a reply to: Iostsheep
Well, my grandfather on my mothers side (served on destroyers in the Royal Navy, during the second world war) was a community organiser and union man,
a shop steward at Ford motor plant in Dagenham, who, upon return from the second world war, began getting involved with the effort to bring about
welfare for the common good, extracting from the leadership a fitting result for the working people.
And as for left and right...
The paradigm of left and right was not developed in America, and our country has been operating with that general form in mind for longer than yours
has actually existed, so in actual fact, of the two of us, I am in a better position to comment on the matter, since your understanding of it has been
warped by living in the only country in the west which gets its definitions of these things completely wrong.
And again, those who were in Europe during the thirties and forties, know rather better than you do to, hence my grandfather on my fathers side (one
of the D-Day landers, who also was involved in action deeper into Europe, and knew the enemy well enough to successfully dismember their defences and
their assaults with equal aplomb), explaining to me that the Nazis were a far right organisation who had successfully penetrated the socialist left,
then slaughtered them when they were no longer politically useful.
When I say Obama is a capitalist, I am informed by generations and generations of political understanding of a caliber which utterly crushes even the
most advanced understanding you have ever shown, because your polarity parameters are simply wrong. Obama IS a capitalist, because if he was not he
would have pulled all troops from all quarters, ceased all military operations save for observation and recon missions, ceased spending money bombing
targets of little to no strategic or military value, would have made the practice of charging individuals for health insurance illegal and would have
created a single payer system, then slammed it through congress to ensure no bastard EVER made money from medicine, at any level or in any way, like a
decent, noble socialist would have. But no, he did not do that, and none of his proposals actually came close to socialism. Any solution to the
healthcare issue that includes the private sector in any small way, would be totally unacceptable to a socialist. A socialist would insist that all
cities have several state run hospitals, where all employees of it are employees of the state only, where all materials and equipment are state owned,
where all drugs administered and surgeries performed, come at no up front cost to the patient, but are paid for by taxation.
He is not a damned socialist, and I would know, because I AM a socialist, and the closest he ever came, was a damned long way off.
And as for sex trafficking, are you telling me that you cannot see how a person has enough room in their mind to be concerned about both things? Are
you also aware that the common person, no matter what political ideology they might have, can do precisely and absolutely NOTHING about sex
trafficking, because the people who benefit from it have more power than they do? Are you aware that it makes no sense not to solve a problem, just
because it is not the biggest one you have? Are you also aware, that sex trafficking would not occur in your country, if so many people in your
country were not using the services being offered by the scum who run the affairs, if so many kids were not at risk and living on the streets because
the system permitted their parents to abuse them, or permitted their parents to lose their homes and offer no alternative, despite the fact that the
system you live in is what permitted the housing bubble to exist and to burst, at cost only to those who could have done nothing to prevent it at all?
You know NOTHING of socialism, not a damn thing. Its just a bogey man that some total lackwit fed to you as a bed time story, that you have not the
slightest conception of the meaning of in real terms. Furthermore, you have no clue how my country works, otherwise you would not suggest that the
Queen is ruler in any but a ceremonial sense. The Parliament, the government, those we elect, are the ones who make the law, pass it, and enforce it.
Her Majesty does nothing in this country, other than to attract tourists in their droves (which accounts for a significant amount of our income as a
nation), perform ceremonial functions, diplomatic functions with regard to galas, balls and other events held at her homes, and award medals.
Everything else, everything that you expect a state to do, is done by Parliament, and they do NOT run everything by her Majesty before doing it. She
has next to know power, less in fact than I do. She is not permitted to have a say in the political structure of the country, she is not permitted to
veto bills and prospective laws in this country, she is not permitted to interfere in the business of Parliament in the slightest, and that has been
the case by law, for an ENORMOUS number of years.
Go back to school, preferably somewhere where the truth is not fed to you through a filter made of eagle feathers, xenophobia and the stars and
stripes, and actually learn some history, then you might not make such an unutterable fool of yourself in the future, theres a good chap.