(V): I wasn't saying they are exactly the same things, but both entail similar risks that can affect prospective homeowners... that much I think we can agree on.

What they do have in common is government involvement in private enterprises and concerns. Some people are concerned about governments encroachment on our private lives and personal business dealings. They see it as the government becoming a nanny state... gradually taking over personal responsibilites to make life easier for us, but at the same time making us more and more dependent on the government. Increased government involvement may be good for government workers (whose salaries are drawn from taxes) but not always so good for the private citizen (who works to pay those taxes).

What you're talking about is government inserting itself into the housing market by offering to underwrite loans. I can see you are okay with that, and your complaint is actually about something else... socially funded housing.

(V): I assume what you call social housing is what we call low income (affordable) housing.

Iamon lyme: ... I stand by common law more than statutes and acts. The power on consent is then mine... as we are policed by consent.

.... If you are not breaking common law than what is the worry?

"I can see you are okay with that, and your complaint is actually about something else... socially funded housing."

No.... I'm not ok with it, but I accept if run well it could be a useful scheme.

"I assume what you call social housing is what we call low income (affordable) housing."

No. it's not the same. With some areas (eg London) being very expensive many middle class folk do live in social housing... The properties are better maintained than private landlords tend to can be bothered with.

Low income would be the slum owning private landlords renting places out that are 10 years overdue for an extreme makeover!!

(V): "Low income would be the slum owning private landlords renting places out that are 10 years overdue for an extreme makeover!!"

In the US, what we call "low income" housing is government subsidized housing. Sometimes they are called housing developments or "the projects".

"With some areas (eg London) being very expensive many middle class folk do live in social housing... The properties are better maintained than private landlords tend to can be bothered with."

Maintained by whom? If not by private landlords, then who is in charge of those properties? I'm not familiar with the term "social housing"... what exactly is it?

(V): Subject: "... I stand by common law more than statutes and acts. The power on consent is then mine... as we are policed by consent. .... If you are not breaking common law than what is the worry?"

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm talking about an increasing role of government in our lives, beyond what is necessary or appropriate. I can understand how someone might not be alarmed by this, because everyone has a different idea as to what level of government involvement is appropriate or not. Some people would happily give up many of their freedoms in exchange for being cared for, and others wouldn't like it at all.

(V): Okay, I should know better by now... all I had to do was google "social housing in england", and here is what I got:

"A key function of social housing is to provide accommodation that is affordable to people on low incomes. Rents in the social housing sector are kept low through state subsidy. The social housing sector is currently governed by a strictly defined system of rent control to ensure that rents are kept affordable."

"Social housing is allocated on the basis of need
Unlike the private rental sector, in which tenancies are offered according to the free choice of the landlord or existing household in question, social housing is allocated according to need."

"Each social landlord operates an allocations policy, stating in advance what factors will be taken into account when deciding who gets preference for the limited amount of social housing on offer. These policies must include 'reasonable preference criteria' that are set out in law, but beyond this, allocations policies can be drawn up at the discretion of the social landlord."


This is what we in the U.S. call "low income housing". The only difference I can make out is that your social landlords have more latitude in drawing up allocations policies... other than that, there is no real difference.

Iamon lyme: Subsidies for new homes (often termed 'social housing grant') amount to sizeable public investments. In its 2008–11 Prospectus, the Housing Corporation stated that in the three-year period to 2011 subsidy would be "at least £8 billion".[5] The majority of this would go to housing associations for use in development projects. Since 2003, in an effort to seek greater value for money, much of the funding by the Housing Corporation for new house building has been channelled to fewer than 80 "developing housing associations" that have achieved "partner status" through Partner Programme Agreements.

Housing associations borrow money to pay for new homes and improvements. After the Housing Act 1988, the proportion of the cost of new homes met by capital grant was scaled back by the Government, so borrowing became the primary source of funding for investment. Much of this was simply borrowed from banks and building societies, but after the late-2000s financial crisis these institutions ceased to offer long-term loans, so developing associations are increasingly turning to corporate bonds to raise funds for expansion.

"The only difference I can make out is that your social landlords have more latitude in drawing up allocations policies... other than that, there is no real difference."

From what I've seen...... a big difference. Maybe just your media misrepresents your 'projects' :/ Standards tend to be better here.

"Some people would happily give up many of their freedoms in exchange for being cared for, and others wouldn't like it at all."

Some people seem to think their freedom can be taken... sorry, but to me that is a big lie. Hence the reference to common law. Inalienable rights like you state your constitution provides... but we don't need to fight and moan.

One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes and is therefore operating as a 'free' man of the land and bound by only common law. By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free.

But you are bound to not harm, defraud or cause loss or damage to anyone or their property under common law.

(V): "From what I've seen...... a big difference. Maybe just your media misrepresents your 'projects' :/ Standards tend to be better here."

If our media misrepresents anything, it usually falls on the side of favoring governmental actions and covering as best it can government misdeeds. But this is only temporary, and the media will reverse itself when the other party is in power... they always do.

As for misrepresenting low income housing, what would be the point of doing that? I can google low income housing and find information nearly identical to your social housing.

"Some people seem to think their freedom can be taken... sorry, but to me that is a big lie."

I see, so it's your belief that once you have a freedom it can never be taken away. That must feel very reassuring.

"One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes and is therefore operating as a 'free' man of the land and bound by only common law."

We have guys like that over here too. But they tend to keep to themselves and collect weapons.

"By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free."

I see, so he wanted to remind the government of those rights in case they forgot or were tempted to ignore them.

"But you are bound to not harm, defraud or cause loss or damage to anyone or their property under common law."

That's reasonable.

"Hence the reference to common law. Inalienable rights like you state your constitution provides..."

Over here we have a president, fully supported by his party, who has been ignoring our constitutional rights from the day he stepped into office.

"but we don't need to fight and moan."

You have much more important issues to fight and moan over.

Iamon lyme: A few corrections:

If our media misrepresents anything, it usually falls on the side of favoring governmental actions and covering UP as best it can government misdeeds.


"By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free."

I see, so he wanted to remind the government he was free... just in case they forgot or were tempted to ignore that little detail. (?)



One other point I failed to mention... you said: "One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes... "

It appears he has given himself permission to ignore any of those acts or statutes if he so chooses.

The gorgeous mens farting board welcomes your comments and opinions.

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: "Why is it government never learns? They keep making the same mistakes over and over."

It's not easy to come up with a short answer to that. When government is made up of too many individuals who only work for personal political gain, then anything can happen. A lot of time and effort goes into securing votes and gaining control... so there's not a lot of time left over for actually doing their jobs.

There are short term political strategies, like pressuring banks into making risky home loans to curry favor (i.e., votes) among poorer working class people. We all know how well that worked out.

And then there are long term strategies, like rejecting tort reform so that problems with the health care industry would lead to a government take over... we will know before too long how well that works out.

Iamon lyme: Including the mix that happens? As 'estates' as such are disappearing.

"We have guys like that over here too. But they tend to keep to themselves and collect weapons"

Not the same.

"I see, so he wanted to remind the government of those rights in case they forgot or were tempted to ignore them."

No.

"Over here we have a president, fully supported by his party, who has been ignoring our constitutional rights from the day he stepped into office."

And you think the Republicans don't?

"You have much more important issues to fight and moan over."

???

"It appears he has given himself permission to ignore any of those acts or statutes if he so chooses."

You don't get it. If people were not ignoring common law, none of these statutes would be needed... or as a buffer to stop so many companies and 'persons' ending up in court on criminal charges.... for things like 'food safety'.

(V): [ Including the mix that happens? As 'estates' as such are disappearing. ]

The mix? Disappearing 'estates'? Well, I can't argue with that...

What the #@&% are you talking about?


"Over here we have a president, fully supported by his party, who has been ignoring our constitutional rights from the day he stepped into office."

[ And you think the Republicans don't? ]

How many presidents do you think we have?


"You have much more important issues to fight and moan over."

[ ??? ]

Errant banks and phone hacking scandals and rich people with offshore accounts.


"It appears he has given himself permission to ignore any of those acts or statutes if he so chooses."

[ You don't get it. If people were not ignoring common law, none of these statutes would be needed...]

And if those people decided they too will no longer stand under any acts or statutes... do you see where I'm going with this? If those acts and statutes were not needed, there wouldn't be any acts or statutes. And if one person says he only recognizes common law and does not stand under any acts or statutes, what's to stop everyone else from making the same claim? He is fantasizing about a perfect world where everyone respects "common law", making any other rule or act or statute or law unnecessary. Either that or he's doing it for his allotted 15 minutes of fame.

Good news, the fraudulent prediction charges were subsequently dropped.

What happened to the occupy wall street crowd?

Iamon lyme: People having bought off the 'councils', I mentioned it earlier. That building projects now tend to be more 'general' not 'projects'.

"How many presidents do you think we have?"

One at a time. Bush was quite willing to have demonstrators against the Iraq invasion 'escorted' to zones away from the eye of the 'press''.

Isn't that a breach of your rights in the USA? When Raygun and other US governments supported terrorists isn't that a breach of American Law?

"Errant banks and phone hacking scandals and rich people with offshore accounts."

And a big company called UK.plc

"And if those people decided they too will no longer stand under any acts or statutes... do you see where I'm going with this?"

Them being responsible rather than need 'government' to tell them. I thought you were for that!!

Iamon lyme: Three of the occupy Wall Street group got jobs (at McDonalds) and that cut their numbers significantly so they disbanded. One became a CEO of his own company! He opened a koolaid stand in front of him mom's house. The city shut it down though claiming a zoning violation. So now he's back to sleeping all day and getting drunk all night. One of the Occupy girls decided to go into prostitution but she refused to have sex with strangers so that didn't work out either. All in all I'd say the movement was successful in that it demonstrated to the world what a person can do if they leave their mind out of it. Also, as a social experiment, the Occupy movements have gone a long way to proving the adage: You can't fix stupid.

I met an owl once and told her she was the prettiest animal on the planet.

She didn't give a hoot.

Happy Easter or as they say in New York, Happy Spring!

(V): "How many presidents do you think we have?"

[ One at a time. ]

So which one do you think I was talking about?


[ Bush was quite willing to have demonstrators against the Iraq invasion 'escorted' to zones away from the eye of the 'press''. Isn't that a breach of your rights in the USA? When Raygun and other US governments supported terrorists isn't that a breach of American Law? ]

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the current president. I always know when I've scored points when you decide to take a walk down memory lane.

[ Them being responsible rather than need 'government' to tell them. I thought you were for that!! ]

Sure, but no one needs to make self serving and essentially meaningless proclamations in order to do that. In a perfect world, everyone would behave responsibly whether there were acts and statutes or not.

[ People having bought off the 'councils', I mentioned it earlier. That building projects now tend to be more 'general' not 'projects'. ]

You mean corruption still exists? Oh well... so much for the power of wishing a perfect world into existence, eh?

Artful Dodger: []_ [[]] []_

Sounds like something I would make up, just to be funny... what is even funnier is that it could all be true! I can't tell the difference anymore. Whenever I think something is just made up nonsense it often turns out to be true... LOL

Iamon lyme: No.

"I always know when I've scored points when you decide to take a walk down memory lane."

I know (if it's all about point scoring as you state) that such an answer means you have no answer. You can't justify Bush crushing Americans First Amendment rights.

Ok... I can understand that. He was a Conservative, and Conservatives don't do that.

Right??

Artful Dodger: No. But you can stand upto it.

(V): Yes.

Obama takes first prize. Carter and Clinton combined did less damage than Obama can take credit for, and he's not done yet.

Iamon lyme: meaningless.

(V): Why stop with Reagan and Bush? Lincoln trampled over the rights of law abiding slave owners, and Washington defied the king when he fought against British troops. It all started in 1,000,000 BC when Ogg took Ugh as his mate from a neighboring clan, thinking it would end strife between the two clans. But the plan backfired, and it only worked to create more resentment and greater animosity between the two clans. So Ogg took Pew as another mate from a smaller third clan, to shore up his strength if the two major clans ever came to blows. This too was a mistake, because the third lesser clan decided to align itself with Oggs enemy.

Ogg traveled many days to reach the largest clan in recorded prehistoric history, and took Ick as a mate after striking a deal with that clans leader... Icks father. But Ogg never received any support from him after Ogg came home with Ick... he called and left messages, but Icks father never got back to him. Before it was all over the political landscape was a mess, and Ogg had seven mates fighting among themselves for his attention...
Oh well, pooka happens.

Iamon lyme: Meaningless.

(V): "Meaningless."

LOL

Iamon lyme: Well..... I don't see you doing anything than making straw man arguments.

(V): I try! In New York (at some school) you can't say "Easter" as in Easter Bunny or Easter break or Easter eggs. It's Spring Break (I'm ok with that) and Spring Bunny (WTH????) And Spring Eggs????

Stupid school administrators.

In another school, dodge ball has been banned because 5 parents complained. I say put the parents in the middle of the dodge ball circle and pummel the (beep) out of them with the dodge balls. Head shots permitted (since they aren't using them anyway).

Here's a solution for those that don't like the game dodge ball: don't play.l

Artful Dodger: ... A school in the UK banned triangular shaped flapjack after a kid got hit in the eye during a food fight. They say that it's point is more dangerous than the corners on square or rectangular flapjack.

..... what everyone else is saying.. don't be ridiculous, and maybe you should look at how this food fight was allowed to start instead of blaming the injury on triangular flapjack.

A company spokesman declared that it cannot communicate with a regional office in the matter of transferring paperwork.

.... they were reminded that there is a postal service in the UK, soon after the paperwork appeared.

.... Honey, has a best before date.

Artful Dodger: Yup that dodge ball thing is here in New Hampshire. There is currently a petition going around to overturn the new rule.

Our state used to be reasonable until all the libs started moving in.

.... and there you have a contradiction.

The UK is supposed to be more 'liberal' and/or 'socialist'.... Yet everyone says "Happy Easter"... schools.. no problem. Displays... no problem. Churches advertising Easter service or activities thereof to help keep the kids entertained.... no problem.

And it's Easter Holiday and end of the spring term at the same time Art here!! ;P

Hot Cross Bun anyone?

(V): So often the powers go overboard without considering the unintended consequences.

rod03801: Liberals in America ruin everything.

(V): We have Spring Break, and Easter here as well. Or if your in New York, it's Spring Break and Spring Holiday (they forgot that Holiday mean Holy Day)

Artful Dodger: shhhhhhh, don't tell them what it means! Big brother might be watching.

<><<

__ __
( o) ( 0)


<><<

Artful Dodger: Yeah... What would Iran be like if the Imperial forces of the west (in this case the USA and UK) hadn't deposed a democratically elected good guy and placed their puppet the Shah of Persia in his place... for the sake of oil that was not theirs.

But someone had signed a piece of paper that it was, and not the people of Iran.

60 years on and people of Iran are still getting killed over this decision.

Is it because BP is British you say Liberals screw everything.. Iran.. The Gulf of Mexico.

After all... they are defined as being people too, companies that is... to be correct an artificial person. Not a Natural person though... that is reserved for humans only.

Artful Dodger: I think you guys need to stop arguing about religion so much in the USA.

It's like a long Greek tragedy, where at stake is the answer to the question of the current position of the electrons around a single molecule of water held on the end of a feather balanced on the end of a pin in a vacuum, under a glass dome.

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

(V): I don't get this "for the sake of oil" argument. If liberals are so distraught over what they say is US effort to grab oil from other countries, then why do they resist US efforts to access it's own oil?

This is a contradiction for which I have never heard a reasonable explanation. How can anyone justify saying we want someone elses oil when we have more than enough of our own?

We don't want control over 'their' oil, we want control over OUR oil. The most recent estimates show our own sources at least matches (and might exceed) how much middle eastern oil is available.

We don't go to war to gain control over someone elses oil, but just for the sake of argument let's assume this is true... what is the liberal's explanation for effectively making us dependent on foreign oil? Liberals in this country are responsible for stopping oil companies from drilling, and have resisted the building of new refineries, so if anyone is responsible for what they call a 'war for oil' it would be be them.

If they think the US goes to war just to get control over someone elses oil, then I can't think of a better way to solve that problem than by allowing the US to access it's own oil. Liberals may be able to have it both ways (restrict drilling and claim war for oil) but they can't adequately explain any of this away with so called environmental concerns... that's BS. The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation. So if a clean environment is what they are really concerned about, they should go grip about it to countries who don't care how much pollutant they pile into the air.

(V): "I think you guys need to stop arguing about religion so much in the USA."

Who's arguing about religion?

A boy was suspended from school for nibbling a pop tart in the shape of a gun. The size of soft drinks have been limited in New York because the mayor is concerned about how much sugar people get. Football players won't be allowed to drop their heads anymore when rushing down the field, because they might hurt someone... with their heads. Apparently it's better if their heads are vulnerable when rushing down the field. Can't play dodge ball anymore??? I played dodge ball when I was a kid, it was a blast. How can you get hurt by a soft rubber ball? I think schools should ban pencils, and compasses with their sharp metal points... no one can stab you with a soft rubber ball.

The list goes on and on and on. Liberals take all of their silly ideas very seriously, including what we should and shouldn't say. We shouldn't say Merry Christmas, we should say Happy Holidays. AD pointed out that the word holiday (probably the origin of the word) means Holy day, so we shouldn't be surprised if one day liberals decide we must stop saying 'holiday'.

We weren't arguing about religion... we were laughing at liberals.

Iamon lyme: You didn't at the time.

"We don't go to war to gain control over someone elses oil, but just for the sake of argument let's assume this is true."

It is true.

"what is the liberal's explanation for effectively making us dependent on foreign oil? Liberals in this country are responsible for stopping oil companies from drilling."

Are they?

"The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation."

Do you? Including or excluding pollution from China based firms manufacturing goods for American companies to sell to the world??

"We weren't arguing about religion... we were laughing at liberals."

I was laughing at both conservatives and liberals in the USA on this one... It's just alll stoooopid imo. :)

(V): "You didn't at the time."

"at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?


"It is true."

No it isn't.

"Are they?"

Yes they are.


"The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation."

[ Do you? Including or excluding pollution from China based firms manufacturing goods for American companies to sell to the world?? ]

Yeah, and the US is also responsible for everything that happens in the UK. Seriously, grow up.

Iamon lyme: It is?? The New York Times says any such increase is temporary and that US domestic production is up 10%

"No it isn't."

Yes it is. You think all those toppled governments by the CIA were just for the good of the people whose country it was?

"Yes they are."

No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in the USA.

"Yeah, and the US is also responsible for everything that happens in the UK. Seriously, grow up."

Seriously, that was just an avoidance answer. 0 points for that. I'll give points if you can tell me what new man made island exists? Or what state is reporting pollutants from China via the Jet Stream?

Correction...

"No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in the USA."

Should read...

"No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that you think is wrong with the USA.