If the net, and blogs particularly, are to be of any value, they must discuss key public issues and make sure that politicians can no longer tell us lies in the belief that we have forgotten what they've done. In the US, people used this technique to defeat Karl Rove's lies about Obama (where Rove had been very successful in previous elections).
The politicians' natural instinct is to 'muddy the waters' in any such discussion so that enough of their supporters and of the rest of society will leave them be.
I, Cos67, hope to add my voice to the continuing trend in truthing. Case in point: The Question Time show, which I have criticised, actually allowed a brief audience comment after the Scottish Secr. of State (kisr. of arse) ABSOLVED PM Brown of ANY blame in the 'international' financial crisis. The audience person said "remember, Brown was chancellor (or 'chancer') when the Financial Services Authority was instituted." [again, NOBODY was allowed to answer this point!]
Perhaps the FSA was instituted in the knowledge that it would do exactly what it did. The FSA effectively freed the markets from oversight because (according to a documentary) it did not have the ability to do its job properly. It didn't understand, for example, those debt vehicles that later destroyed our economies. Well then! What better excuse did it need for dis-allowing such dubious paper to be traded?
Didn't Brown realise this? He's an economist, I believe. Or did he plan this scam because he was trying to prove that "there will be no more boom and bust cycles" (world-beating hubris, uttered in parliament- look it up). Now we have bubble and burst cycles- much better. How much responsibility does he bear?
Last point: Private Eye publisher on have I got news for you, (when asked whether he will admit that Brown has saved us from 'drowning'- in the crisis) says basically "I will, if Brown admits that he had pushed us in the water in the first place."
Don't forget these ideas. Pass them on.
-The FSA failed us.
-no more boom and bust. More bubble and burst.
[lingo- http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/CHANCER]
The politicians' natural instinct is to 'muddy the waters' in any such discussion so that enough of their supporters and of the rest of society will leave them be.
I, Cos67, hope to add my voice to the continuing trend in truthing. Case in point: The Question Time show, which I have criticised, actually allowed a brief audience comment after the Scottish Secr. of State (kisr. of arse) ABSOLVED PM Brown of ANY blame in the 'international' financial crisis. The audience person said "remember, Brown was chancellor (or 'chancer') when the Financial Services Authority was instituted." [again, NOBODY was allowed to answer this point!]
Perhaps the FSA was instituted in the knowledge that it would do exactly what it did. The FSA effectively freed the markets from oversight because (according to a documentary) it did not have the ability to do its job properly. It didn't understand, for example, those debt vehicles that later destroyed our economies. Well then! What better excuse did it need for dis-allowing such dubious paper to be traded?
Didn't Brown realise this? He's an economist, I believe. Or did he plan this scam because he was trying to prove that "there will be no more boom and bust cycles" (world-beating hubris, uttered in parliament- look it up). Now we have bubble and burst cycles- much better. How much responsibility does he bear?
Last point: Private Eye publisher on have I got news for you, (when asked whether he will admit that Brown has saved us from 'drowning'- in the crisis) says basically "I will, if Brown admits that he had pushed us in the water in the first place."
Don't forget these ideas. Pass them on.
-The FSA failed us.
-no more boom and bust. More bubble and burst.
[lingo- http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/CHANCER]
