Argentina 2013 Economy

[PhilinBSAS]

In the age of Google, it is hard to justify such misquotations.....

http://en.wikiquote....rgaret_Thatcher

[background=rgb(255, 231, 204)]A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.[/background]

• Attributed to her in Commons debates, 2003-07-02, column 407 and Commons debates, 2004-06-15 column 697. According to a letter to the Daily Telegraph by Alistair Cooke on 2 November 2006, this sentiment originated with Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life". In a letter published the next day, also in the Daily Telegraph, Hugo Vickers claims Loelia Ponsonby admitted to him that she had borrowed it from Brian Howard. There is no solid evidence that Margaret Thatcher ever quoted this statement with approval, or indeed shared the sentiment.

Gotcha!!!

read again what was posted ....."Thatcher is supposed to have said" hahaha you jumped rather quick there in your Thatcher defence

but thanks for reminding us of the world now hopefully gone with Mrs Thatch clinging onto power - with her claw - and Ben Elton on the TV telling us all about it. Happy Days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXpDgEOmwW4

 

[PhilinBSAS]

"Loose" is the opposite of "Tight".

If someone is "Looser" then they are more likely to spend more. Which is the opposite of what someone who is riding the bus would do.

"Loser" is something completely different altogether.

And in other Economic News... http://www.washingto...7acf_story.html

Too kind! The definition here is much better .... 'a "looser" is a loser who cant spell loser'

http://www.urbandict...php?term=looser

 

[expatinowncountry]

On a different note... how do you feel about the economy?

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2013/davos/mood-map/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[PhilinBSAS]

The most bizarre thing to be defending a political figure that I don't even like.....

The most bizarre thing to be defending a political figure that I don't even like.....

Yet you like to quote her? Bizarre and barely credible!

Of course she was also great admirer of Chile and the political leadership there of a few years ago

 

[camberiu]

Yet you like to quote her? Bizarre and barely credible!

Of course she was also great admirer of Chile and the political leadership there of a few years ago

So, you have to like people that you might have areas of agreement with?
Yes, Thatcher admired Pinochet. Peron admired Mussolini. FDR admired Stalin. Tons of leaders, including Obama, admired FDR (the guy who sent Japanese-Americans to concentration camps during WWII). Politicians are a-holes and they love to admire other a-holes. Welcome to real life. That is why I don't trust politicians and the state that they run.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

So, you have to like people that you might have areas of agreement with?
Yes, Thatcher admired Pinochet. Peron admired Mussolini. FDR admired Stalin. Tons of leaders, including Obama, admired FDR (the guy who sent Japanese-Americans to concentration camps during WWII). Politicians are a-holes and they love to admire other a-holes. Welcome to real life. That is why I don't trust politicians and the state that they run.

Watched the Ben Elton youtube clip yet I posted?

But this last faintly nihilistic posting of yours is disingenous - there are political and economic choices and unless you totally despise democracy then it is necessary to progress with elected mandates

Your alternative is what? thinking you will make it as a political satirist ?

I've worked with politicians of various hues in Europe - none here in Argentina true - and and by far the larger proportion seem to me to have been genuine in what they are attempting to do for the greater good: however they perceived it including over the question is more or less government better government, To me the proportion of "bent" ones seemed to be of much the same order as in every other walk of life at least from what I saw.

 

[camberiu]

I've worked with politicians of various hues in Europe - none here in Argentina true - and and by far the larger proportion seem to me to have been genuine in what they are attempting to do for the greater good: however they perceived it including over the question is more or less government better government, To me the proportion of "bent" ones seemed to be of much the same order as in every other walk of life at least from what I saw.

I think Obama is very "genuine in what he is attempting to do for the greater good", even while sending drones to blow up civilians and all. So was Pol Pot, as he killed 25% of the Cambodian population. He was trying to build an utopia for the poor people and I think he was genuine on his intentions. I am confident that even Hitler thought on his mind that he was acting "for the greater good" for the german people. Honestly, I think few people do things thinking that they are doing "bad things". Intentions have nothing to do with being an a-hole politician or not. As the old cliché saying goes: The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Integrity is the key element here. Integrity is what people who long for power need to abdicate in order to fulfill their calling. In order to climb the political ladder, one must free himself from integrity. Obama did it. So did Tony Blair, Tatcher, Clinton, Cristina, Lula and pretty much all major "successful" politicians out there. The ones who don't, the Ron Pauls, the Kucinichs of the world don't go very far. Integrity is what prevent the political deal making, the bending of principles, the moral relativism, and everything else that allows well intended a-hole politicians to do the awful things that they do.

 

[Rich One]

"Loose" is the opposite of "Tight".

If someone is "Looser" then they are more likely to spend more. Which is the opposite of what someone who is riding the bus would do.

"Loser" is something completely different altogether.

And in other Economic News... http://www.washingto...7acf_story.html

Napoleon...!! you sure know what a looser is and surely know what tight is, as in Tight End ...!!! not to confuse wit anal retentive...!!

 

[Rich One]

 

[EricLovesBA]

I think Obama is very "genuine in what he is attempting to do for the greater good", even while sending drones to blow up civilians and all. So was Pol Pot, as he killed 25% of the Cambodian population. He was trying to build an utopia for the poor people and I think he was genuine on his intentions. I am confident that even Hitler thought on his mind that he was acting "for the greater good" for the german people. Honestly, I think few people do things thinking that they are doing "bad things". Intentions have nothing to do with being an a-hole politician or not. As the old cliché saying goes: The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Integrity is the key element here. Integrity is what people who long for power need to abdicate in order to fulfill their calling. In order to climb the political ladder, one must free himself from integrity. Obama did it. So did Tony Blair, Tatcher, Clinton, Cristina, Lula and pretty much all major "successful" politicians out there. The ones who don't, the Ron Pauls, the Kucinichs of the world don't go very far. Integrity is what prevent the political deal making, the bending of principles, the moral relativism, and everything else that allows well intended a-hole politicians to do the awful things that they do.

It's all that, but also that our dumbed-down population doesn't want to challenge authority or do any critical analysis of who they are voting for, or who is behind them. They just want to sit back in an easy chair and let somebody else make the hard decisions, and a daddy figure will be the best one to fulfill that role. I used to spend a lot of time wishing that Ron Paul could deliver his message better, without all the mumbling and tripping over himself, and thought that if he could just do that, the people might hear his message. But one day I suddenly realized that he specifically didn't pursue those types of speaking tools because of his rare value system. He doesn't aspire to wield power over people. Politicians who want to do that spend their hours practicing scripted speeches in front of a mirror, with their hair combed perfectly, thinking of how they can manipulate and inspire and trick everyone into following their hidden agenda. I think that didn't occur to Ron Paul. He thought he could just say sensible things in a logical way, uphold the constitution with transparency, and the people could lead themselves from the grass roots. And maybe he was right. Maybe the people will be ready for that after the house of cards comes tumbling down. We can hope his optimism was not misplaced.