Re: "Calls for international oversight..." no: reverse direction 180

On 2009-02-11, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jos boersema wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
jos boersema wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
jos boersema wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
jos boersema wrote
[...]
certainly not as strong as I've made it.

We've even seen all businesses, not just large ones,
handed over to 'the workers' by the communists.

Well, not quite true, is it. The communists ended the free markets,
and by that token ended businesses as independent organizations.
The Communists didn't hand businesses to workers (in the main):
they nationalized the entire economy.

I think it went like so: in the beginning the Russian people did
the right thing: workers took over their businesses. Lenin didn't
understand it at first and was angry (read that somewhere), later
he became more appreciative. But they integrated worker busines
rule and the state, in their famous "plan economy." The elected
business leadership (Soviet) became a low-level Government, who
elected higher up local, regional, national Governments. Then this
whole bottom-up democratic model backfired: there was no balance
of top and bottom powers, but the top used the Soviet model to
dominate everything.

Hence: you are wrong, the Communists did not hand businesses to the
employees. In the process the businesses where no longer businesses.
This due to the failure of Marx to comprehend economics, as explained.
He thought everything worked as free finance markets do, which are
devastating long term. So it seems he wanted everything nationalized,
although he was actually quite vague and explicitly said not to have
the answer (!). Which he indeed didn't.

Handing businesses in great numbers to employees, while allowing free
enterprise (dictatorial as well as cooperative!), free product/service
markets, free labor markets: I don't think that has ever been attempted.
The Communists certainly didn't do it.

Is that idea then just the Nth permutation of "trial & error economics" ?
Absolutely not: when you build an economy around effort selling, and you
cut out power selling, the obvious conclusion is that businesses can
either be owned by their entrepreneur (who build it him/her-self, thus
its ownership is a function of his/her effort), or must be owned by the
employees who worke there, who'se ownership likewise is a function of
their effort. What is not ownership as a function of effort is ownership
by bank or external financier: investing money is not effort, it is risk
taking, it is gaming. When you analyze how for profit money investment
works long term you know it can not be allowed.

[...]
but still it was weaker IMHO.

Why do you admit to it being a horrible opinion ?

I don't, it is a great opinion to be in favor of a DAVID system economy.

Some have tried that route from the start, most obviously
with kibbutz and coops and credit unions. There's almost
none of the kibbutz left now, not many of the coops, and
few credit unions are very big and national.

That is because they aim to have everything together:
allow for profit finance along with non-profit social finance.

Nope. The real reason it doesnt work is because while ever
what you get from the system doesnt depend on how much
effort you put into the system, most wont work very hard.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. My system in principle is:
if you don't work, you die. You got to trade your effort, all you have
as a given is an equal share of raw natural resources. But it is not
likely that will yield you anything without work, although if you rent
it away you will catch somthing for it. Will that be a livable wage ?
I don't know, maybe, maybe not, that is not the point of it. Is it
possible that some people develop subsistance farming on their natural
resource patch ? Absolutely, I think it is extremely like a number of
people will do that. Subsistance farming is also work by the way.

The problem that people stop having a reason to work happens when
income is guaranteed by the state, as it happened under marxism and the
plan-economy. My system is a pure trade economy. If you don't work, you
got nothing to trade, thus go hungry (in principle, in practice I assume
the state will make up insurance and safety nets and so on, but that is
beyond the system itself). The current system is not a pure effort trade
economy: some people simply harvest great powers, they use them to
produce wealth without really doing any useful work that others would
want to pay them for to get the results of that work. Land lords are
an example of such power trading: the farmers on the land of the land
lord pay the land lord, but the land lord does nothing but protect his
own power: he is effectively a parasite. It is the same with children
who inherit ownership rights to large companies: they own what they
haven't put any effort in. But it is fantastically profitable for them.
Money without work. That has to stop, that's what my system is doing.

It does not work that way, you have to outlaw for profit finance.

Thats been tried by quite a few religions. It just plain doesnt work.

It does work, but you have to do it in an organized way: put monies
together, monthly, put someone in charge of the generated fund, and
direct that person to invest with the fund in the interest of the
community. Such an organized form of non-profit investment hasn't been
tried, I don't know why.

[...]
but rather a fake western style "democracy."

There is no other.

There are different approaches to setting up a Government, the western
style party fight and then party coalition (or winner-takes-all) is
not the only model. "The" competing model is that of the smaller groups
of people electing one representative known to them personally. These
representatives then come together to form local Governments. These
local Governments then elect regional and/or national Governments.
An idea you often/always see with this model is that the representative
can be replaced any moment by the voter-group.

The Yugoslav model was also somewhat in this direction,
but in my understanding the state had a strong hand in
businesses, so it was not a truly free market.

There is no such animal. We arent stupid enough to allow
the trade in slaves anymore and even your country restricts
the market in the worst drugs and military hardware.

Exactly, but you are still stupid enough to allow the trade in business
investment credit, soil, and company ownership. Wrong ! Not products
of effort, but entities of passive power. Wrong ! Why are you so stupid ?

Undoubtedly the Yugoslav state democracy was weaker then my
model (because it doesn't get more democratic then my model
I think (but always happy if you know how to boost it even more)).

Yours is nothing like democracy when those involved
cant have a capitalist system if they want to go that route.

In my system people have every freedom they need to restart the
capitalist system. I have made explicitly a Constitutional law that
is to protect that right. I know the Marxists have attempted to
foil democracy to the extend that going back to capitalism was being
outlawed. But my system is not marxist and I don't agree with that
of the marxists either. You know what the problem of the marxists
was: they knew they had no real answers, therefore they feared
the alternative-wrong-answers of the capitalists. I don't fear the
capitalists because I know my system is much better then capitalism.
Secondly it is the sovereign right of a people to make mistakes.

http://www.jhwh.be/law
_2.1.c Freedom of Assembly
People are free to assemble themselves in organized groups. Groups who
have as their aim the changing of the Government and/or society system
in whatever way, can not be disbanded because of their ideas.

But good question, the marxists messed up here, so maybe I would as
well. But I don't. Note that my Constitution has laws to change the
Constitution, and to set up new sovereign countries.

Changing my Constitution takes about 5 years, once my Constitution is
enacted and adhered to (note that you can go faster through article 1):

_1.1.a Power
The constitution has no value outside the support of the People.

_1.1.a-1 Changes
The Constitution can only be changed by the People directly.

_1.1.a-1.1 Changes, warning
When a Referendum is to be held proposing change to the
Constitution, that Referendum can not be held before time
has passed of equal length to the time a Government can be
in office (see Article 3.1.c, Electing Government), starting
from the moment the Referendum is posted in the required
location as to be held (see Article 3.1.b-4, Transparency).

_1.1.a-1.2 Changes, delay
Changes to the Constitution become law after a three month
waiting period, starting from the day both the procedure for changing
the constitution has been met and the result has been published
widely. Before the last month of the delay starts, the ratification
Referendum can be done again, the Referendum with most people
casting a vote will decide.

You can start up your own new country like so. If you are so dumb as to
want to make it Capitalist, go right ahead. Nothing can stop you
legally, and all ideology from my end is to let you go on so we can
laugh at your failures and learn not to go that route again. But say you
succeed, that would be even more interesting, ofcourse. I'm saying:
other nations should tread your Capitalist nation fairly, so that your
experiment is a fair one.

_1.2.a Territory
The Country assembles not more then 100.000.000, one hundred million,
potential voters.

_1.2.a-1 New Territory
Groups of 1 million residents in a consecutive geographic area
can step out of the Country if they achieve a Two Third Majority
in a Referendum where abstentions count as votes against stepping out,
two consecutive times with an interval of 5 years between them;
without there being a Majority against leaving the Country with at
least half of the local people voting in it, within 10 years after
the first of the two consecutive Referendums. Then the region is
independent and out of the Country, 10 years after the first Referendum.
These Referendums must be widely published in the concerning area,
or they will be invalid.

The New Country is formed by taking with it an amount of natural
resources equal to the combined total of resource rights for the
people who come to live in the new territory, including an equal
amount of non-distributed natural resources - such as nature and
public land - according to the percentage of people that will be
living there.

_1.2.a-1.1 New Territory, lost
When the new country contains fewer then 1 million people
before 100 years have gone by, the area falls back to the
original country, unless the original country decides to reject
it.

_1.2.a-1.2 New Territory, border
The border of both Countries will not develop enclosed sovereign
areas. It will be a simplified line, in such a way that both
Countries will have a coherent shape necessary to easily determine
in what Country a person is.

_1.2.a-1.3 New Territory, more
An area bordering a New Territory will join that New Territory
before 10 years have passed of it having become independent, if
they reach a Majority in Referendum where abstentions count as votes
against joining, if the New Territory accepts the application to
join.

_1.2.a-2 Larger Territory
The Country Council, see Article 3.1.d-5, Country Council, can
accept a new area into the country.

_1.2.a-3 Territorial Limits
The territory extends as far as the eye can see into uninhabitable
territory - such as the sea - with respect to that right for other
Nations.

_1.2.a-4 International Territory
When a petition of Nations representing more then Two Third of the
world population is offered regarding an issue on International
Territory, the petition will be read before the Country Council, see
Article 3.1.d-5, Country Council.

What is also somewhat in the same direction is western
social-democrats: heavy hand of the state in finances,
the state having its own investment systems for the
economy. Still no land distribution, weak democacracy,

Yours is nothing like democracy when you wont even
allow the voters to have for profit finance if they want that.

But I do.

allowing for-profit finance also, which hence becomes richer and
starts to dominate, because exploitation is profitable. Also: no transfer
of ownership of company into worker hands after starter leaves.

Thats what the stupid communists attempted. It doesnt work.

They did not attempty what I'm saying:
- they destroyed the free markets
- they controlled who can or can't start businesses
I don't control that at all, everyone can start businesses freely,
that right is guaranteed in the Constitution:

Articles 6.2: Initiate Businesses

_6.2.a Establish business
Every person and groups of persons has the right to quickly establish
a business recognized by the law, if the activities of said business
do not conflict with the law.

_6.2.a-1 Establish business, dictatorship
A business can be established as a dictatorship, lawful decisions
being made by the person or persons having established the business
(see Article 6.2.a, Establish business).

What I do want to socialize, however, is business investment credit.
You want to expand your capitalist slave farm from 500 squeezed worker
slaves to 10.000, and you need 10 million to do it, offering the
financier a serious profit of 15% ? In my system you are unlikely to
find a willing ear to get money to abuse people more. The money
investment is democratically / politically controlled, and I think
few politicians would be elected on a platform of stimulating slave
work. But if some are, or if all politicians are elected to improve
abuse of workers: then you effectively have the same investment system
as under capitalism.

- The Communists attempted to control businesses, took ownership of
them, etc. In my system that does not happen: free market. Maybe
my article defining the free market could have been a little sharper.
But everything I've said about it should make clear I want a free
price setting marke with free enterprice.

_6.1.a Definition Free Market
Trade in services and products between recognized businesses and other
recognized businesses, the Government, or individual costumers.

[...]
I think the reason is they didn't understand economics fundamentally,

You dont.

Too bad you fail to show what I fail to get.

and therefore by chance and gut feelings got
things right, but other things ended up sub-optimal.

But you're happy to dictate what is optimal eh ? No thanks.

Oohhh, how sweet, he thinks I'm dictating. Don't we listen enough to
you, Roddy boy ? Don't you get the attention you need ?

You may want to remember that all models have
failed so far, including feudalism and capitalism.

Capitalism hasnt failed.

Ask the nobility: the feudal system hasn't failed either.
Ask the marxists: marxism hasn't failed either.

You've become so dogmatic that you fail to see your own failure.
In the case of capitalism: success and failure has been redefined in
such a way that capitalism comes out as a success rather then the
humanitarian disaster that it is. But can we do better ? Well, that
is the question. I say we can: DAVID economy. I say doing Marxism
again is not the solution, doing capitalism again is neither.

Feudalism was a failure since the 13th century if not much before,
capitalism truly showed its ugly failure during the industrial revolution

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a fool you have
always been.

(no doubt heralded as a great success by those profiting from all
the human suffering,

There is the tiny matter of all those who benefitted in real living
standards improvements from it and from hard science, modern medicine,
no more world wars, etc etc etc.

Ah, the old "the sun comes up because the priests asked for it, so
bowe down for your priest or it remains dark" trick. You know who
fought for better living conditions going against the grain of whatever
system was in place including the capitalist one: the peoples
resistance. In capitalism usually taking the form of labor organization.
Capitalism is not the cause of us having science now, that we still have
capitalism is a failure of science. A failure science should be
correcting now, science which I'm explaining to you right now.

[...]
Still: when it comes to the economy, the capitalists want to privatize
as much as possible if not everything, including the military, and the
educational system, and health care and just about everything.

That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Those wanting to do that are nothing like capitalists, just rabid
ultra radical loons like you who, just like you, will never ever
get any say what so ever on anything any country ever does.
They just mindlessly bay at the moon, just like you do in spades.

Well that's the problem with capitalism: the bad and the criminal
congregate in the centers of power, because being bad - exploiting
labor - is profitable, and wealth is power. This rots and rots
endlessly, until "rabid ultra radical loons" like you now have in
the USA in power rule the day, throwing the world into war upon
war all based upon lies, vying to restart the feudal system again
with them at the head - if they can get away with it that is.

The reason is: profit, you can suck profits out of a system as a bank
if it is private, but it is much more difficult to suck profits out
of a nationalized system.

Wrong, as always. Its much easier actually, the profit gets
sucked out by the mindless bureaucracy and not needing to
care what the consumers think about what you are delivering.

That is a problem with nationalization, you need strong democracy
for that. Secondly: the bureaucracy isn't the banks. The banks fight
the state bureaucracy for power over nationalized industries. If
it gets privatized the banks have a chance on additional profits,
if it stays nationalized corrupt bureaucracies may profit additionally.
Note the point that for a bureaucracy to suck money it needs to be
corrupt, while a bank doesn't even need to be corrupt to suck money
out as profit. Banks are the same thing as legally allowing completely
corrupt state bureaucracy, and patting them on the back for all the
money they manage to suck out.

[...]
So it is either: push everything toward privatization
(capitalism), or push everything to nationalization (marxists).

Wrong, as always. The real world is a mixture of both with
significant variations in what is nationalised and what isnt.

Even the US has a nationalised health care system, most obviously
with medicare and what the vets get. Its just not a universal scheme.

Japan hasnt bothered to nationalise the health care scheme, its
entirely privatised, just govt controlled, particularly on the charges.

B U S I N E S S I N V E S T M E N T

Try to stick to the subject. My point is: business investment must be
socialized, markets in products/services/labor must be free. That never
happens, it is always either/or, and that is the problem: both don't
work. You can't nationalize everything and remove trade, and you can't
let business investment be a free market either. Why is this so
difficult ?

The biggest mistake remains: either they both nationalize the free
product/service markets along with the investment banks, or they
both privatize the investment banks and the product/service markets.

Or they have a combination of those, just like they do in
every other field except some like car manufacture etc.

Yes, but it isn't enough to do a little social investing to the side.
You have to rigorously outlaw for profit investment, and you have to
install a completely democratic state who handles these tasks as the
people want it. As it is people can't even prevent their own countries
from going to war, that is how weak our "democracies" are. If you can't
even decide on the issue of war and peace, that does not bode well for
the issue of where money is to be invested.

That is exactly the mistake: investment banks must exclusively be socialized,

How stunningly democratic.

Thanks for noticing.

while the free markets in products/services and labor should be free.

How stunningly democratic.

Indeed, particularly when businesses are democratized if 10+ people
work there and starter retires. That is democracy ! But then real,
and not the fake PR stunt that western democracy to a great degree
is effectively (run by news-papers, and politicians depending on the
whim of the capitalist ruling classes).

It is that combination which seems illusive.

Nope, we've been doing that for centurys now.
We some dead ends like with what called itself communism.

I'm not aware of any economy having tried my model ever, though the
Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu came close. The last time in the west
significant free trade was allowed together with anti-for-profit
finance laws was under the Catholic church up to the middle ages.
Problem though: they didn't completely outlaw it either, but allowed
certain classes to invest for profit (jews, maybe certain special
christian sekts). They didn't have land-distribution, which is why
the feudal system ruled. They didn't have a state democracy either,
not of any sort whatsoever. Under those conditions nationalizing
business investment would have been useless: the banker would be
replaced by an uncontrolled official, likewise likely only interested
in his own pockets.

[...]
most have now privatized business investment credit and the
markets in products/services/labor. That is too much privatization.

How stunningly democratic of you.

Exactly.

[...]
however democratic that state might be.

How stunningly democratic, they can do anything they
like as long as the dictator boersema approves it eh ?

lol, you think I'm a dictator ?
When your teacher in school explained that 1 + 1 = 2, you accused
her of being a dictator too, am I right ?

Do we have to preserve your corpse and grovel to it when you die too ?

Exactly what I don't want.

Reason: boosting personal power & reducing power
in the state. More freedom, less totalitarianism,

Odd, could have SWORN you've just proclaimed on how things must be done.

Of course I did: freedom, justice, democracy.

Looks just a tad more totalitarian than the current approach to me.

How is it totalitarian, because we wouldn't do what Rod says ?

[...]
but it is a gigantic operation, one of the first things would
be to remove from power the corrupt leadership classes.

Yeah, off to the gulag for them eh ?

You're farting out of your mouth again.

I have precisely descibed what I want with them: I want them removed
from their position at least once by the correct protocol that exists
for them, unless they are particularly endearing to the People. Most
of them should be removed from power, in particular the investor
class must not come back in the new investment systems because
they have negative skills. I prefer to have a new segment of people
trained fresh. The old investors are too smart with money, this may
become a great source of corruption, they may even attempt to make
the system inoperable so that they could blame the new system and
could get back to capitalism.

What should happen with these people after having lost their jobs:
I have advised they should get job security in one of the nationalized
sectors, such as green maintenance, sewers maintenance, infrastructure
building, whatever. That is *job security* that is better then other
people get ! Also retraining for new jobs.

The reason is that I blame not only them, but people like you, the
populations, to have allowed the disastrous capitalist laws in society.
That these laws result in a capitalist class to come into existence is
not merely the fault of that class, it is the fault of the whole people.
It is unfair to only take it out on the capitalists.

For that to happen new classes need to learn how to handle society
and govern in.

And you'll be providing 're-education' in your gulags, eh ?

No lol. I'm intending to have people set up new democratic parties
where they can get experience with governance and group-voter democracy.
Later this experience can come to good use in the state, which has the
same model in my Constitution at least. Secondly I want people to set up
investment funds, there they can learn the art of social investment.
This can come back under the state as well. Note that social investment
is not that difficult, and governance is neither that difficult. People
can elect anyone they want into Government, the hope is they will pick
honest and competent people. There is no law to not elect people from
the old capitalist ruling classes, such a law would be meaningless as
shortly after a transition the old classes seaze to exist anyway.

I've writen very detailed protocols to change all these problems,

So did Mao. Cant see anyone waving around your little red book any
time soon, comrade.

Did Mao implement bottom-up voter-group democracy, only bound to a
protocol ? No, the chinese communist party still rules. Did they
implement a DAVID economy ? Neither. Did they cut up their empire as
my model requires ? Not. Did Mao make a new Constitution and a correct
economic theory ?

but as always the ultimate question is: how many people are good, and how
many are bad, because the bad will fight something no matter how rational
it is.

Dont worry, you can always just kill them off, Comrade #1.

It is a big worry of course that the capitalists will again start
killing off people who favor a just and peaceful society like I propose,
just like Hitler did and has happened in many countries. But I think
my theory is so good that most people will like it, that way we don't
need to fight. That was the problem of th emarxists: their theory
sucked, hence they could never get a really big majority in favor.

[...]
while keeping the products, services and labor markets free. Stop trade
in company ownership and natural resources, install true democracy.

You wouldnt know what true democracy was if it bit you on your lard
arse, child.

Its nothing even remotely resembling anything like 'true democracy' if they
arent even allowed to have company ownership, lending for profit, etc etc etc.

Aha, so if people are not allowed to lend money for profit to start
up businesses, then the state can not be a democracy ? What if a
democratic state decided to outlaw for profit finance (for good reason!) ?

You know what I think you are looking for ? There are basically 2 types
of freedom (at least).
- the freedom to do what you please and hurt other people if that
happens to be your desire
- the freedom to "be responsible" (as the Red Indian have put it, which
is really nice and I like it).

Anyway: you can do lots of things in my model, but for profit finance
is not one of them. Or is it ? Well, I do allow it for minor sums,
and for minor levels of profit. Basically: you can't make more then
5% average monthly income from lending for profit practices into
businesses (lending for goods not businesses isn't really targeted
for extensive controls).

The idea is that you can still give people petty sums, even on profit.
But if you do so into into a business, that business by law becomes
a democracy. That means any damage you've been looking to do to the
workers in a business backfires, and the employees get ownership.

_8.2.a-7 Investment Monopoly
The People or in their absence the Two Third majority of Government
establishes a maximum amount of money, expressed as a multiple of the
average wealth, above which contracts involving payment of money for
receiving money, such as loans, between non Government market actors
are void; the received money having the status of a gift.

The limit is .[0.25, one quarter].. times the average wealth.

_8.2.a-11 No Business Gambling
A business, the physical and economic substance thereof, becomes
immediately a democracy of workers without compensation for the
leader/owner, if this owner/leader has used speculative money lending
(investing), not received directly and explicitly from the Government
finance monopoly.

_8.2.a-11.1 No Gambling, self reported
If someone reports to the government authorities a business or
person has engaged in an an illegal money trade as described in
Article 8.2.a-11, No Business Gambling, or other illegal money
trade, a percentage of the money becomes a gift to the reporting
party.

The percentage the reporting party can keep is: [50%, half].. .

_8.2.a-12 No Speculation
No person is allowed to make a living income entering a risk-taking
state by lending or otherwise investing not directly physically useful
instruments of economic value - such as money - in businesses. All
income in one month above a certain limit made from such not itself
as an activity productive speculation is to be surrendered to the
Government immediately.

The limit is .[5%, one twentieth].. of average monthly income.

Remove the corrupt ruling classes from power.

Plenty have tried that, comrade. And then grabbed power for themselves.

Of course, that's why I set up my parties with a tight democratic
protocol. I know people in the parties I set up will try to take
power. Therefore I advice to set up many democratic parties and not
just one. The many parties are to work independently toward the same
goal. Those parties falling prey to power grabbers are to fall out
through market pressures.

In the end my Constitution will take over if all goes well, and in
that model it should be as impossible as it can be to pull in power
toward yourselve.

[...]
The same for businesses: democratic control from the employees

Who cant even decide that they prefer the old way of doing things.

Why do you make up these lies, bankbitch #1 ? If the employees want
to retain the old boss, they can do so. If the old boss no longer
wants power, they can find one who is similar, and give him/her most/all
power. In practice the company would continue to function as a
dictatorship, especially if the employees really want that.

_6.3.a-4 Majority Business
The Majority of employees become recognized as legal owners when
they have surrendered to the Court of Justice a description of the
decision making rules for their company, which enacts these rules the
Law of the Country.

Decision making rules is one of either:

B company: Boss elect. The boss elect decides all, but can be replaced
at any moment by new elections in the company.
C company: Cooperation management-worker. The management and workers
have regular meetings, the management will
surrender all information, the management can be
(...)

Select option B. The "powerful boss" system. Nearly identical to a
boss-owner. The other option is to start working for an entrepreneurial
boss, who is a true owner, or to work for a small company which can
always be dictatorships.
--
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bad, Burger, Bad, Bad, BAD!
    ... hurts their competition and our government is pimping for it. ... every level and in every corner of business and is no longer even covert. ... power, saying, "What are you going to do about it?". ... There was an American revolution not that long ago. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: What a bunch of fuckwits our former government was
    ... goes on with every left and right wing government shift of power. ... Every one who enters politics, no matter how righteous, soon is devoured by the disease of modern politics and big business. ... It's become so bad that the virus has drifted down into every crack of public office and business no matter how big or small. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: What a bunch of fuckwits our former government was
    ... that goes on with every left and right wing government shift of power. ... Every one who enters politics, no matter how righteous, soon is devoured by the disease of modern politics and big business. ... It's become so bad that the virus has drifted down into every crack of public office and business no matter how big or small. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: What a bunch of fuckwits our former government was
    ... goes on with every left and right wing government shift of power. ... matter of which scam they want to play on us. ... every crack of public office and business no matter how big or small. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: The Reason Why Theres No Cure For Cancer Revealed
    ... look at how their profits have gone up and up and up... ... The Republicans want the businesses to "wear the pants", ... Democrats want government to - though since they are almost fully funded by ... and the Progressives want government to have all the power. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)