Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (219906)	2/21/2007 12:42:11 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Kumar, it's the same still, though they don't have the signs: <A common sign in those days at restaurants in India was "Dogs and Indians not allowed" > Are Dalits now given free rein and that whole caste business done away with? No? Giggle... I STILL don't want dogs and Indians taking over. Some people think unlimited immigration is an excellent philosophy. Some people take their damn dogs everywhere, sniffing genitals, frightening children, pooping and peeing. I'm sure some of the signs said "Dogs, Indians and women not permitted". I don't see why Indians shouldn't have "Indian Sikhs Only" signs outside their places. We have "Maori Rugby" [no whites allowed]. I don't see why the "Women's Netball Club" should permit me to go in there, making myself at home. Or how about the "National Organisation of Women"? And how come NZ has a Ministry of Women's Affairs, but there's no Ministry of Men's Affairs? That's sexist. Why should I be expected to arrange my own affairs? If women want to have an affair, they should organize it themselves and not bludge on the taxpayer. In India itself [in 1997], we went to places where we, being white and obviously excellent, could walk with impunity into all sorts of places, but police and other sentries stood guard and whacked Indians with canes who tried to get in without approval. Dogs didn't get in either. Plenty of Indians did get in though, so there was obviously some sort of dress code, or secret signal, that got certain Indians in while others [who looked more impoverished] were beaten out of the way. It wasn't just expertise the British provided to India. It was capital. I know many people around the world don't respect capital and what it takes to produce it, but it's a lot of excellent ideas, hard yakker, saving, investing and careful spending. <No doubt the brits provided expertise in many areas to India - railways (India has the biggest rail system in the world now), telegraph etc. > Do you think the owners were compensated for the confiscation? I doubt it. That's not how tribal thinking works. Big dumb chief boss top monkey takes. Monkey see = monkey take. I live under occupation now. Whether it's by Helengrad or Washington doesn't make much difference to me. I prefer Washington. Taxes on my dividends are a lot lower for a start. My loyalty to Helen Clark as my Great Leader is pretty thin on the ground. NZ is not much more than a kleptocracy now, taking from me and giving to those who are powerful [meaning the mob who vote for Helen Clark and co]. In the good old days, when taxes went on building things such as roads, airports, wharves, railways, telecommunications, dams and all sorts, I didn't mind paying taxes much at all. Though I soon learned the efficiency of government spending was horrendous and private capitalism was very much better. Now, of umpty $billion NZ government spends, most of it is down the gurgler in my opinion. And what is here is contaminated and given away to any bludger who can lie their way through immigration management. Tradable citizenships! That's the ticket. I can see it would be disappointing for your father for you to hop the fence and join the enemy. You didn't add insult to injury by marrying one of them did you? What would he think of the grandchildren? Mqurice