Neil wrote:
And I thought Microsoft is the monopolistic villain in Europe, to be avoided at all costs.

Mike wrote:
Arguing over the "real" differences and definitions of Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, etc. is like trying to decide which pig manure smells less: that from the Razorback, Chester White, Essex, or the Vietnamese Pot-Belly. Relative stink is still stink.

Regarding the actual news article rather than the local rhetoric ...
it is rather obvious that if a recession is caused by a credit bubble - for the private sector can demonstrably 'print more money' even more voraciously than government! - then the necessary correction to that reckless and excessive behaviour would be a contraction of available credit and supply of money in the economy.

A contraction of the money supply is therefore actually what most folks commenting on sermonaudio forums are demanding whether they realise it or not.

peasant wrote:
Oh alright here is an easier one

Why is no issue taken with the statement "Mr Obama and his socialist fixit is making quite an impression on your economy" and yet issue is taken with the factually accurate correction that the quoted "socialist fixit" was actually GW Bush's?

You and/or yous need to use the same measure and definition consistently.

Neither Bush nor Obama are clause IV socialists.
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Thank you for your definition. On those philosophical defintions alone I would agree with you.

Please feel free to police the board against all other variant uses of the word socialist - including any that you may use.

I think it was Neil who quoted recently "“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms” from Voltaire.

From many years of observing these forums it is clear that an effective working definition (among the Americans on sermonaudio) of socialism is when government ever does ANYTHING ADDITIONAL to punishing the evildoer or defending the borders or invading foreign countries.

By that definition spending $700 billion dollars on a government expenditure program most definitely is socialist.

Margaret Thatcher rolled back the frontiers of the state and said "No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well."

The9thPilgrim wrote:
While preaching in a prison in Kazakhstan in 1992 a russian prisioner told me "There were 3 Americans in the last prison he was in" I quickly had him to write down the name and location of the prison before any guards saw us.
When I returned to the states I turned the information over to the authorities, but as far as I know, nothing was done about it. The powers that be never contacted me, eventhough I had contacts in the country and made 10 follow up trips to the area.
Rambo needs to look in Russia and Kazakhstan, not just Vietnam.

Why would you expect or require the American 'authorities' to get back in touch with you about it? Could they trust you not to post about it on the internet for example?

Why would their failure to get back in touch with you imply that "nothing was done about it"? Or do you have specific information that they did not and would not follow up?

If the Kazakhs were illegally detaining US POW's in their jails why would they let American preachers from Arkansas into their prisons to preach?

Lacock wrote:
Bush might be a lot of political things - but socialist??? Nuh!!

"WASHINGTON — After the House reversed course and gave final approval to the $700 billion economic bailout package, President Bush quickly signed it into law on Friday, authorizing the Treasury to undertake what could become the most expensive government intervention in history.

But even as Mr. Bush declared that the measure would “help prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country,” Congressional Democrats said that it was only a first step and pledged to carry out a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system. "

Sillar wrote:
Mr Obama and his socialist fixit is making quite an impression on your economy.

Jessica Dawson wrote:
"The Christian Party" advertisement does infer God in the standard of expectation of moral code...

Many of the persons who complained about the advertisement, may have already been aware of "The Christian Party" policies. Two unpopular policies with voters are: "The Christian Party would end the “promotion” of homosexuality, ban abortion outright."
[/URL]

wee man wrote:
But Scotland never having experienced a specific governing body of any ilk, cannot perceive the benefits obtained thereof. We here in Scotland are therefore destined to wander aimlessly from Westminster to Brussels without the hindsight of how to live under a reigning anybody.

Was "wee man" a reference to the 1 solitary Conservative MP in Scotland out of 59 seats?

Thank you for outlining a case for a supreme democratic Parliament.

Scott McMahan wrote:
This defined-contribution retirement stuff is one of those social contract things where one side isn't keeping its end of the bargain.

Shrinking Remnant wrote:
The fact is that Labour like the Liberals are anti-Christian and pro-sodomite bureaucrats, who wouldn't know how to run a bus que, far less a nation.

Mike wrote:
Regardless of the desire for justice,

Mike wrote:
Regardless of the desire for justice, in what way could the suit have results that matter? Does anyone expect the Pope to show up in a Wisconsin court? Pay a fine? Do not pass go, go directly to jail? It might make someone feel better, but it's a waste of time.

Today the BBC report:-
The Vatican says a lawsuit brought against Pope Benedict and two Church officials by a US man who says he was abused by a priest is "without merit".

Well that's for the court's to decide not the Pope. And of course the Pope won't let the court's examine this as the Vatican are also playing the "don't touch the anointed" card:-

Today the BBC report:-
The statement added that the Pope, as head of a sovereign state, has diplomatic immunity from prosecution in other countries.

Not to worry, the Vatican knowing the hearts and minds of all men also have yet another angle of mud-throwing at the victim:-

Today the BBC report:-
"the lawsuit was "an attempt to use tragic events as a platform for a broader attack" on the Church. "

Neil wrote:
Am I missing something? Why on earth should a group of Christians need *anyone's* permission to meet?

However they probably do need permission to have a noticeboard up announcing the existence of the group and their meetings.
But since we are in the days of online social networking I'm sure they can find ways of seeking each other out.

Now the Airlines are demanding government compensation for the last few days of the zero tolerance policy that they happily flew with for decades.

So, if the policy was so clearly flawed for so many years why did these evidently very powerful airlines not invest a relatively small amount of money in testing this out years ago? Why did they not get the zero tolerance policy abolished years ago and replaced with a 'safe' tolerance level?

The simple fact is the Airlines have no one to blame but themselves for their own shortsightedness, their own failure to perform contingency planning and risk assessment, and their own failure to purchase insurance for such an eventuality.

Mike wrote:
Remember there are some across the pond who still believe in the divine right of kings,

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The Republicans need some different people to run for President.

Max wrote:
... or they join the new exodus out of all Marxist nations to emigrate unto the last refuges of life from conception protecting and freedom of conscience respecting countries still found in certain countries of the 3rd world.