Republican nominations - Page 404

On February 04 2012 12:26 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Please elaborate. You think our spending on the things I listed is beneficial to the economic system you're proposing?

At least attempt a cogent argument instead of using memes.

On February 04 2012 12:41 Kiarip wrote:


he's been trolling for a while now.

On February 04 2012 12:59 LaLLsc2 wrote:
Any of you status quo lovers want to respond to this article?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/27-of-35-bush-articles-of-impeachment-apply-to-obama.html

Imo there is no redeeming quality in today's neo-liberal.. Anti personal liberty, pro world policing / nation building / war, big government, big spending.. At least the old liberal was anti-war..

On February 04 2012 12:59 LaLLsc2 wrote:
Any of you status quo lovers want to respond to this article?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/27-of-35-bush-articles-of-impeachment-apply-to-obama.html

Imo there is no redeeming quality in today's neo-liberal.. Anti personal liberty, pro world policing / nation building / war, big government, big spending.. At least the old liberal was anti-war..

On February 04 2012 13:02 darthfoley wrote:


there is hardly anything "liberal" about obama. don't confuse the two.

On February 04 2012 13:09 darthfoley wrote:
For the record i've found Belgium and Germany (two places i've lived in) far superior in every aspect of life to the US(That i can think of off the top of my head). Romney's whole schpeel about how shitty Europe is is laughable. But then again, that isn't the only nonsensical thing he's said. It's probably because Europe cares about the very poor

On February 04 2012 12:31 red_b wrote:
well I cant fault your for identification of causes, but your understanding of the effects is deeply flawed and based on ideology as opposed to actual statistical inference.

your claim; that imposing a scandanavian system on the US would automatically result in disaster, is CLEARLY conjecture.

unwillingness to test models that work is not surprising coming from someone who buys into the hilarious argument that the models do not scale without any historical basis for it. several empires throughout history scaled up mercantalism which was demonstrated to be flawed and did not fall apart. please provide a historical example of where the scandanavian model was scaled up and failed.

On February 04 2012 13:09 Rabbet wrote:


I think you could classify Obama as a neo liberal. There is little difference really between most Democrats, Republicans and neo liberals. They all want the same thing, to erode freedom.

On February 04 2012 13:13 Rabbet wrote:


Why can't the very poor worry about themselves? The social safety net gives people incentive to be poor. Give these poor people freedom and you couldn't imagine what they could do.

On February 04 2012 12:19 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Additionally, let's not fool ourselves. The primary reason the scandinavians have been economically successful is because of the capitalistic sale of oil. The North Sea oil boom of the 60's-70's lead to a hundred-fold increase in oil production for Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, etc. This coincided with several social reforms being passed and unfortunately, they have taken the majority of the credit for the economic successes within these countries.

On February 04 2012 13:22 Sanctimonius wrote:


What about the rest fo Scandinavia? As in Sweden and Finland, two countries frequently at or around the top of international global indexes? They don't have a North Sea oil income. I understand the points about homogenisation and difference in scale, but these two countries were able to undergo large-scale reforms and turn themselves into modern, albeit small, countries with high literacy and quality of life.

I just never understand how people from the US can throw around things like 'Scandinavian' and 'socialism' as insults and expect others to see it that way. You have an argument for why you don't think Scandinavian-style governance (as much as that means, it is four different countries after all, and doesn't include the Netherlands or Germany) is applicable to the US, but many people don't bother thinking that far. On a similar note I've seen people throw the accusation at Obama that he's a socialist (he's not - most in the US don't know what socialism is. If they did they would know that Obama is in no danger of making the US into a socialist country), and they seem to think it's an insult.

On February 04 2012 13:20 darthfoley wrote:


I'm sure the very poor worry about themselves, but to say you're worried about the middle class (the majority of americans) and disclude the very poor is rather stupid. Safety nets? Like food stamps and medicaid? That's hardly an incentive to be dirt poor and barely able to feed your family.

On February 04 2012 13:06 Rabbet wrote:


These are the true enemies of freedom. Most of these douche bags wrap themselves in the flag and call themselves conservatives... I don't think Gingrich, Romney or Santorum will fall far from the neo liberal tree.

On February 04 2012 13:19 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:


Perhaps I was a bit unclear. The scandinavian countries are successful not because of their current bias towards socialistic systems, but rather they have hit some fortunate timings that have disguised their free market successes. Such a scenario has never played out quite so well in the US.

Nevertheless, the main issue involves the origins upon which the scandinavians have built their current system and the wrongful assumptions that government involvement had anything to do with it. Sweden for example was considerably poor until the 1860's when the industrial revolution swept through and led to huge strides in economic growth. Until the 1950's they were largely free of government intervention and had successfully avoided involvement in WW2, leaving their industries intact. Following this boom was the dramatic increase in welfare legislature and government spending in the 50's-70's that lead to considerable distress and the first ever instance of the Social Democratic Party losing in the general elections. Astrid Lindgren, author of the Pippi Longstocking children's series, even wrote a very well-received satirical piece involving a character named Pomperipossa who wondered why the government took increasingly more as her workload increased. What did happen during that time was the North Sea oil boom which offset the stagnation of it's economy during the 70's and kickstarted several petroleum-based industries throughout Europe. The success they're witnessing now is directly related to that oil boom of the late 60's combined with a transparent government that spends wisely on a demographic that is largely homogeneous in it's desires and needs. These are factors that have not been afforded to the US.

On February 04 2012 03:31 1Eris1 wrote:



Keep it up bro, you're honestly just pushing more people away from RP than pulling them in.

On February 04 2012 08:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:

Okay:

On February 04 2012 12:45 red_b wrote:
no, you didnt bother to read what I wrote when I was being very direct (well that or you lack the reading comprehension skills) so I've changed my delivery method to something you libertarian types can understand.