No wonder the lefties are distrusted.

well, as far as insurance, i've been in risk management (an oxymoron if ever) for 27 years, and to be honest with you i don't think it was much to do with the issues at hand. what are the issues at hand?

all i know is that katrina was quite a nightmare for all concerned - i attended a seminar on it, the facts of the damage. but didn't this thread start out on rioting following the recent french elections?

perhaps we could get into french insurance (if your car is burned in a riot, is it a covered occurence, for example - probably not, if their policies are similar to anglo-american format - just as many in the big easy who thought they had insurance are not being covered due to technical exclusions).

while i can understand why some people pooh pooh those w/o insurance, and why others would find the carriers to be capitalist bandits, it's the system we've got, basically the ins. industry gets a wink from the gov't so the gov't doesn't have to pay .... but look at "terrorism insurance," a newish product in the states - underwritten by the u.s. gov't, up for renewal, but the only customers are essentially huge corporations. comments? who should be locked up, the insurance co. executives, or the rioting youth, or the bureaucrats (or those owning round earth amps)? or can't we all just get along?

Fred,

quote:

Why should my compassion be questioned because I don't contribute every penny of it?

I wasn't questioning your basic compassion. However, when you add...

quote:

If we all pitch in a little we can accomplish a lot.

I ask, given that more people didn't vote for Bush than did vote for Bush (your statement, more or less) why don't all the Non-Bush supporters create their own welfare fund to help those who truly need it. They would only have to contribute 2 x "a little" - which doesn't seem too much to ask of such people. In other words, if about half the US electorate feel this way, why don't THEY do something about it, pending the next election. I am not aware that raising funds from willing donors is illegal and if it is seen to be a good thing, then the non-Bush people will surely win the next election and be able to raise taxes from everybody, such that they ALL pay "a little" (or switch spending from military to welfare).

quote:

For many the choice is not between a "slightly cheaper" house or no insurance. In many cases, there is no cheaper house. They can't afford to insure their house. They can't afford to insure their belongings. Rent can often amount to more than a mortgage payment. Laziness has nothing to do with it.

Well, here we clearly disagree. IMHO there is always a choice. Fredrik, for example, deliberately doesn't insure (unless forced by law) but accepts the risks. People who buy a property, without insurance, are taking a risk. Better to rent, unless property + insurance is cheaper than renting, which you seem to imply.

Perhaps the non-Bush voters could use their welfare fund to either buy insurance for the poor, or to provide insurance direct to those in need (ie avoid the need for insurance companies). Again, why wait for "everybody" to be made to contribute to this enlarged wefare fund, when more than 50% of the electorate are already willing?

quote:

All this "They [the poor] should do this, they should do that" talk is just so much "let them eat cake" and "why don't they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."

Giving people advice is not the same as telling them "they should do this" or "do that". The problem with socialism and excessive welfare (ie the lefties refered to at the start of this thread) is that it discourages self help and self reliance. We saw it in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

As I said in my opening post, there is need for a balance. I appreciate that my idea of a balance probably involves less state welfare than your idea of a balance. But I repeat, if more than half the voters are socialists with similar views to your own, I can't see why you don't act outside of government, and thereby demonstrate the validity of your policy. Perhaps you could take the lead, and run for Govenor of Anytown or even President of the USA....hey, if "B" class movie stars can make President, surely an "A" class recording artist would walk it????

Best regards

Don

quote:

Perhaps you could take the lead, and run for Govenor of Anytown or even President of the USA....hey, if "B" class movie stars can make President, surely an "A" class recording artist would walk it????

OK, this was a bit tongue-in-cheek, perhaps!! .........the President bit, not the "A" class recording artist bit!!

Cheers

Don

quote:

But I repeat, if more than half the voters are socialists with similar views to your own

What? In the USA? Half of the voters socialists?
Not on your life.
David

more like 2%.

fidelio

Yes one has to credit the Americans with a good element of common sense.

To be fair, I think socialism is slowly fading away. We all sympathise with it but we all know it is a long term recipe for disaster.

Regards

Mick

Mick

I must say that this thread has an odd title.

Do you mean to imply that the right wing is actually trusted?

Deane

Deane

Yes this thread does seem to have gone somewhat adrift.

My original point when I initiated this thread was that the Lefties in Paris were unable to accept that the fact that the French people had turned out in record numbers and voted for Sarkozy.

They just sulked and rioted. Such is their contempt of the popular vote and that attitude is reflected by the pinko element here and more so on PFM.

Margaret Thatcher was voted in three times and yet the Lefties crawl out of the woodwork and deride her with totally unnecessary personal attacks such as wishing death upon her.

No wonder we hold them in low esteem and little wonder they are now on the run.

Regards

Mick

Unlike the Righties of course who, when faced with the 'left-wing' government of Harold Wilson, such was their contempt of the popular vote, turned to MI5 to initiate a dirty smear campaign against the democratically elected government, chosen by the British electorate.

Mick

So, do you reckon that the right wing can be trusted?

I mean to say, maybe they don't riot (maybe), but does their rapacity lend them some sort of honour in your view?

Maybe you don't think of the right wing as rapacious at all?

(I am working on the assumption that you consider yourself a right winger.)

Deane

And who can forget Mrs. T's admiration for that paragon of democratic virtue, Senor Pinochet?

Deane

I am middle of the road. Most of my views support the two current governments of GWB and Tony Blair. so very mainstream. I support Sarkozy as do the French electorate. I am of the majoritory.

Malky

The Labour Party of the 60's was riddled with commies and you have to remember that back in those days you had to be positively vetted to gain employment in certain professions as there was fear of secrets being sold to the Russians.

In those days there was a genuine fear of nuclear war etc and Dennis Healy was a former CP member and his presence scared the living daylights out of the establishment. That is why the checks took place and incidently, those checks still take place today.

Regards

Mick

Personally, I can't imagine Dennis Healy scaring the living daylights out of anyone to the left of Patrick Moore.
Just shows how paranoid those Righties can be.

Malky

Dennis Healy is, today, a harmless old man, useful only for appearing on ducumentaries about the lousy state of the economy in the seventies.

Back in the sixties he was scary stuff.

Regards

Mick

mick,

with all due respect, i find it impossible to view gwb's views as "mainstream" i wish him and you well, but cannot get on that bus. to me, many of his views border on the insane, un-american (in the jeffersonian sense, if you will), and certainly not well-considered.

so, you see, we can disagree in a gentlemanly way. i certainly don't expect you to change your point of view bcs. of anything i may say here. i suppose i am a "leftie," but at the same time have a son at university, work for a gigantic company, and hope for general prosperity good cheer and a quiet seaside retirement, not to mention a 72/140 and a hicap in the spare room .... so, how radical are any of us, really, one way or another? would you like to see people tortured for their views and locked up indefinitely with no access to the courts, and a population w/o privacy rights? probably no more than i - but that's what w stands for, in my view.

and who were the persons rioting in france? were they 45 year-old cp members, or 70 y-o syndicoanarchists, or socialist mothers? doubtful. we've had some terrible riots here in l.a., accompanied by much loss of life, and i hope to never see the like again. many view these riots as "uprisings," but really they were anarchy of an evil sort, just as was experienced in n.o. after the hurricane, when federal troops should have maintained the peace.

but i would like to see access to general health care of any kind, free higher education, healthy and safe children, and breathable air, thriving bees, efficient biodiesel trains or whatever, etc., all of which would be an economic boon in the long run. don't see any of those things coming from a republican administration - just more war, poverty, and favors for the rich.

with kind regards,

fiddy

Mick
Healy was one of the pioneers of Monetarism. Thatch merely continued this economic policy.
Former membership of the Communist party is no emblem of radicalism. New labour is stuffed with ex-commies, notably the current home secretary, no one's idea of a leftie firebrand. Even Peter Mandelson was briefly a commie.

The point is, you seem to be advocating that those who disagree with Sarkozy's policies should put up or shut up. However, you imply that the establishment was justified in interfering with the democratic process because of a perceived (i.e. non-existent) fear of radical measures from a mildly reformist Wilson government. This seems inconsistent.

Fiddy

You may not like GWB but he was democratically elected and I go with the people who voted him in. In other words just normal decent people.

Malky

Healy was not a pioneer of monetorism in the Thatcher sense. He imposed high taxes and spent the money on welfare and state subsidies.

Thatcher had to correct the mess he left us in and what a mess it was.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Thatcher had to correct the mess he left us in and what a mess it was.

No mess when there's nothing left.

BigH47

Maggie left us with a vibrant economy which now ranks amongst the healthiest in the world.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

No wonder we hold them in low esteem and little wonder they are now on the run.

Regards

Mick

Who is this "we"? You're not speaking for me, or, for that matter anyone I know apart from Richard Littlejohn. Cheeky sod!

quote:

Who is this "we"? You're not speaking for me, or, for that matter anyone I know apart from Richard Littlejohn

Looks like Richard Littlejohn (whoever he might be) is the only sensible person you know.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Looks like Richard Littlejohn (whoever he might be) is the only sensible person you know.

Well Don, it's good to see what you consider sensible:

quote:

-he supports deporting suspects to countries where they will be tortured
-calls for benefits claimants who have too many children to be forcibly sterilised
-"Thatch was a necessary evil... But I thought she went bonkers and lost it after 1987"
-frequently denounces asylum seekers, homosexuals and single parents
-has argued that "only eco-fascists" believe global warming is happening
-denies passive smoking can lead to cancer
-has described the Human Rights Act as "evil"
-described gay rights protesters outside the Houses of Parliament as "plankton" and suggested the police should use dogs and flamethrowers against them
-says that the left loves to “smear” him as racist, homophobic, sexist etc.; yet in the 12 months to August 2003... Littlejohn referred “24 times to gays, 17 to homosexuals, 15 to cottaging, seven to rent boys, six to lesbians, six times to being 'homophobic' and four times to 'homophobia', twice to poofery and once to buggery. That's a mere 82 mentions in 90-odd columns.”
-During the following 12 months, he “referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic', five times to cottaging, four to 'gay sex in public toilets', three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poofery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns.”

By the company we keep, indeed.

Wow - what a list!

Splendid fellow- make him Prime Minster

This Littlejohn fellow sounds like a closet queen.

Dear Deane,

If you were shewn to be right, it would indeed be funny! The most rabid homophobe I knew was my late father, and yet he was bi-sexual. Five times married, his daliances outside wedlock certainly also involved a small number of same sex partners. I grew up in a very strange household...

Ironically this leaves me with a healthy distrust of all things sexual. I am not about to shack up with anyone, but I hate hypocrasy on this!

ATB from Fredrik