>>>I am registered as unenrolled. And I vote differently, depending on the person running. Usually for a lesser of two evils <g>. Generally I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would probably put myself in the libertarian camp if they had a chance of winning <g>.
>>>
>>>This seems like an oxymoron to me. All those social programs take an awful lot of money to run <s>
>>
>>Agreed in parts. But fits with the concept of checks and balances
>>(except for the latter and the budget, making the first a cheque).
>>Half seriously: if you look at previous states, problems will arise when the external threat is eliminated,
>>the plebs grows in numbers and are pacified instead of given real work or sent off to slaughter and rape a bit.
>>Oligarchs not getting a more than fair cut from the war loot and preying among small farmers added to unrest
>>
>>From that POV argueing for economic hard-line views coupled with direct monetary subsidy for the poor
>>is a bad recipe IMO. The good part of the german attempt to weather the financial crisis was
>>that money was used to keep people working even under the danger of not letting some biz fail early
>>if their trouble stemmed not because from financial crisis but othermore internal reasons -
>>their prolonged survival dampens the recovery later.
>
>The Nobel Peace Prize goes to .... the European Union? That seems like a head scratcher to me. Any insight?

cuurently not - had a (late starting) day and concentrated on the takes of VP debate in my reading -
[fell asleep before it started on TV, busy week this one or I am not as fit as I think I am...]
and read the Peace Price headline and my first idea was "bad time for april fools jokes".
Will have to read a bit after clearing the paper mess I left preparing for some meetings ;-)

update: seems somebody listened in as I did not wear tin foil hat:
The leader of Britain's Conservative Euro MPs Martin Callanan said the announcement came
“a little late for an April fools joke”.