Vikings: It came with the machine, I had no option not to purchase the machine without windows as most do not.

Anyway... the subject was the little people, part of the big businesses. Or the little people, those who invest their life savings in what everyone says is a safe bet. It's not their fault a big business makes a mess of things, so why should all those normal, everyday people loose out? Why should they loose everything they spent a life building??

I've seen no-one here come up with an answer to that, just diversion and changing subjects.

Artful Dodger: Wrong. I am not liberal. I will not repeat myself again!!

(V): no body forced you to buy it, you could have bought an apple if you didn't want it.
The subject originally was big business going bankrupt and it evolved into trickle down economics

I would say that Jules would be of the LABOUR persuasion........

Vikings: I didn't want an apple, I wanted a PC... but with apple is the OS bundled?

No.... we were discussing today the little people.

Bernice: Nope.... political systems by their nature don't work. As someone said, democracy is just the best system so far!!

(V): No this thread started with your responding to

gogul: want the big fishes to starve so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so much. Well high politics, justice and the big corporations, soon as it implodes this will be a real relief for the people.

by the way I want a ford because the wheel base suits me but I don't want a ford engine, who do I contact to sue

(V): I probably should have said "has a leaning towards"
as was said below by someone....everyone leans towards something, you can't be "nothing"

I'll say goodnight.. no-one wants to answer to "what happens to the millions of little people"!!

Bernice: Certain philosophies would disagree with you on that.

(V): well thats good, and at least for a change you don't

(V): You can claim to be a box turtle for all I care. That's not the point. Much of your leanings are consistent with the leanings of the liberal establishment. You're religious views for example, are very liberal.

So there.

Bernice: I think the Labour party is equivalent to the liberal party. Mostly

(V): Democracy is a political system. (sigh)

(V): alright, lets go your way, in the U.S. constitution there is a saying that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. there is another quote that says the government will provide for the common defense and promote for the general welfare.
nowhere does it say that there is a guarantee of success.

So that little hot dog maker while you have to applaud his rugged individualism would have made a better choice opening his stand outside someplace like Madison Square garden.
If the government would have been doing it's job, promoting the general welfare, they wouldn't have been siding with unions and instead would have been giving tax breaks to that hot dog stand in hopes that he would eventually invest in a second stand and hire an employee

Artful Dodger: not over here it isn't....2 different parties altogether...

Bernice: What are they and what are their leanings? ;)

Artful Dodger: well......Labour is/was for the working man/underdogs. Liberals are conservative in UK or if you are in the USA Republican.....

I think ROFLMBO

Bernice: Well if that's the case, then my bad. I stand corrected.

Bernice: ah but we have 3 main parties in the UK
i let V fill you in with what they stand for..lol

Imsoaddicted: 3 main parties....I know and so do we but AD and I were only talking those 2 :)

Imsoaddicted: We have three parties too. The democratic/liberal party. The republican/conservative party.

And the office party.

Artful Dodger: that made me laugh

Artful Dodger: I love office parties...I can pinch the bosses bum HAHAHAHAHAHA

Bernice:

are we off topic yet?

Artful Dodger:yep

Artful Dodger: you will be as soon as you sit on the copy machine

Vikings:

Artful Dodger:  What is the difference between a strereotype & a category?

Ferris Bueller: stereotypically I categorize everything

In response to this comment:

> it is the liberals telling us how we have to keep the big dogs alive
> because the little dogs rely on them???

I consider the recent round of bailouts to be neither the result of liberals (or democrats) nor of conservatives (republicans)

As I recall the course of events, initially there were failures in some huge financial institutions such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The Bush administration came to their rescue and turned them back into public companies. This reverse privatization was the first symptom of things being very wrong.

After that we had problems with big banks such as the Bank of America, UBS Payne Webber, Wachovia and eventually the big one, J.P. Morgan. The Federal Reserve opened the cash window and let out about 400 billion in loans to keep banks afloat.

George W. Bush convened a high level meeting with Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve) and Henry Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury). They drafted a proposal for the bailout. The bill went to congress and it was narrowly defeated because of opposition from both Democrat and Republican representatives.

George W. Bush convened a second meeting. This time he also called John MacCain and Barack Obama. They interrupted their campaigns and in the meeting they redrafted the bill with stipulations for continuity of policy after the election. Meaning that regardless of who was elected the bailout would go forward.

The bill went to the senate and it was passed to everyone surprise. The bill was expected to fail because there was opposition from both liberal and conservative senators.

Democrats charged that the bill was nothing more than using tax dollars to prop up banks, while ignoring important needs of the working public such as education and health care. Republicans charged that the involvement of the government in sustaining private companies was a form of socialism and that free market forces should let the system find equilibrium and that meant letting banks fail.

The bill was drafted by both Democrats and Republicans during the Bush administration, and it was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans.

While all this was going on, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Swiss Central Bank, the Central Bank of Sweden, the Central Bank of Russia, the Central Bank fo the People's Republic of China and many other central banks drafted similar bailouts and opened their cash windows. There were unprecedented lowerings of interest rates.

This was a case where capitalists, communists and socialists of different colors and stances worked together to pump cash into the world's financial system and avert another meltdown that threatened to be worse than the crash of 1928.

The bailout is a phenomenon that started with the Federal Reserve in the US, but eventually spread itself around the world.

If all the cash that was released into the system fails to revive the economy, and the banks fail to repay their loans, there will be a lot of finger pointing to see who is to blame. Barack Obama will take the brunt of it, because he is the president. One would hope that John MacCain, George W. Bush, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson would take the blame too. So should Gordon Brown and Mervyn King (Governor of the Bank of England), and for that matter all the other politicians and economists around the world who took part in what has the potential to become the biggest economic disaster in modern history.

Übergeek 바둑이:  All good points.  Things are hardly ever as simple as they appear.  There will be enough blame to go around if the economic policies fail.

Übergeek 바둑이: Don't forget the Barny Franks(who is attempting to repeat his failed policy again) Harry Reid,s and Jimmy Carters of the world and accorn

Ferris Bueller: Good question.

Librarian a category of a certain type of job. From that there are sub categories.

All librarians are old ladies with funny glasses that say, "shhhhh" a lot." is a stereotype.
The term "stereotype" is itself a category.

Things that are heavy = a particular category of things.
All fat people eat potato chips is a stereotype.

A category is a division of classes of things (small, large etc) It's a classification - a group of a particular kind.

A stereotype is the characteristics assigned or generally associated with a particular group. Here there is a bit of a crossover as certain "categories" of groups (liberals) could be given stereotypical characteristics.

But, to say someone is a liberal isn't the same as saying someone IS liberal. The first identifies the category, the second describes the person (and perhaps stereotypes them in doing so).

All liberals have a philosophical leaning that differs in ways from conservative philosophy. Otherwise they'd both be liberals or conservative. A liberal can be a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. (same is true of a conservative - conservative on finances, liberal on views towards social issues).

A stereotype would be to say all liberals are fiscally irresponsible. All religious nuts are conservative. etc

Bernice: "stereotypically I categorize everything"

Perfect!!!

Bernice: Liberals are conservative everywhere in the world, only in the US and Canada, for some weird reason, "liberals" is what they call social democrats.

Pedro Martínez: thanks Hun for that information.....

Via the Wall Street Journal - Obama;s poll numbers are below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001:

[...] Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.

(V):"what happens to the millions of little people"

They'll be big enough to worry about them self and their loved ones. It is now these days where people slip through the crack so badly, while others shamelessly profitate. If you got enough for your self, then why not take responsability for somebody else? Why attempt huge academical constructs like socialism or liberalism when in fact it is so easy? I don't worry about little people, I worry about the label "little people". Great Britain is strong in "producing" little people, a real shame how your government (no matter who governs) have let fall people. Great Britain is very fragile at the moment, go a pay some Liverpool kids train tickets to London, Manchester, and then see the anger.

Pedro Martínez: "Liberals are conservative"

Wow finally. Over here even a radical can be a conservative. Taken by the roots of the words, I'm not ashamed to walk and talk with conservativism. I know enough so called leftists who have a conservative heart, allthough a rather nature loving like conservativism, things like fairness, let live and let die, stay cool, breathe before you talk. Of course it is appropriate to tickle the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is willing to learn btw, yes yes I can see that, I'd call that a miracle if I didn't know it is bad conscience

Artful Dodger: No... They are not liberal, they are just pre doctrine.

So there.

Artful Dodger: Democracy is a form of government, like kings and lords, etc.... Just now we have elected 'lords' and 'kings' rather then lifetime ones.

It's just crazy that we elect our kings and lords without proportional representation.
Also it's crazy that we let them split ourselves into "us and them", which allows them to control us.

How much money has been wasted over "us and them"? how many WMD's have been created over "us and them"?

Liberals and socialists can fight all they want, but leave us conservatives doing our own stuff

Vikings: In 5 words... and you missed it.

I need say no more, your constitution says it.

Imsoaddicted: How can I, when what they stand for keeps changing from day to day. I think Torchwood's last episode this week says it better then I.. you know... the PM trying to spin the potential loss of 10% of kids in the UK.

gogul: London and Manchester have pockets where violence can be bad, and the figures for violence are going down thanks to concentrated efforts involving communities, the police and the government.

I use "little people" as a term, not a label. It's in reference to those who just work for a living, yet businesses are reliant on for their success.

(V): this is why you get a liberal label

where it says promote, you want to provide, and where it says provide, you want to destroy

Vikings: Isn't Bill Gates Californian? If so, I might be wrong, and he got robbed, then why Arnold Schwarzenegger feels to call California broke? 'Bill Gates $ 80 billion' should be pure comfort (I don't believe Gates ever owned something else than digital numbers). No, Bill Gates got broke down, because the anonymous leaders who at times let their ridiculous voices appear on faked radioshows don't want people around who could solve problems. They (the hiden leaders, lets demask Biden) don't want anybody above them, that's why bill gates get neutralized. I want their faces, their names, their organisations, not just their ugly voices on faked radio shows. Soon as that happens, soon as these cowards are unhiden, their end is done. And thanks God they'll suffer.

You Americans really accept Joe Biden as vice? Vomit factor is all I can say. At least we can say, we told you so.