Its no more pointless than you believing the church can stick its nose in the private business of its citizens.
|
Its no more pointless than you believing the church can stick its nose in the private business of its citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
His answer was irrelevant and misdirecting which makes it pointless, almost as pointless this straw man of yours you insist on repeating ad nauseum.
People attend a church by choice... if they don't agree with its policies they can find a different one...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So I shouldn't have to be bothered by the church when I am at work then either.
In 36 years the church has never bothered me at work, how have they bothered you?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
My employers never let a church bother the employees, and that should be the case of any worker no matter who the employee is.
You aren't now... but if you work for the church then they have every right.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
How about a certified taxpaying nurse in a religious not for profit hospital?
If it's a religious institution... its subject to that religious institutions guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The Atheists are free to open their own hospitals if they wish.
Well that didn't answer the question at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The hospital is her employer, not necessarily her church. If I've said it once... if she doesn't like the terms of her employment she is free to find employment elsewhere.Quote:
How about a certified taxpaying nurse in a religious not for profit hospital?
They are responding to the debacle in Britain by striking first, but there are other issues here, there is a concentration of media ownership with the Murdoch press having a very big stake. Murdoch started in Australia. The legislation they brought forward was ill advised and rushed they know they had to act or loose the opportunity forever, This is a bad government and the debacle of the last few days underlines it. We will see the Little Red Fox off in SeptemberQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yup ,I've been following the story . Her ministers are going to do to her what she did to KRudd .
From your mouth to God's earsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
But... but... but... aren't you proud that you finally have a women PM ? I'm liking it . Ministers quitting and KRudd saying he isn't going to bail her out .
"The only way to give our country the good government that we so badly need right now at a difficult time in the life of our nation is to have an election," "We cannot wait till September 14. If the Prime Minister was concerned about the party, if she was concerned about the country, if she was less concerned about herself and her own survival, there would be an election now." Tony Abbott... right on!
Let me answer that in a number of waysQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not this woman
Not a socialist or communist camp follower
Not a liar
Not a conneiving, two faced...
Krudd is his own worst enemy, an egomaniac who alienated his support base and then proved he didn't have the guts to loose a third time and so what we now have is a leaderless chook soon to have its head cut off,
I will be very happy when this experiement is over and we get back to stable Liberal government. We had this nonsense under Whitlam, we had it under Hawke and now we have it under Gillard. It is fed by media, probably Murdoch media. This demonstrates Labor is unfit to lead and they are being progressively thrown out in all states
Hang on Tom. I understand that you are one of the few people who actually take some interest in Australian politics. I also understand that there is nothing you can possibly learn from us.On that basis I will be controversial just for the fun of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Gillard makes Obama look like a centre right politician. So where is the extreme reaction to have a socialist party in power in this country? This is not a quiz question.
Obama isn't that far from her in the positions he'd adopt if he could. Why don't I make an extreme reaction?. She isn't my business . I'm content with poking fun of her naivety.
Sorry my fault. The question I wanted to ask you was why don't Australian's react in an extreme way? I am just interested in your opinion given the fact that you are probably the only person who takes any interest in Australian politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If you given an opinion I am not going to criticise it. Just interested.
Tut
In America, the very word socialism conjures up some very extreme image of fear and loathing held over I believe from the cold war. While our most successful social programs are indeed socialist in nature and intent.
Conservatives are intent on getting rid of or modifying them out of existence and privatizing the whole social safety net.
I'm curious as to why tut gives me the third degree but seems to have no interest in grilling you over complete bullsh*t like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't think we react in an extreme way at all.It's a cultural difference.. Here ;since our founding ,politics is a blood sport. There is nothing new in contemporary American politics that can't be found in anything post Washington's 1st term (when factionalism began defining the power struggle.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I'd argue even before then there were sharp differences between Federalist and anti-Federalists . In fact ;as much as the revolution was a war against England;it was also a civil war in the colonies (a fact that doesn't get as much attention in the history books ).
So while we appear to be extreme from your perspective .This is really quite normal.
Well Tom I see you have made it all about you when the question was asked about us from your perspective. The fact is we had similar beginnings but very different paths and it wasn't that the seeds of rebellion weren't present, it is just that because of their experience with you the British weren't about to allow it to take hold and gain strength, Yes your revolution was a civil war and you gained a fortunate outcome. Because of the nature of this land and the sparceness of population we had to be cooperative and not fractious, we did not have the benefit of an erstwhile generous native population who would negotiate with you, This was for a long time a colony under martial law and only later became a haven for free settlers
Thanks for a reminder. I will strive to be more consistent in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Tut
Was just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Getting back to one of wonderful manifestaions of this Ides of March, what a novel solution in Cyprus; actually allowing a failed bank to fail! I wonder if it will catch on?
And I think the other part of the solution is innovative; giving the rich depositors who were benefiting from high interest rates a haircut. Risk is difficult to assess and soveriegn risk even more so, but they should have seen this coming, take a haircut or loose it all, not much of a choice and in any case they become investors in the bank
Everyone's happy when the rich get screwed . Still confiscation is theft by another name.
I would think that most people would be happy because they see this as an attempt to "screw" political corporatism. As far as I can see no one is "screwing" any one who can be considered genuine capitalists. If not, perhaps you can point out for me where the classical capitalists reside in the greater scheme of global economics and global politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, isn't political corporatism an anathema?
I get happy when the screwers get screwed, now don't tell me you are on the side of the banks and the russian mafia? How republican of youQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If you can prove to me that EVERYONE who is going to take a 'haircut' is Russian Mafia then perhaps I could go along with it. But you can't . Also ;if the banks were laundering criminal money they should go down anyway regardless of their solvency.
Tom, the Cyprus banking is many times bigger than their economy, how do you think that happened? The only people who will get a haircut are foriegners, those who cheat the tax system somewhere, not capitalists but cheats. Personally I don't care if they all loose because they took the risk and this is all about risk, I took a risk in 2001 and I took a haircut, was I involved, no! But I took a haircut anyway. I took a haircut in 2008, was I involved, no! But I took a haircut, now it is someoneelses turn, well hellauhah!
You think everyone using foreign banking is a tax cheat ? I do some of my banking with UBS .Does that make me a tax cheat ? Maybe people banked there because; unlike the US banks (where the Fed has been complicit in screwing depositors for a long time now) , they get a decent rate of return for their deposits .
And Cyprus is indeed the canary in the coal mine...
Cyprus bail-out: savers will be raided to save euro in future crises, says eurozone chief - Telegraph
Raiding private bank deposits coming to a bank near you... The Obots assure us it can't happen here...
Hubba hubba... who do you trust ?
Why do people that complain about others that try to keep some of their money they worked hard to earn out of the clutches of greeding people that didn't earn it from taking it.
What's the difference between a politition that steals from productive workers to pay for their pet causes... and a Street thug that mugs well dressed people to support his pet causes?
The answer is nothing at all really.
Here is Stratfor's take on the EU money grab.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/europ...e6bdb7f161582aQuote:
The more significant development was the fact that the European Union has now made it official policy, under certain circumstances, to encourage member states to seize depositors' assets to pay for the stabilization of financial institutions. To put it simply, if you are a business, the safety of your money in a bank depends on the bank's financial condition and the political considerations of the European Union. What had been a haven -- no risk and minimal returns -- now has minimal returns and unknown risks. Brussels' emphasis that this was mostly Russian money is not assuring, either. More than just Russian money stands to be taken for the bailout fund if the new policy is approved. Moreover, the point of the global banking system is that money is safe wherever it is deposited. Europe has other money centers, like Luxembourg, where the financial system outstrips gross domestic product. There are no problems there right now, but as we have learned, the European Union is an uncertain place. If Russian deposits can be seized in Nicosia, why not American deposits in Luxembourg?
This was why it was so important to emphasize the potentially criminal nature of the Russian deposits and to downplay the effect on ordinary law-abiding Cypriots. Brussels has worked very hard to make the Cyprus case seem unique and non-replicable: Cyprus is small and its banking system attracted criminals, so the principle that deposits in banks are secure doesn't necessarily apply there. Another way to look at it is that an EU member, like some other members of the bloc, could not guarantee the solvency of its banks so Brussels forced the country to seize deposits in order to receive help stabilizing the system. Viewed that way, the European Union has established a new option for itself in dealing with depositors in troubled banks, and that principle now applies to all of Europe, particularly to those countries with financial institutions potentially facing similar problems.
The question, of course, is whether foreign depositors in European banks will accept that Cyprus was one of a kind. If they decide that it isn't obvious, then foreign corporations -- and even European corporations -- could start pulling at least part of their cash out of European banks and putting it elsewhere. They can minimize the amount of cash on hand in Europe by shifting to non-European banks and transferring as needed. Those withdrawals, if they occur, could create a massive liquidity crisis in Europe. At the very least, every reasonable CFO will now assume that the risk in Europe has risen and that an eye needs to be kept on the financial health of institutions where they have deposits. In Europe, depositing money in a bank is no longer a no-brainer.
Now we must ask ourselves why the Germans would have created this risk. One answer is that they were confident they could convince depositors that Cyprus was one of a kind and not to be repeated. The other answer was that they had no choice. The first explanation was undermined March 25, when Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem said that the model used in Cyprus could be used in future bank bailouts. Locked in by an electorate that does not fully understand Germany's vulnerability, the German government decided it had to take a hard line on Cyprus regardless of risk. Or Germany may be preparing a new strategy for the management of the European financial crisis. The banking system in Europe is too big to salvage if it comes to a serious crisis. Any solution will involve the loss of depositors' money. Contemplating that concept could lead to a run on banks that would trigger the crisis Europe fears. Solving a crisis and guaranteeing depositors may be seen as having impossible consequences. Setting the precedent in Cyprus has the advantage of not appearing to be a precedent.
It's not clear what the Germans or the EU negotiators are thinking, and all these theories are speculative. What is certain is that an EU country, facing a crisis in its financial system, is now weighing whether to pay for that crisis by seizing depositors' money. And with that, the Europeans have broken a barrier that has been in place since the 1930s. They didn't do that casually and they didn't do that because they wanted to. But they did it.
New EU motto, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."
Seems Cyprus depositors could be getting more than a haircut, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of their savings. That's no haircut.
That's what I don't get. The people were up in arms about a 10% grab. Then the EU said they would only go after rich people's money ;and still the people protested. Then a week later this move is made with hardly a peep of protest.
What part of this don't you get? The banks in question are on the brink of collapse, BANKRUPT! Because of bad investments. In a bankruptcy you might get back some of what is owed to you, if you are lucky. How is this different? Because some outside lender is involved? It doesn't change the facts. In a bankruptcy the solutions are not as public as this solution has been. Look, the market in kerosene tins looks pretty good right now (money buried in the back yard)
Ummm ;actually no surprise here... the Ruskie gangstas got their money out ,and it's Europeans that are getting fleeced .
Rich Russians Who Got Their Money Out Of Cyprus Are Taking It To New York's Real Estate Market
Next stop New York: wealthy Russians hurry money from Cyprus to US | World news | guardian.co.uk
Quote:
The meltdown of the Cypriot financial system came as no surprise to well-connected, wealthy Russians, who bundled some of their money to the United States. "Many of our clients had a heads-up on this issue," said Mermelstein. "Cyprus had started having the conversations about what it was intending, and that's been going on for half a year."
That's why some wealthy Russians seemed insulted by the insinuation that the collapse of the Cypriot banking system this week caught them by surprise. Cypriot banks were suffering "substantial outflows" for weeks before the meltdown, according to the country's finance minister, Michael Sarris.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 PM. |