|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are.
You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever.
I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions.
|
On April 28 2009 09:57 dybydx wrote:
What about the Daily Show? they are America's most trusted name in (fake) news, i cant wait to see their coverage on this. ^ ^
The Daily Show < Viacom < One of the five big media conglomerates, they go hand in hand, so they absolutely won't cover anything this deep!
I think a lot of this has to do with people not being able to admit they're being conned! Like someone who's been part of a Ponzi scheme for so long, that admitting it's a lie is just impossible. This psychological phenomena is called Cognitive Dissonance, and the media+government sure makes good use of it!
It's an international thing by the way. It is useless to argue which country has it worse.
|
On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions.
Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground.
But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else.
It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
|
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
![[image loading]](http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg)
|
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
I don't know who here has a christian ethic..
At least i don't.
<_>
|
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
I can't find a single post in this entire thread that even begins to come close to any sort of Christian thinking, Evangelical or Baptists.
|
|
|
Don't watch Fox News.
America still has a press that ranks among the most free in the world, even if it's not perfect. To suggest that China is even comparable to the US just because it isn't very discrete about propoganda is ridiculous. In China you can go to jail for reporting about an earthquake that destroyed poorly built schools.
|
On April 28 2009 15:21 Zzoram wrote:
Don't watch Fox News.
America still has a press that ranks among the most free in the world, even if it's not perfect. To suggest that China is even comparable to the US just because it isn't very discrete about propoganda is ridiculous. In China you can go to jail for reporting about an earthquake that destroyed poorly built schools.
Did I miss someone saying China has a free press? WTF?
http://www.wan-press.org/china/home.php
|
poor people and morals and ethics existed before christianity you know.
And whenever there's poverty, there is someone who wants to help them.
i mean, Dude. I'm not sure if you are just trolling, or if you are really that fucking stupid.
Helping poors is christian? How about other religions that practice that?
asDA;TG;ZASDGA
Human89, i thought you were arguing that socialism is bad as a whole. But now i can agree with you. I know the USA is really big. but don't you guys have states partly for that reason?
Its just that, if america added just a little bit of taxes, and gave that money for the poor people, it would be helpful.
I know there are lazy people who abuse the system, but that ought to be minimal.
And the dude quoting hitler and mussolini, trying to be smart. Dude. Hitler was a fucking idiot and i don't know too much about mussolini, except he seemed to be pretty much a douche.
But don't quote them about socialism. Quote someone like Marx instead.
Socialism is a good idea in general. Good for everyone. But its very hard to pull off. And someone will almost certainly abuse it.
world is poop 
|
Oh man, I was bored and wondering how I could waste some time and you answer my prayers with a politically charged thread. Everyone thinks they know best and since I think I know best I think all the American parties are terrible. To become a leader in America it seems you must have connections that are not easy to come by without either a) money or b) born into notable family.
C.Wright Mills had it right! Noooo~
|
Yes, poor people existed before christianity and so did ethics. Ethics before christianity, at least in Ancient Greece and then Rome, did not look like Christian ethics.
If it is true that whenever there's poverty then there is someone who wants to help, then there should be no problem having a totally free market because anyone who can't cut it for whateve reason will be taken care of by the benevolent, poor loving rich people.
If I am just that fucking stupid? I fail to see what is stupid about my post. Since Christianity is the dominate religion in Europe it only made sense to reference it. You are certainly right that some other religions argue for care of the poor. Some don't. You think the brahmins think the untouchables are noble and will inherit the earth? You don't actually think that right? You must juts be trolling because no one can be that fucking stupid.
Haha?
|
|
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On April 28 2009 15:08 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child. I can't find a single post in this entire thread that even begins to come close to any sort of Christian thinking, Evangelical or Baptists.
Social liberalism, or left-liberalism, can be considered as (in some sense) a secular version of Christianity.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
You should question whether it was smart to ally with Stalin in the first place.
|
"US is big" is a bad reason to claim that socialism can never work there.
Europe as a whole is far more culturally diverse and has a population that is more than twice as big.
"Americans don't want socialism" is a much more reasonable statement in my oppinion.
Comparing Finland to anything is also a bit unfair, last I checked they still had an immigration of less than 10 people per year.
That said it's all about values. I don't think anyone (except for maybe the most hardcore nationalists) denies that beeing truly poor in the US is fucking terrible compared to most countries in western Europe + there are many many more poor people.
But what we Europeans sometimes seem to forget or maybe ignore is that such a system comes with advantages as well. There is a reason why almost every single nobel price winner nowadays did their research in America, there is a reason why they pay next to nothing for things such as gas. Their companies are the largest in the world and those of them that actually have nice jobs earn obscene amounts of money. Their universities are the best in the world etc, etc.
In a way China and USA are more similar than I think anyone from either place would care to admit. Both are examples of how truly remarkable things can be achieved if you just don't care about those who get shafted.
|
Well, Chinese and Americans are both loud, ignorant tourists, but the Chinese seem to possess some shyness (i.e. consciousness of inferiority) whereas Americans don't.
Sorry, it's the season.
|
On April 28 2009 15:27 MuR)Ernu wrote:
Helping poors is christian? How about other religions that practice that?
Other religions do not practice that unless you count some new age shit. "Helping the poor" was the concept which made Christianity the most successful religion in history, mostly due to we having much more poor people than rich and therefore the poor people thought that this was a lot better than their other religions.
Edit: And by the way, even though those who do not have a job in the US have it worse than the same types in Europe, everyone having a job have it better in the US than the person having the same type of job in Europe.
Firstly you earn roughly twice as much, secondly you pay roughly half the taxes, meaning that in the end you have four times as much to spend. Sure a bit of that will go towards insurances but at the end you will still have a ton more.
You know how that works? Because the US haven't ran a socialist government the past 100 years, the more money you drain out of the capitalist cycle the slower it grows and thus the slower the cake everyone gets to share grows. Therefore in the long run it is best for everyone to have less socialism, while in the short run it is best for the poor to have socialism.
You know, the US could have an as efficient social state as most Europe ones just by cutting military funding to a similar level and still have low taxes. But they can't do that, do you know why? Because they are the only western country with a military to speak of! Without them the world would be a much scarier place, if they were greedy like the Europeans and skipped the military the Europeans would have to spend a lot more or the war tension would grow like mad, weak borders creates war tension with undemocratic governments, they always have. So in the end they are basically feeding us money by allowing us to have as weak militiaries as we do.
Edit edit: Also the rich people who earns huge amounts of money through investments and such are not spending that money, instead they are reinvesting them and thus fuelling the economy. Everyone here should be thankful that such people exists since it is them who have build our current welfare, people who instead of trying to earn money because they want to spend it instead just want to earn money to earn money and this reinvesting over and over growing a wealth through creating jobs and making things people want, that is what have allowed us to live as good lives as we do today.
A baker of today lives a ton better life than he would do a hundred years ago, yet his work has not changed much at all. That is what it means to have a greater cake to share, the goal of a society should be to make the cake as great as possible.
The problem is of course that no matter how great the cake gets human greed makes most jealous when someone else gets more than them. Do not be greedy, be happy with what you get, do not condemn the rich for having more cake than you do, instead be thankful because it is people like those rich ones which have made it possible for you to get as much cake as you do.
|
On April 28 2009 21:28 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 15:08 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child. I can't find a single post in this entire thread that even begins to come close to any sort of Christian thinking, Evangelical or Baptists. Social liberalism, or left-liberalism, can be considered as (in some sense) a secular version of Christianity.
You mean the actual caring Christian sects because the bible belt is all Red, do we even live in the same country? The GOP is the party of the "bible law".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
