(01-28-2020, 11:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, the American right is indeed "pretty much content with sticking to doing things and succeeding it's own way these days." It loves the neo-liberal, trickle-down economics status quo in which they get big tax breaks and are allowed to screw over their customers and workers, and have their prejudices against immigrants and the poor stroked and their fanatical religious "values" lauded. It's all just fine for them. But the rising younger and more diverse people on the left are not satisfied with an economic system that holds them down for no reason. They don't need to be influenced to know they are being screwed, or to know that climate change and gun violence are real issues that need to be dealt with. They are not brainwashed by the false ideologies of the Christian Right, militarism and neo-liberalism. The Left can see the 40-year trend of America downward toward banana republic status on every measurement you can find. They know that adopting an authoritarian system of government led by an unfit, ego-maniacal demagogue is not what America needs.

Dude, right now the liberal side is the side clinging to neo liberal policies and placing road blocks in the way of pro American policies under the guise of racism and so forth.

(01-28-2020, 05:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: The Gun Guys are a joke, and they proved that on this last trip to Richmond.  Most of their potential physical opposition consisted of a few State Police officers -- many of them women.  They marched around acting tough, and left.  I don't think they'll be back soon.

Man, is that all they had to face, a few state troopers that were mostly women. Why did your liberal governor and liberal media wig out over them coming to town? Where was vicious Antifa? I assume that they prefer to terrorize, threaten and beat up unarmed people? Well, you should shoot send them an email and let them know that Minnesotans have the legal right to carry firearms and the right to  shoot them here too.

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

(01-29-2020, 08:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Eventually the conservatives will stop trying and we might see another progressive period.  Judging from Classic, not yet.

(01-29-2020, 12:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

Based on what?  What freedoms do they lack?  Here's an article by two Americans who moved to Finland for work and decided to stay.

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

(01-29-2020, 07:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that Trump is not above the law. However, I think you are blind and must not have been listening to Alan Dershowitz's Constitutional argument that he presented to the Senate the other day. It's been very clear to me for a long time that a segment of the Democratic party views it itself and conducts itself as if  it's some how or another see's itself, believes itself, presents itself, conducts itself as being   above the law and feels free to ignore the law and intentionally break or change the  the law anytime it wants or feels it needs to these days. Hint...that particular bunch of Democrats are directly related to you, your needs  and the needs of  every liberal poster here today. So, how do we bring those liberal politicians of yours down to earth and force them to accept that they are equal in the eyes of the law and teach them a lesson about their use and obvious belief in a system of    double standards and so forth? Well, that's up to the Democrats to work  out themselves and fix themselves before we get really serious  and begin addressing the issue with the Democrats in ways that  further separate them from those who also share traditional American values these days.         

Yes, I'm more in favor of supporting modern day supply side economics than the old Keynesian approach favored by traditional Democrats and those who still be in socialist policies and socialist economics of old. However, I'm not a big fan of neo-liberalism or globalism today, or the liberal policies directly associated with it these days.

(01-29-2020, 12:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

Based on what?  What freedoms do they lack?  Here's an article by two Americans who moved to Finland for work and decided to stay.

(01-29-2020, 07:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that Trump is not above the law. However, I think you are blind and must not have been listening to Alan Dershowitz's Constitutional argument that he presented to the Senate the other day. It's been very clear to me for a long time that a segment of the Democratic party views it itself and conducts itself as if  it's some how or another see's itself, believes itself, presents itself, conducts itself as being   above the law and feels free to ignore the law and intentionally break or change the  the law anytime it wants or feels it needs to these days. Hint...that particular bunch of Democrats are directly related to you, your needs  and the needs of  every liberal poster here today. So, how do we bring those liberal politicians of yours down to earth and force them to accept that they are equal in the eyes of the law and teach them a lesson about their use and obvious belief in a system of    double standards and so forth? Well, that's up to the Democrats to work  out themselves and fix themselves before we get really serious  and begin addressing the issue with the Democrats in ways that  further separate them from those who also share traditional American values these days.         

Yes, I'm more in favor of supporting modern day supply side economics than the old Keynesian approach favored by traditional Democrats and those who still be in socialist policies and socialist economics of old. However, I'm not a big fan of neo-liberalism or globalism today, or the liberal policies directly associated with it these days.

(01-29-2020, 07:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 07:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that Trump is not above the law. However, I think you are blind and must not have been listening to Alan Dershowitz's Constitutional argument that he presented to the Senate the other day. It's been very clear to me for a long time that a segment of the Democratic party views it itself and conducts itself as if  it's some how or another see's itself, believes itself, presents itself, conducts itself as being   above the law and feels free to ignore the law and intentionally break or change the  the law anytime it wants or feels it needs to these days. Hint...that particular bunch of Democrats are directly related to you, your needs  and the needs of  every liberal poster here today. So, how do we bring those liberal politicians of yours down to earth and force them to accept that they are equal in the eyes of the law and teach them a lesson about their use and obvious belief in a system of    double standards and so forth? Well, that's up to the Democrats to work  out themselves and fix themselves before we get really serious  and begin addressing the issue with the Democrats in ways that  further separate them from those who also share traditional American values these days.         

Yes, I'm more in favor of supporting modern day supply side economics than the old Keynesian approach favored by traditional Democrats and those who still be in socialist policies and socialist economics of old. However, I'm not a big fan of neo-liberalism or globalism today, or the liberal policies directly associated with it these days.

Still amazed that anyone thinks in terms of voodoo economics.  When the Republicans get the White House, they borrow and spend like crazy.  They stimulate in good times and bad to get into two terms of good times.  Then comes “It’s the economy, stupid”, or the Great Recession, and power is handed back to the responsible people for a while.

How come the Democrats never get caught?  Why is it always the Republicans who get caught up in things like Watergate, Iran-contra, lying about causes of war, the nest of corruption that is Trump?  It is not like either side isn’t ready to pounce these days.  I am willing to believe the Democrats took a lot of elite money back a while, to send the jobs abroad.  I quite believe that the Democrats got pretty corrupt back in the late Progressive Era.  Leave anyone in power too long, and you will get some corruption.

But you have to be pretty blind to see the Democrats as the more corrupt party now.  Establishment Republicans don’t believe in big government.  They believe in exploiting big government.

The Tea Party?  Much less corrupt at a close to the grass roots level.  However, in latching onto Trump, they have latched on to his corruption too.  If they bind onto Trump blindly they will only tick the much less corrupt liberals off.  The middle of the country will be scorned as backing corruption.  The only reason to bind themselves to Trump is the racism and tribal thinking.  Those are anathema to the liberals.

But I too do am not in favor of neoliberalism and shipping jobs abroad.  But I see both as more Establishment Republican pro elite policies far more than liberal.  That is one place where you are so delusional, so ready to believe that the other side is supporting your sides policies, that I lose you entirely.  A extremist will seldom accurately see the other guys policy.  They are so much into demonization that they believe themselves.  They come to see their own version of reality.

(01-29-2020, 08:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: At times I have opposed both Eric and Classic.  This time I am more with Eric.  His comment referred to a lot of policies.  Classic had the same problem as he did with our recent existing exchange, posting something simple, not talking about specific policies.

What are his real policies?  What does he mean by ‘pro American’?

Now I lump Neo-liberalism with the elites and the division of wealth.  I tend to lean more on Elites and division of wealth language in my posts as the words are more descriptive and simple.  However, if you insist on using the Neo-liberal language, in spite of its being similar to liberal, I am generally with Neo-liberal bashing.

As I see it, the Republican Party has always been for the elites.  The Tea Party, not so much.  That is one place where the Tea Party compares favorably with the Republican Establishment.  They are trying to get rid of the traditional Republican linkage giving the elites as large a balance of wealth advantage as possible.

I would prefer to think that Classic leans that way too, but will not speak for him.  He supposedly favors the common people living on the streets.

But the liberals with their attempts at campaign finance reform, with their attempts at accepting many smaller contributions from individuals rather than large ones for corporations, are more on the anti establishment and anti division of wealth side.  I would side with Eric in saying that the liberal side is more with the people, the Establishment Republicans more with the elites.

I also have my problem with Classic’s ‘American’ label.  As most would use the word, it would mean ‘from America’ or ‘identifies with an American heritage’.  As Classic uses the word, it seems to mean ‘people like me’,  For example, Latinos have a heritage from Central and South America.  That makes them American.  However, this seems not to fit Classic’s usage of the word.

Me, the phrase “all men are created equal’ seems to preclude the word.  You should not be prejudiced towards a person according to race or place of origin.  And yet, Classic’s use of ‘American’ seems to exclude Latinos, seems to be based on race,  seems to be racist.  I would prefer to think Classic has a way of tiptoeing around it.

There are three problems I have been fixated on with some conservatives: racism, a pro elite bias, and a fixation on certain groups of people such as Evangelicals as privileged.  Get rid of those three elements, and I could welcome a conservative slant on politics as part of the normal healthy discourse.

Of the three, I would hope Classic, Eric, myself and most could agree that we should be opposed the oversized influence of the elites, and of the perils of racism.  The influence of the Evangelicals in imposing their religious values on those who do not share their core ethics is more controversial.  Anyone here at the moment willing to advocate for the Evangelicals?

But given that Classic has a tendency to oversimplify, to deal in sides rather than policies, in his readiness to attribute false motives and policies to sides he is not on, it becomes hard to tell where he really stands.

Which pro elite policies are liberals supposedly backing?  Is his definition of ‘American’ really racist?  Does he oppose the three questionable policies of favoring elites, racism, and privilege?

On the emigration issue, I will throw out another possible position.  If we are to fight a War on Drugs, we should offer asylum to those who fight for us in that war.  On the other hand, we should not offer asylum claimed on the grounds of our economy being healthier than that of countries further south.  The process of looking at asylum should be quicker, more humane, and in particular not separate parents from children.  Opposed?

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

(01-29-2020, 12:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 05:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: The Gun Guys are a joke, and they proved that on this last trip to Richmond.  Most of their potential physical opposition consisted of a few State Police officers -- many of them women.  They marched around acting tough, and left.  I don't think they'll be back soon.

Man, is that all they had to face, a few state troopers that were mostly women. Why did your liberal governor and liberal media wig out over them coming to town? Where was vicious Antifa? I assume that they prefer to terrorize, threaten and beat up unarmed people? Well, you should shoot send them an email and let them know that Minnesotans have the legal right to carry firearms and the right to  shoot them here too.

Actually, the counter march was scheduled and canceled, at the request of both parties here.  No one wanted another Charlottesville and gun-control groups knew that violence would only hurt their cause.  Rather mature, I thought.

(01-30-2020, 01:55 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The global elites are on your side, The bulk of the media elites are on your side. The bulk of the Hollywood elites are on your side. The bulk of the coastal city elites like Bloomberg who have substantial interests in China are on your side. The Koch Brothers are on your side. The modern day robber barons are on your side. The remnants of the old Bush wing elites are on your side. You may as well quit sucking up to me and slip back over with Eric like its always been since I arrived many years ago.

(01-30-2020, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

You may be confused by the term since you say that it has so many different meanings these days. So what does neo liberalism really mean/imply? I assume you have access to goggle like everyone else here.  As far as Trump, I don't see him getting impeached and I don't think a petty misconduct charge is an impeachable offense. I also believe the obvious abuse of power that took place in the House was unconstitutional. You don't bypass a constitutional process and impeach. So, how many of you are willing to pay the price for supporting them? Someone on the Democratic side better step up and show us that the Democrats aren't all the same these days. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party of today ain't anything like the old Democratic party. You'll learn.

(01-30-2020, 03:18 AM). Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

You may be confused by the term since you say that it has so many different meanings these days. So what does neo liberalism really mean/imply? I assume you have access to goggle like everyone else here.  As far as Trump, I don't see him getting impeached and I don't think a petty misconduct charge is an impeachable offense. I also believe the obvious abuse of power that took place in the House was unconstitutional. You don't bypass a constitutional process and impeach. So, how many of you are willing to pay the price for supporting them? Someone on the Democratic side better step up and show us that the Democrats aren't all the same these days. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party of today ain't anything like the old Democratic party. You'll learn.

Somebody is confused.

Is it time for a liberal to try define what a liberal is?  We have Classic's demonization of who he thinks liberals are, but his list includes many that liberals would oppose.  His demonization sheds light only on Classic.

Anyone?

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 03:18 AM). Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

You may be confused by the term since you say that it has so many different meanings these days. So what does neo liberalism really mean/imply? I assume you have access to goggle like everyone else here.  As far as Trump, I don't see him getting impeached and I don't think a petty misconduct charge is an impeachable offense. I also believe the obvious abuse of power that took place in the House was unconstitutional. You don't bypass a constitutional process and impeach. So, how many of you are willing to pay the price for supporting them? Someone on the Democratic side better step up and show us that the Democrats aren't all the same these days. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party of today ain't anything like the old Democratic party. You'll learn.

Somebody is confused.

Is it time for a liberal to try define what a liberal is?  We have Classic's demonization of who he thinks liberals are, but his list includes many that liberals would oppose.  His demonization sheds light only on Classic.

Anyone?

Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days.

Quote:I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization.

(01-29-2020, 07:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

Based on what?  What freedoms do they lack?  Here's an article by two Americans who moved to Finland for work and decided to stay.

Well, I don't know what's wrong with Brooklyn (the place that the couple gave up on and left) or what the cost of their entitlement package or the overall quality of their healthcare system compared to mine either Also, I don't know why they chose to move to another country vs choosing to move to a more affordable state within the US either. Oh well, to each their own, I wish them well. Dave, I don't care if you and other liberals   flock to Scandinavia or some other laid back European country. It's your right to do so and it would be a much faster to get the kind system that you prefer and seem to believe in too.