The only issue I disagreed with is unlimited/ unrestricted international free trade.....I am as vehamently against the corpocrocy as I am the beurocrocy. Both pose an equal threat to individul rights, freedoms and liberties and both use the same methods (comply or else).
IP: Logged
11:47 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Since this is a relatively short quiz, I am interested in where people stand on the questions presented, and why they made the choices they made.
Here are my answers, and reasons for them.
Personal Issues
* Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet. agree
I do not think that censorship is a job for the government.
* Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. agree
* There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. agree
Stay out of the bedroom!
* Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. agree
So long as their use presents no threat to others.
* There should be no National ID card. maybe
I question the question regarding a National ID card. I carry a passport to allow me to travel outside the United States. A passport is a National ID, is it not? If someone from another country comes to visit ours, they are required to carry their passport also. In this case, is a National ID appropriate? I believe that it is, and because of that, I answered the question as maybe. It should be an individual choice as to whether or not one wishes to carry this ID. Another simple example is your Social Security Number on your State Drivers License. I have yet to live somewhere that I am required to have this, but I am given the option when applying for a drivers license, or State ID. By adding your SSN to your State ID, are you in theory now making it also a National ID?
Economic Issues
* End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business. agree
If a corporation needs a loan, we have banks for that! If a bank needs a loan, maybe they are in the wrong business.
* End government barriers to international free trade. disagree
I disagree with ending government barriers to international free trade because all nations would need to agree on this, which I doubt they would. As an example, China continues to manipulate its currency to better position itself in the global market place. If we eliminate our barriers, how do we successfully compete with them in a "free" market?
* Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. disagree
If we privatize Social Security, and let people control their own retirement, what do we do with those who have not "lived responsibly"? I do not want the government to have control of my individual retirement investments, but I believe that there needs to be a fallback system in place. Should Social Security on its own put you in the lap of luxury? No, but the recipient should be able to have adequate shelter and food.
* Replace government welfare with private charity. maybe
I would like to see Private Charity have a go, but I also have my reservations. Many people make an awful good living on the provider side of private charities. If a charity exists to serve those in need, they shouldn't use up the funds to finance lavish lifestyles. I volunteer regularly for 2 private charities in my community, and we do good works, but there are lucrative corporations that have been built as "charities" as well. United Way is one that comes to mind. I also want to state that I do not believe that our government has shown themselves to be the best charitable provider either.
* Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. maybe
I'd love a tax cut. Obviously it would require a reduction in government spending, but I can't agree fully with this because I can't offer a solution. The statement of cutting taxes and reducing spending never has follow through. I love the idea, but tell me how. Because of that, I can only answer with maybe.
My Score....
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%
So by this short little quiz, I am rated Liberal. Maybe I need to kick my grandfather to the curb!
IP: Logged
02:30 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
I consider myself a Libertarian, but am officially (and pissed that I'm currently) aligned with the Constitution party, which needs to change. When I renewed my drivers license back in July I re-registered to vote, and they chose the wrong damn party for me. Although I do agree with some of the Constitution party's ideals, I very much dislike the fact that they are religiously biased towards Christianity.
Although I align myself and my views with the Libertarians, I would rather not be part of their party. I despise politics and political parties, as they are all out to fill their own agendas, with no care in the world for what happens to the constituents (usually).
Lol yes, this test is slanted. It wants people to think "Oh, I'm Libertarian! I guess I should vote with them now!"
I'm 100% fiscally conservative, and scored 80% on personal issues whatever that means.
To answer KidO, I'll give my reasons:
- Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.Agree
This seems pretty self explanatory. I am for freedom of speech for every party. And if the media wants to promote incredibly biased material, then let the viewers decide who they want to watch. They will find that the media outlets with the largest slants will lose ratings. There is a reason why
quote
In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News. Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only channel to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the news channel, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score.
- Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.Agree
This is a harder question to answer. I am for the choice... however I would not necessarily be against a mandatory draft. Because of my indecision, I went with agree because I did not join the military myself, and would exercise that right again if put back to when I was 17.
- There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.Disagree
While I don't think there should be laws in place for sex, I do believe that marriage needs to maintain it's purpose as a union between man and woman. Therefore, I chose disagree considering I think this question has underlying motives.
- Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.Agree
If people want to do drugs, it is their choice. However, if it will bring harm to anyone other than the user, then it should be at least limited.
I am pro legalization for marijuana, so I had to say agree.
- There should be no National ID card.Agree
It scares me that one day it will be a requirement. We'll have to get some form of I.D. tattooed on us or given under the skin.
- End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.Agree
If a business can't handle itself, don't bail them out. They made stupid decisions in the first place, it's their own damn fault.
- End government barriers to international free trade.Agree
I would like companies to stay in the U.S., but I also think they should have the right to do whatever they want. They should make the smartest move for their company and the country.
- Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.Agree
100% believe this. If you can't manage your money, then you failed your 65 year test. My stance on handouts extends to senior citizens. No handouts.
- Replace government welfare with private charity.Agree
Absolutely. There is chance for corruption, but at least people receiving help would have PERSONAL relationships with the givers, and actually motivated to change. And givers of help will be able to help such a broader range of people. Not to mention taxes would drop exceedingly.
- Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.Agree
Sure. Why not? Isn't this what everyone wants? Keep the government out of everyone's crap and there will be less spending.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 10-23-2010).]
It was 'spot-on' for me Your PERSONAL issues Score is 30%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%
According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...
Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
I should, however, provide a point which, to me, is very relevant to my views:
"Only until there ever comes a time when People learn, and accept, personal responsibilities'. It really is that simple. There are too many 'loose cannons' nowadays, whose irresponsibility can, and DOES, impinge upon the freedoms of the RESPONSIBLE section of Society. Hence..we will always need Government in some form or another. the two, sadly, go together And worse...the Governments of today have absolutely NO clue as to what responsibility entails...so long as they get their 'cake', and most everybody elses' too, and can eat it. Maybe if we get rid of 50% of the Government, and let Anarchy run wild, the 'Good' will be prompted to take charge and the rebirth of responsible Government will occur. Won't happen, whilst Humans continue to BE Humans. Nick
If you were surprised by that 'revelation' , you are one of very few.
No surprise or revelation. I have taken a number of these tests, and the result is always the same. I always choose the "neutral" answer when I see no practical solution for the question, which is why I posted my reasoning for my answers. I was hoping more would do the same.
For example, I am curious as to which 1 Personal Issue you answered yes to, or did you have 2 maybes (although you don't strike me as a maybe kind of guy)? Would you be willing to explain your answers?
I hear many here on the forum claiming they want to lower taxes. How do you suggest the government do it? What programs do you start cutting first? Military, education, transportation? How do you implement the cuts? Do you honestly believe that someone that scores liberal on a simple internet test, or someone that you have labeled liberal because they don't blindly agree with your political views wakes up in the morning with money to spare, just hoping that the governemnt will take a little more each day? Believe me, I do not. I suspect that there are very few that truly do.
Would I like to see businesses compete in a free and open market? Of course, but tell me how that works when we would be competing for jobs with a country that manipulates its currency to have a better market position?
To what end do you leave those that worked their entire life, but never saved for retirement? Are they left to die, cold and hungry living on the street? Are they left to the private corporations that were built as charities? Do you expect religious organizations to take care of them? Should a family struggling to make ends meet on a meager wage similar to the wage in a Mexican factory (because the corporation they worked for said take the pay cut or we're moving south - it is a free market after all) pinch one more penny to take care of grandpa?
This is why I have a hard time giving a yes or no answer to many of these questions. They are just not that simple to answer. If the world were some magic utopia where everything just worked out with the best result for everyone, I would agree with you 100%. I am just not that optimistic in matters where people and money are involved.
For some reason it would not score my test, came up as can't make the changes you requested, WTF?
I think of myself as an independent, mostly lean to conservative but have what some may think of as liberal social leanings. I would say I most agree with the libertarians but certainly not on all issues. The world just aint that cut and dry.
I think free trade is a bad joke that left to it's own would bring people to the lowest common denominator. Unacceptable. Since government is supposed to regulate commerce, they should regulate all trading partners to"fair trade".
At this point, privatizing social security could be a disaster, but it already is so not sure on that one. Maybe privatizing should mean that a separate entity other than the feds should be in charge of the funds, payments and INVESTING the national nest egg.
KidO Too many questions to answer all at the present time, as my wife needs the computer, (NOW Don!) but I promise I will return sometime today and address each of them in a direct manner. Short answer for now--Austerity is tough, but it's gotta happen. Yes people will "suffer", but for the most part, it's the only answer.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-23-2010).]
No surprise or revelation. I have taken a number of these tests, and the result is always the same. I always choose the "neutral" answer when I see no practical solution for the question, which is why I posted my reasoning for my answers. I was hoping more would do the same.
For example, I am curious as to which 1 Personal Issue you answered yes to, or did you have 2 maybes (although you don't strike me as a maybe kind of guy)? Would you be willing to explain your answers?
There should be no National ID card. "AGREE" How long before the #s are assigned at birth and tattoed to our inner lips--or implanted? How long before they denote race creed color etc?
quote
I hear many here on the forum claiming they want to lower taxes. How do you suggest the government do it? What programs do you start cutting first?
All of them--simutaneously. We're a nation in decline, moving backwards against the tide of emerging nations. When an individual's income decreases, he cannot sustain his previous level of spending--neither can we as a nation, and even attempting to pretend we can is ridiculous and foolhardy.
quote
Military, education, transportation?
All, including SS, Medicare, foriegn aid, NASA,--accross the board.
quote
How do you implement the cuts?
Decrease benefits a set %, increasing that percentage until we reach a level of long term sustainablity. We will eventually reach a point we were previously at during our rise to economic power. It's no big thing, we survived at that level before, we will again.
quote
Do you honestly believe that someone that scores liberal on a simple internet test, or someone that you have labeled liberal because they don't blindly agree with your political views wakes up in the morning with money to spare, just hoping that the governemnt will take a little more each day?
I haven't a clue what anyone else wakes up thinking each morning, but I suspect they wake up each day hoping the govy chooses someone, everyone, anyone esle to take a little bit more from.
quote
Would I like to see businesses compete in a free and open market? Of course, but tell me how that works when we would be competing for jobs with a country that manipulates its currency to have a better market position?
It doesn't work. We put ourself in this position and signed on to the WTO and it's rules. We will not allow anyone else to dictate to us what we do with our currency and monetary policy--what right do we have to dictate to someone else what they do with theirs? Why, is it so bad that China has a leg up on us now, but none complained when it was America that had all the aces and held Europe and Asia over the fire when we were in ascent? No one, could compete with us--nowhere. Now, we simply cannot compete with China, Asia, and India, and soon enough, won't be able to compete with S. America and Africa. We were rising, reached our peak and now are decline--which is the natural state of things.
quote
To what end do you leave those that worked their entire life, but never saved for retirement? Are they left to die, cold and hungry living on the street? Are they left to the private corporations that were built as charities? Do you expect religious organizations to take care of them? Should a family struggling to make ends meet on a meager wage similar to the wage in a Mexican factory (because the corporation they worked for said take the pay cut or we're moving south - it is a free market after all) pinch one more penny to take care of grandpa?
They should be left to the design they implemented for themselves. We all die--you, I, the kid down the street. Every living thing on the planet dies at some point. I will die before most on this forum--it's no big thing. I am in no way so important, that someone else should have to give up as much as 1 penny for my extension of life.
quote
This is why I have a hard time giving a yes or no answer to many of these questions. They are just not that simple to answer. If the world were some magic utopia where everything just worked out with the best result for everyone, I would agree with you 100%. I am just not that optimistic in matters where people and money are involved.
You're right, and you shouldn't be optimistic at all. That's grabbing at straws and wishing/hoping that things will remain as good as they are or get better. They will not. Perhaps our great grandchildren's children can recoup some semblence of what this country stands for and once was, but not if we saddle them with insurmountable debt just to ensure we, in our imagined self importance, get to live as we think we deserve. We don't deserve squat.
Hope that answered everything.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-23-2010).]
IP: Logged
11:17 PM
Oct 24th, 2010
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Do you honestly believe that someone that scores liberal on a simple internet test, or someone that you have labeled liberal because they don't blindly agree with your political views wakes up in the morning with money to spare, just hoping that the governemnt will take a little more each day?
The Liberals I've seen wake up each morning hoping the government takes a little more each day - from someone else. They want the "rich" to shoulder all the burden, and they define "rich" as "anyone who makes more money than they do."
The Liberals I've seen wake up each morning hoping the government takes a little more each day - from someone else. They want the "rich" to shoulder all the burden, and they define "rich" as "anyone who makes more money than they do."
Just as valid as saying the elitists want to wake up each morning and see how much more money they can screw out of the poor and middle class. Conservatives want the middle class to pay more to help them get richer, and the define middle class and poor as anyone who actually has to work for a living.
Ain't generalizations great.
IP: Logged
12:16 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by newf: Just as valid as saying the elitists want to wake up each morning and see how much more money they can screw out of the poor and middle class. Conservatives want the middle class to pay more to help them get richer, and the define middle class and poor as anyone who actually has to work for a living.
Ain't generalizations great.
Some are greater than others. You can find plenty of threads of Liberals on here preaching about wanting someone else to pay more taxes.
Originally posted by newf: Just as valid as saying the elitists want to wake up each morning and see how much more money they can screw out of the poor and middle class. Conservatives want the middle class to pay more to help them get richer, and the define middle class and poor as anyone who actually has to work for a living.
Ain't generalizations great.
Screw out of the poor? How about "earn by hard work and taking risks" that others won't? Conservatives don't want anyone to do anything for them--they just want to be out from under the thumb of govt and whining coveters. Do they want to get riicher?You betcha--and they will-- and no amount of coveting and whining by the left is going to stop it.
Ironicly, the left can't afford for that not to be true--no matter how much they hate it. The more the rich make, the more they pay in taxes. Should the rich become poor, the more the poor will have to pay in taxes--and they definitely don't want that scenario to come to be.
IP: Logged
12:43 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Screw out of the poor? How about "earn by hard work and taking risks" that others won't? Conservatives don't want anyone to do anything for them--they just want to be out from under the thumb of govt and whining coveters. Do they want to get riicher?You betcha--and they will-- and no amount of coveting and whining by the left is going to stop it.
Ironicly, the left can't afford for that not to be true--no matter how much they hate it. The more the rich make, the more they pay in taxes. Should the rich become poor, the more the poor will have to pay in taxes--and they definitely don't want that scenario to come to be.
Never said it was a truth any more than the post I quoted is.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:"How about earn by hard work and taking risks" that others won't? Conservatives don't want anyone to do anything for them--they just want to be out from under the thumb of govt and whining coveters."
Tell that to the Banks and Lenders!! Nearly collapsed the economy of the U.S. plus many other countries and had to have Daddy bail them out and still managed to give themselves undeserved bonuses. (My opinion of course )
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-24-2010).]
All but a very few (CITI mostly) paid it all back, not to mention that many of those banks had those "bailouts" forced on them by turbo tax Timmy. Sounds tho, like you're complaining that a bank is successful and profitable. I'm guessing you don't want your bank to go under tho. Can't blame ya either--I like my bank so much, I bought stock in it.
All but a very few (CITI mostly) paid it all back, not to mention that many of those banks had those "bailouts" forced on them by turbo tax Timmy. Sounds tho, like you're complaining that a bank is successful and profitable. I'm guessing you don't want your bank to go under tho. Can't blame ya either--I like my bank so much, I bought stock in it.
Oh yeah I keep forgetting if they pay it back then it's OK. So I guess GM is OK too becasue they "paid" theirs back as well (j/k I know how that one gets you going )
I'm not complaining that banks are successful and profitable but I do think they got treated awfully good and the people who basically caused the near depression weren't held accountable, you know the new "untouchables". I'm not too worried about my bank going under Canadian banks didn't seem to be effected nearly as badly as most.
Of course you bought stock in banks why wouldn't you? You know the Government will insure that they won't fail especially if that Gov't is conservative, can't turn their back on their leaders ;p
Of course you bought stock in banks why wouldn't you? You know the Government will insure that they won't fail especially if that Gov't is conservative, can't turn their back on their leaders ;p
Really. Well, 1. About 140 banks failed in 2009. 2. 12 banks failed this month alone. 3. 139 banks have failed in the 10 months of 2010. 4. Tell that to the stockholders of WaMu or IndyMac. When a bank fails, only the depositors' funds are insured by the govt. Stockholders get little or nothing on sale of a failed bank's assets--usually nothing. 5. I believe 2008 was under a conservative control, so the idea that conservatives won't allow a bank to fail is rather moot. Click on the arrow of this map to see the failed banks as they failed in timeline' http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/...Failed-US-Banks.html
If the link doesn't work, here is a static screenshot of the total banks failed. (Map doesn't reflect the failed banks during this month--Oct 2010)
quote
GM is OK too becasue they "paid" theirs back as well (j/k I know how that one gets you going )
Yes, and you also know the underlined part of that is a lie.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-24-2010).]
Sorry, I should have been more specific I'm assuming you bought in the banks that are "too big to fail".
I bought both Wachovia and Wells Fargo--the 2 merged in '09. WaMu was one of the largest banks in the nation in deposits, customers, and assets--and it failed.
quote
(BTW Do you ever sleep?)
Said the guy that posted about 3 hrs before I did. you=10-24-2010 06:45 AM my reply=10-24-2010 09:28 AM
IP: Logged
10:45 AM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
There should be no National ID card. "AGREE" How long before the #s are assigned at birth and tattoed to our inner lips--or implanted? How long before they denote race creed color etc?
Since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act in 1986, children were required at age 5 to have a Social Security Number to be claimed as a deduction on their parent's tax return. The age was lowered to 1 in 1990, and now you can register with Social Security on the application for a birth certificate. In essence, we all already have a National ID. Unless you choose not to pay taxes. From there, I think that most private health plans use your SSN for tracking, as well as all financial institutions. Most states request that you voluntarily have your SSN on your Drivers License or state ID card for your convenience. Short of the tattoo or implant, we all have a National ID already.
quote
All of them--simutaneously. We're a nation in decline, moving backwards against the tide of emerging nations. When an individual's income decreases, he cannot sustain his previous level of spending--neither can we as a nation, and even attempting to pretend we can is ridiculous and foolhardy.
Military, education, transportation?
All, including SS, Medicare, foriegn aid, NASA,--accross the board.
How do you implement the cuts?
Decrease benefits a set %, increasing that percentage until we reach a level of long term sustainablity. We will eventually reach a point we were previously at during our rise to economic power. It's no big thing, we survived at that level before, we will again.
I agree, we are a nation in decline, but to make choices that will cause us to fall in decline faster to reach a point that will allow us to rise to economic power? How does this make things better? How long does it take? Who are the acceptable victims in this change? Do you believe that you have positioned yourself in a way that you would not be one of the casualties, or are you willing to take a hit for the team?
Our society is very intertwined. For example, if you make cuts to the military, they decrease spending. They stop buying equipment and supplies from defense contractors, which in turn causes the defense contractor to reduce their spending; more than likely layoff workers. They close military bases, and the surrounding community that lived to support it dies. We live in communities that revolve and evolve around business. As the primary business loses money, makes cuts, this in turn affects the secondary business. From Second and third tier suppliers, to the mom and pop corner store that is no longer doing the business they were before due to the cuts in and around the community.
The military is an easy example, as we have all seen the cause and effect of reduction and rise in spending from this government entity. Other sectors of government have the same reaction to a reduction in spending. For me it is not a matter of reducing the spending for government programs, it is reducing the bureaucracy. Our government has become extremely innefficent with the execution of its programs. It's not the programs itself that are at fault, but the men behind them, that exploit them for their own personal gain. There are people in Wahsington D.C. that have built empires exploiting the system. Until this is stopped, I don't think there is an answer to the decline. More taxes and more spending will just create more bureaucracy. Less taxes and reduced spending will just cause the existing bureaucracy to dig in and stand their ground to maintain the status quo. Power and greed, it exists from all political sides.
quote
It doesn't work. We put ourself in this position and signed on to the WTO and it's rules. We will not allow anyone else to dictate to us what we do with our currency and monetary policy--what right do we have to dictate to someone else what they do with theirs? Why, is it so bad that China has a leg up on us now, but none complained when it was America that had all the aces and held Europe and Asia over the fire when we were in ascent? No one, could compete with us--nowhere. Now, we simply cannot compete with China, Asia, and India, and soon enough, won't be able to compete with S. America and Africa. We were rising, reached our peak and now are decline--which is the natural state of things.
Did you mean "We should not allow anyone else to dictate to us what we do with our currency and monetary policy"? Because we are involved with the WTO, and we do work with other countries to ensure the playing field is level for business.
If another country has a leg up on us, then that is our own fault for becoming complacent and letting it happen. Why does reaching our peak require us to decline? From the perspective of business, I would say that it is because there is no peak. There is always another dollar to earn, another market to conquer. The peak isn't good enough, and to get further, business had to turn on the same people who took them there. For years, I worked for a manufacturing equipment supplier. I watched scores of our customers raise their business to the peak, only to sell out the very individuals who helped take them there to continue their ascent.
I am not opposed to a business owner making a good living, but to what extent? Should a factory owner live in luxury while his workers live in squalor? I have spent time in Asian, Mexico and South America, and trust me, if you haven't seen it first hand, you don't want that.
quote
They should be left to the design they implemented for themselves. We all die--you, I, the kid down the street. Every living thing on the planet dies at some point. I will die before most on this forum--it's no big thing. I am in no way so important, that someone else should have to give up as much as 1 penny for my extension of life.
I guess my liberal bias leaves me a bit more charitable.
quote
You're right, and you shouldn't be optimistic at all. That's grabbing at straws and wishing/hoping that things will remain as good as they are or get better. They will not. Perhaps our great grandchildren's children can recoup some semblence of what this country stands for and once was, but not if we saddle them with insurmountable debt just to ensure we, in our imagined self importance, get to live as we think we deserve. We don't deserve squat.
You're right, we don't deserve squat. I believe that we should work hard, and only have what we earn. I think that you will find that we are very much the same because of that one simple fact. I just hope it doesn't take 2 generations for my descendents to be able to live a life similar to the one that I have worked hard to have.
quote
Hope that answered everything.
I appreciate your answers, and hope you don't mind a few more questions?
IP: Logged
11:03 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
If there were no tax laws or penelties, would people pay taxes voulintarily?
If they paid them voulintarily, what percentage would people think was fair?
There's an easy way to answer that one. Many people say taxes should be raised. The federal government will take extra tax money if you choose to send it in to apply to the national debt. How many people send in more money than they are required to by law?
They'll scream for higher taxes on someone else, while paying an accountant to find every deduction they possibly can.
IP: Logged
12:35 PM
fogglethorpe Member
Posts: 4828 From: Valley of the Sun Registered: Jul 2001
And worse...the Governments of today have absolutely NO clue as to what responsibility entails...so long as they get their 'cake', and most everybody elses' too, and can eat it.
(My opinion of course 
)
