. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Got something you need to say? Anything you want to get off your chest? Someone you need to talk about ? Questions to need to ask? Here’s your chance: have at it!
I want to talk about US Vice President Joe Biden and say how much I admire him.By all accounts he is a rather nice chap, if somewhat possessing 'windbag' tendencies, and difficult to dislike.One of the main things I admire about Biden is his uniqueness in not having made any money from his time as a Politician.When first elected to the Senate in 1972 Biden listed his net assets as $4100 (in a disclosure dated on or about 6th January 1973); 36 years and a fortnight later, when he resigned to become Vice President, he listed his net assets as $56,000 most of which was the equity in his house. This equates to Biden having profited by the grand total of TWENTY EIGHT DOLLARS PER WEEK from being a US Senator.Contrast that with the exponential growth in wealth of virtually all his colleagues during that 36 year period, not to mention throughout the history of the republic.Readers of pc.blogspot.com wanting to know more about the Vice President (beyond the usual "Democrat = BAD" rantings of Fox news and others) may like to read a quasi-biography about Biden (amongst others) in a book called 'What It Takes' by Richard Ben Cramer; despite its often blunt and unflattering portrayal of him it is deemed to be accurate by Biden himself.
Have a look at this http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/blogs/frontline/2821218/Put-a-cap-on-eye-popping-incomes for a laugh...
Wouldn't Biden's accumulation of net assets of only $56,000 after at least 36 years of adulthood point to him being a poor choice to help manage a budget of several trillions, particularly since he would have been fairly well paid during that time?
PC, I saw a Richard Dawkins on Sky (History or Documentary channel I think), where he described the selfish gene. According to him, that us humans are different from other animal species in that human society is really socialist, because of the selfish gene. This gene drives us to act collectively in such a manner.
FF: Are you sure that's the point he was making? In his book of the same name he makes a similar point, but emphasises that the definitions are different. That is, the genes aren't truly "selfish" as that would imply intelligence, and that what might look like socialism/collectivism/altruism is actually acting to promote genetic proliferation.I might have read it wrong, but nowhere that I recall did Dawkins imply we were socialists. Simply that, like any other species, we follow the laws of natural selection for the SPECIES not the individual. As soon as we apply will and intelligence to the mix, we're innately individualists.
2 cheers for the arrest of fraudster Lindon Graham - it only took 20 years.Banker's Assoc and others tried to put pressure on police for years to get this guy, but because no force was involved he was put on the back burner, priority-wise.And he's a total sleazebag - involved in prostitute rings in Asia, too.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10594433
I ould like to talk about the banning of gang patches in Wanganui.If this law is designed to remove undesireables from intimidating people in the city, then I hope it applies to the RED gang and the BLUE gang and the GREEN gangs also.Gang patches serve a very useful purpose. They let you know where all the drop kicks and losers are, so that you can avoid them. I mean you wouldn't want to go standing next to a Green Party supporter at the supermarket checkout would you?
Tomahawk KidWell said that man.LGM
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.Construct an argument, not a feud--build a mountain, not a molehill.Spam will be removed , unless it's been asked for.(Comment moderation is currently being reluctantly applied...)