I had to fill in a form.
In order to get a number
that would allow me to
fill in a form
in order to be registered
in a database with the same information
as the database of the original form
which matches any incorporation document/Companies House registration.
This all failed when
the second form did not recognize the information from the first form
which I re-added manually
both typing, and copying and pasting.
I phoned.
Telephone support is not allowed for specific queries.
Government, Kafka, whatever.
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Monday, 26 September 2016
Wednesday, 1 June 2016
Sunday, 10 April 2016
Libertarian Forum, Part Deux
Another energizing performance. It warms my heart to know that there are people interesting in running for office AND in speaking to voters as if we were all adults. What?!
Sadly Petersen failed on this note. Compared to the main stream party candidates he probably would have sounded impressive: clearly well prepared and also well read. However next to two people who gave concrete answers, he sometimes fell short.
Example: gun control. We got an educational session on the fight against tyranny, but not a word on what would change, if anything, in access to guns. It's a big issue, highly contentious, you can't get away with a non-answer.
Johnson, again, has the most experience and of all three can probably have the broadest appeal. He is saying things that both Cruz supporters and Sanders supporters want to hear. I wasn't happy with his answer on the EPA (anecdotes do not policy make) and he was also too vague on guns, as if he was not finishing his thought.
McAfee stands out as both principled and intelligent. My view on him remains constant: I wouldn't so much want to see him as president as I would consigliere, so to speak, to the president.
Watch the whole debate below
Sadly Petersen failed on this note. Compared to the main stream party candidates he probably would have sounded impressive: clearly well prepared and also well read. However next to two people who gave concrete answers, he sometimes fell short.
Example: gun control. We got an educational session on the fight against tyranny, but not a word on what would change, if anything, in access to guns. It's a big issue, highly contentious, you can't get away with a non-answer.
Johnson, again, has the most experience and of all three can probably have the broadest appeal. He is saying things that both Cruz supporters and Sanders supporters want to hear. I wasn't happy with his answer on the EPA (anecdotes do not policy make) and he was also too vague on guns, as if he was not finishing his thought.
McAfee stands out as both principled and intelligent. My view on him remains constant: I wouldn't so much want to see him as president as I would consigliere, so to speak, to the president.
Watch the whole debate below
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
On Discrimination
The free market gives people choices. There are lots of bakers, but just one government. That's why government must never discriminate, but if private businesses cannot, does "private" have real meaning? What about freedom of association?
How the Libertarian candidates disagree on private business service decisions.
"Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)