in general and African-Americans in particular pay higher rates for goods and services in the US. WRT insurance, the rates are higher than justified by losses.

Further, homeowner/renter insurance cannot begin to pay for rebuilding New Orleans. Individuals, after all, do not insure infrastructure - roads, canals, levees, power, water, sewers, etc.

We do pay taxes for emergency & disaster relief, but the Bush administration is somewhat sleective in its application of the law. Massive amounts of cash were given out in Florida in 2003/2004 for hurricane relief in that state.

Mississippi got aid much more quickly than Louisiana. Mississippi votes Republican; LA has a number of Democratic officials.

Again, before you draw conclusions based on invalid assumptions, check into the realities of the situation...Rising Tide, by my kid brother John, is a good start.

James Lee Burke, a novelist, also provides insight into LA and NO politics.

The losses in NO & Louisiana go far beyond what would have been covered by insurance for individuals.

Phil

quote:

that poor people in general and African-Americans in particular pay higher rates for goods and services in the US

I've seen this among my friends, especially with loan rates for houses. Two to 4 points above the advertised rates. Add that to the cost of buying and owning a home if you're poor or Black.
David

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Kevin-W

You are more foul than the stench oozing from a camels rectum, you have as much decency as a Soho spiv and you are basically a moron devoid of all moral worth.

You quote my name and yet I have never made any comments about lesbians or the French.

You are a typical leftie who has to resort to inventing things to win his argument and hence the title of this thread that lefties are distrusted sums you up.

Can't you read? Try again...

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:

Basically he is a brasher, more bigoted Mick Parry, a similarly self-styled "voice of common sense and the man in the street"; one of those retards who still thinks it's amusing to say the French stink of garlic or that all women who want to work are lezzas. You know the type. But unlike Parry, he has a wider audience than just bemused folk on hi-fi fora.

And so with a snide press of a few keys, you accuse Mick of being brash, a bigot and a retard.

Very poor, and almost certainly a breach of the following forum AUP.

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. "


My opinion of you has just plummeted.

Sorry to hear that Mike, but I suggest you reread the post before passing judgement.

Thanks

K

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

And so with a snide press of a few keys, you accuse Mick of being brash, a bigot and a retard.

Very poor, and almost certainly a breach of the following forum AUP.

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. "


My opinion of you has just plummeted.

Really Mike, have a look through a few of Mick's posts over the years. Then have a look at a few of yours too.

I know you guys all drink together but hell, a little more objectivity and a little less hypocrisy would make your post a lot less laughable.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Sorry to hear that Mike, but I suggest you reread the post before passing judgement.

Thanks

K

Done so three times, the slurs are still there.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I know you guys all drink together but hell, a little more objectivity and a little less hypocrisy would make your post a lot less laughable.

Deane

In the UK accusations of bigotry are not taken lightly.

There is no hypocrisy in my post, as I am neither a retard nor a bigot.

Being called brash is hardly derogative IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

Done so three times, the slurs are still there.

Oh well, I guess the subtleties of our great tongue are somehow lost on you in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Basically he is a brasher, more bigoted Mick Parry

OK, Kevin, I'll try to keep this to small words.

You said, in the quote above ( with me so far? ) that Littlejohn is a brasher, more bigoted Mick Parry.

This means that you think ( still with me? ) Mick is brash and bigotted, as Littlejohn is "a brasher, more bigoted".

"More" generally has the one meaning, "a larger or extra number or amount"

This shows you are calling Mick brash and bigoted, as Littlejohn is more bigotted than him.

I do hope that this is clear, it sure is to me.

Seems to the point to define the word in question, and let those familiar with Mr. Parry's oeuvre decide for themselves:

quote:

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

So, does the slipper fit? Princess or step-sister? Only the foot really knows how much wiggle room there is.

Not really, Jayd; in the UK the term usually denotes racist or homophobic behaviour.

"Gentlemen, gentleman: you can't fight here, this is the War Room!"

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:
Not really, Jayd; in the UK the term usually denotes racist or homophobic behaviour.

From the several (dare I say multiple?) definitions I've read, those are examples of bigotry; there are other examples that have nothing to do with race or sexual preference, yet no less define the term.

Fair point, though, that the sources I've consulted are simply concerned with the English language, not Britspeak specifically.

The word bigot has connotations way beyond race or sexual orientation.

quote:

From the several (dare I say multiple?) definitions I've read,

Both are rather vague, (but that probably suits your style).

If you mean twice, just say twice. If you mean "three or four" just say "three or four". If you mean "about a dozen" just say "about a dozen". It would avoid you having to explain yourself quite so often.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
If you mean twice, just say twice. If you mean "three or four" just say "three or four". If you mean "about a dozen" just say "about a dozen". It would avoid you having to explain yourself quite so often.

Eh, thanks, but I prefer to take full advantage of the entire language as it exists. Don't see the need to limit myself for the benefit of those who struggle with nuance. Then again, I'd have thought there wouldn't be a need to continually define perfectly straightforward words for seemingly intelligent people, so there's that.

Still, we all have our standards. I'll stick with mine.

kevin

Your pathetic reply demonstrates the type of characters your sort are. In a way your miserable accusation shows to others that at best you invent things or at worst wriggle unashamedly to get yourself off the hook.

To be honest, you are the sort of person who I avoid like the plague in real life.

quote:

As opposed to the Jesus maxim: to help the poor and the sick, to help those who can't help themselves.

Gone mighty quiet around here after I suggested that if half the US electorate felt the same as Fred, Phil and Jayd, you could have started your own "collective welfare" arrangement to bring help to the have-nots in N.O. instead of whinging for the next election. Bit like Jesus did.

Presumably you've all woken up as a result of this great idea and are out there organising things such that you don't have time to post here at present.

Drop us a line sometime to let us know how things are going. And for Christ's sake, don't let them crucify you.

Cheers

Don

Don, you seem to have assumed that none of us were involved in bringing help to the have-nots... which is a really silly thing to assume, to be honest. I have family and friends who were directly impacted by Katrina; you, on the other hand, are a spectator, and you're in the cheap seats at that.

Since you've asked for an update, let me assure you that my own efforts to bring aid, in what small ways I can, are ongoing. But do continue to share these brilliant great ideas when they hit you, because we'd really be lost without your originality and leadership.

quote:

we'd really be lost without your originality and leadership.

I know. But don't worry too much, despite all your whinging, we'll always be here to help you.

quote:

Don, you seem to have assumed that none of us were involved in bringing help to the have-nots... which is a really silly thing to assume, to be honest.

Please avoid puting words into my mouth. I haven't made any such assumption. Even Fred made it clear that he contributes a small part of his disposable income to charity. I'm sure most of us on this forum contribute.

Fred made the point that he wanted far more collective welfare to be raised to help the needy. I have simply made the point that you, Fred and Phil (and your half of the electorate) don't have to wait for a change of government to do something big, for a change.

Looks like you guys don't have enough conviction, so my great idea for you ain't gonna happen.

Cheers

Don

BTW I did a "straw poll" of a few people today. "multiple" generated the idea of "many" as in more than three or four, possibly more than half a dozen, but depended on context - and definitely not "twice". "twice" generated the idea of "a couple". Seems like you can no longer rely on your dictionary to give you the current meaning of common words.

Ooopps! "a few" in this case it was eight!

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
BTW I did a "straw poll" of a few people today. "multiple" generated the idea of "many" as in more than three or four, possibly more than half a dozen, but depended on context - and definitely not "twice". "twice" generated the idea of "a couple". Seems like you can no longer rely on your dictionary to give you the current meaning of common words.

Seems a bit more like I can't rely on Don and his acquaintances to know the proper definitions of common words, and to use them correctly in sentences (color me surprised). Like I said, I'll stick to my own standards, rather than lower them to the level of you and your mates.

Never fear, Don, if I ever converse with you or your cronies in person, I'll make sure to illustrate expressed quantities using an appropriate number of fingers and toes, so you'll be certain of keeping up.

quote:

Looks like you guys don't have enough conviction, so my great idea for you ain't gonna happen.

Your underestimation of my conviction is outweighed in comic impact only by your overestimation of your own greatness. As I said above, standards and all that.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Please avoid puting words into my mouth. I haven't made any such assumption. Even Fred made it clear that he contributes a small part of his disposable income to charity.

Don, you can't ask people to avoid putting words in your mouth when you turn right around and do it yourself. I said I contribute "some" of my income to charity, you changed that to "a small part."

quote:

Fred made the point that he wanted far more collective welfare to be raised to help the needy. I have simply made the point that you, Fred and Phil (and your half of the electorate) don't have to wait for a change of government to do something big, for a change.

Looks like you guys don't have enough conviction, so my great idea for you ain't gonna happen.

And here you're making uninformed assumptions about a lack of conviction. Like they say on Jerry Springer, you don't know me.

My feeling is that I want to live in a society in which everyone, not just "half," believes in helping those who need it. I want a government that works to improve people's lives, advance the causes of justice and peace, and generally do well for people.

We already have a taxation system in place, albeit imperfect, for everyone to contribute to the welfare of the whole. This is what many who oppose welfare don't seem to understand ... if your child has plenty to eat, is well educated, etc. great! But when we help the children who aren't as well off, we actually improve our own lives, too. Same with the fat cats who don't think it necessary to reduce pollution and other human activities which are detrimental to quality of life ... what air are they breathing? What water are they drinking? We're all in this boat together; we all pitch in and help ... not just "half" of us.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

Don, you can't ask people to avoid putting words in your mouth when you turn right around and do it yourself. I said I contribute "some" of my income to charity, you changed that to "a small part."

{whispers} Fred, Don seems to be quantitatively... err, how shall I say it... "challenged". His straw poll™ will doubtless prove that "some" actually means the same thing as "a small amount".

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
kevin

Your pathetic reply demonstrates the type of characters your sort are. In a way your miserable accusation shows to others that at best you invent things or at worst wriggle unashamedly to get yourself off the hook.

To be honest, you are the sort of person who I avoid like the plague in real life.

Oh dear Mick, you certainly seem to have got yourself worked up into a bit of a lather, haven't you?

Being insulted by a man who seems to spend a worryingly large proportion of his free time on a hi-fi forum pouring contempt and scorn on anyone whose political or other viewpoints differ from his own; who continuously makes ill-thought out, ill-judged and sometimes downright ignorant comments on other people, ways of living, etc... well, I don't know whether to feel amused, bemused or just feel sorry for you.

I have no problems personally with anything you say, after all it's a free country and everyone's entitled to an opinion, and I would defend to the end your right to say what you want, but very litle you have said here convinces me that you are a tolerant, easy-going chap of liberal disposition. And if you want to play the forum bully, then don't expect to get a free ride all the time.

I mean, considering the calumnies you have heaped on various people over the years, I think your spluttering outrage is a teensy bit rich, don't you agree? If you want to live by the sword, Parry, you must expect to die by the sword, or at least get the odd nick. We all reap what we sow. Etc.

Anyway, gotta go, I have have to attend a funeral (really).

Love. Kevin x

What is "your sort" BTW?

kevin

Just to confirm, your sort = lowlife.