ALL ANYONE ON EARTH HAS TO DO TO HAVE ALL THE MONEY AND POWER IS TO HAVE A KID WITH OR SLEEP WITH ANYONE OF THE U. S. FED GOV'S KIDS SO THEY ARE IN THAT FAMILY AND CAN PICK THE CELEBRITIES AND PICK EVERYONE'S SALARY AND SEND THE COPS AFTER ANYONE THEY ARE JEALOUS OF AND STUFF.
Btw I in NO WAY support O'Donnell... She is a comic relief at best in any video she is in. I'm just simply saying people for some reason think because you don't have health insurance you die or don't get medical care which is false. If you want to keep letting the government tell you where your hard earned money is going good for you. That's your right. Just don't try to force it on me based on false fears.
I love how you all think its "free healthcare" like some other countries are running. There are hospitals that treat people without insurance for a reason.... Catholic hospitals for instance. Why should someone else get some of my already taxed paycheck? I don't have health insurance and had over $12,000 dollars in medical debt yet I am paying it off with a $9 an hour job and have over 2/3 of it paid off. You don't see me asking for a bailout or someone else to help pay my bills.
I want to ask americans. Why are so many of you against free universal healthcare. Whats wrong with helping people out. If its a christian nation like many of you claim. Why wont you "love thy neighbour" and not le them die just because they dont have any money?
You don't simply "die because you don't have any money" in the U.S... There are hospitals out there that cannot refuse medical aid. That is simply a curtain they use to push universal healthcare. However you might not get the best care money can buy and that honestly is fair. If someone is homeless do you pay for their rent or do you direct them to a shelter home? The shelter might not be as nice as the rental home but at least you have a roof over your head.
ANYONE and I mean ANYONE, that wants to 'repeal' ALL of the Health Care Reform Bill, ALL of you can go FUCK YOUR SELVES and when your done with that FUCK OFF! Your a worthless piece of shit, that deserves to receive a coma-inducing ass kicking. To reverse coverage for children and canceling coverage when sick makes you one evil motherfucker. BTW: Illegal aliens will have no more access to 'free healthcare' than they did before this was passed, so pull your head out of your ass and wake the f-up
Of course she's against it. She's a "Rich-Bitch" and could afford to pay everything and anything. However, many college students are poor and can not afford health care, so the obamacare is good for them. Stay on there parent's healthcare until 26 if needed.
Oh , this stuff, for a better word, will go on probably till i die. If I paid health insurance all my working day's and then suddendly can't pay it anymore than have to go to the hospital? Lot of stories out there.
@lencho234 Yes, it definately will go on til you die... its called politics. it has been around for hundreds and thousands of years... Do you know anything about politics???
@Peteyftw207 My comment meant more about "politics going on and on and on till it gets to the point where you really have no idea what idea to support ,so you just talk out your ars'.
@Peteyftw207 not a nice tone there. What I know about politics is very disturbing , so I just leave my mindset to the stories out there that it will and always affect, "til you die". calmathe.
@seanfleming1 Briiliant my good man what a retort, as far propaganda the left has the world title on that, as a matter of fact thats all there good at, they sure cannot govern when they get the chance, see most recent election results to prove that fact, oh yea the dems. response is they did not go far enough with their left wing agenda, that my friend is hillarious.
@glendaweil i have no intentions to have an intelligent debate with you that would be impossible, i just wanted to feed a dumbass troll what he was asking for.....
@glendaweil for someone who tries to sound smart and sound like Sherlock Holmes, you must have had a serious lack of spelling classes in your childhood. "There" would be used when indicating location; "The cat ran over there." They're, which is the word i think you were looking for, means they are. Learn to spell next time you try to act smart.
@Peteyftw207 What an idiot this is political discourse I am not really worried about spelling did you get my point or not that's the questionnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!
@zbshogun If being investigated was a crime I would worry but the left in its infinite wisdom always can drum up some so-called dirt on people they do not like. Lets wait on te results before we react.. That is called innocent till proven quilty.
She uses crap that even the staunchest conservative stays clear of. Free healthcare for illegal aliens? Is she that stupid. If any alien goes to an emergency room they will get treated. They r fucking human beings! ERs have always treated everyone if the situation requires immediate care. This happened under Bush, Clinton , Bush Sr. .. Typical conservative Tea Bagger bullshit. ER care and healthcare are 2 different things. Get your facts straight Christine. Typical conservative lying.
How does this girl have any political office at all. It's truely mind boggling. She's so brainwashed it's pathetic. She's not smart. She's not the right person or qualified. Please someone tell me how this shit is happening. Ever since Bush, the government is like "let's make the dumbass win so we can use him/her as a puppet for what we really want."
@sk8rpimp68 The rich conservatives rely on the stupid conservatives to not check their facts. This is why the democrats were voted out of so many seats. Lies. Lies like: "$200 million/day in India", or "Death panels for healthcare", or "Obama's really a muslim" or "He's not even a U.S. citezen. People are too lazy or stupid (or both) to even check if it's true. A conservative christian said it, it must be true. Sadly, the conservs. aren't even concerned about teh folks who voted them in.
@fiveinslide6 Okay. You're obviously trolling, take things out of context or I'm completely missing what point you've tried to make here. Bottom line... I know very little compared to Paul Krugman. He's not affraid to say things as what they really are. Economists have that luxury when they're brilliant. However, he is definitely not suggesting "death panels" as so many conservatives have done their best to sell their dumb followers on. What works should stay. What doesn't should go.
@fiveinslide6 A troll who sucks at trolling, go back to Troll School and try again. Or you know you could, for once, try to write something pertinent
@fiveinslide6 I gotta hand it to ya. You're fighting the hard fight here. Trying to make O'Donnell look good and Coons look bad because he has chosen public service when he clearly doesn't need the money is a tall order indeed. Good luck with that one. LOL.
@mikemk92 >>has chosen public service when he clearly doesn't need the money<<
You're completely ignorant about the nature of tyrants. Bin Laden didn't "need the money" either. Nor do the Saudi princes. Coons is one of those independently wealthy individuals with the leisure of indulging in the ego trip of inventing his own Constitution which gives arrogant elitists like himself special powers to impose their will on others, and he has the resources to set about implementing his scheme.
@fiveinslide6 There are more Republican millionaires and billionaires than Democrat. How is Chris Coons inventing his own constitution? Again, stop criticizing Chris Coons when you can't even give any good things about Christine O' Donnell.
@rootbeerpeople >>There are more Republican millionaires and billionaires<<
Not in the Senate. Total net worth of Democrat Senators is over $1.1 BILLION while Republican Senators are only worth about $286 million. Dems are supposed to represent the Little Guy? Almost 80% of all Senatorial wealth lies in the hands of Democrats. Christine would have made Republican Senators even more representative of the American People by further reducing their wealth per capita. (Do you know what that means?)
@fiveinslide6 That's not the point. The amount of money someone has doesn't determine whether they represent the little guy or not. It's their policies. How is lowering unemployment benefits good for the little guy? How is not wanting free healthcare for everyone good for th little guy? The Republicans don't understand (or don't want to admit) that you have to invest money into helping out the little guy (like paying people to rebuild infrastructure) in order to help the little guy.
@rootbeerpeople >>How is not wanting free healthcare for everyone good for the little guy?<<
It gives him a MUCH better chance of surviving cancer. In a detailed study by Dr. Michel Coleman et al entitled "Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study" Norway, Finland and Sweden were shown to lag FAR behind the US in 5-year cancer survival. Prostate: US 92.3% Norway 63% Finland 62.9% Sweden 66%. Colon/Rectal in men: US 69.3 Norway 51.1 Finland 52.5 Sweden 52.8% ...
... more Scandinavian cancer horrors... 5-year survival rates for Colon/Rectal in women: US: 60.3% Norway: 55.3% Finland: 54% Sweden: 56.2% Breast cancer 5-year survival rates: US: 84% Norway: 76.3% Finland: 80.2% Sweden: 82% Even makes me wonder how many of those Scandinavian survivors were the ones wealthy enough--or related to enough government officials--to make the trip over to the United States for treatment. Socialism sucks balls! It's a form of slavery and murder.
When you have so many more people dying for socialist health care, it isn't free. It's WAY more expensive than private care. You pay with your life, your liberty, and your pursuit of happiness. You pay with everything that makes life worth living. We are not cows. Socialism is for cows.
@mikemk92 Your putting Coons on a pedestal for his "choosing public service" is laughable. The Left's incessant call for more "public service" is a call for more people to work in jobs NOT representing the preferences of the public, as revealed through the marketplace, but the preferences of elitists on ego trips, enforced through government and paid for by the force of taxation.
Of course, not every service to the public is a "public service" in NewSpeak. Those delivering tons of life-sustaining food to supermarkets are not engaged in "public service" as ignorant, arrogant, presumptuous ruling-elitist Leftists like Coons supporters use the term. No, such food producers are activated by the incentives of the marketplace, perhaps even "greed"--another fashionable buzzword intended to put Leftists on an altogether different, higher moral plane than those whom they control.
While Christine O'Donnell's knowledge of our beloved U.S. Constitution may be lacking, I do have to say that at my tea party, I enjoy it when her supporter, Sarah Palin, squats over my dinner plate and squeezes out a thick log of hot steaming poop. I proceed to consume the poop with a knife and fork like a finely-cooked roast beef. Christine O'Donnell attempts to do the same, but her anus is tight, in fact too tight so I have to use a stainless steel speculum to pry it open.
May I add that once I succeed in prying open Christine O'Donnell's tight anus with my stainless steel speculum (courtesy of Ethicon), Christine then proceeds to hand me a soup spoon and makes the demand that I "scoop out the poop."
wow...i love how when she gets interrupted she makes that face that sais, "what an asshole". Yet that seems to be the only thing she can actualy do "well"
Now I get it...Christine O'Donnell is a modern witch....trying to seperate church from state which she doesn't know much about....she is against abortion but yet practices witchcraft....and she has no financial stability and owes the IRS......you would want this woman in office....
@tjobv perfectly said. Hypocritical on her part. Our country is ranked 11th in the world. The other 10 countries ahead of us have some form of universal healthcare. Unless your rich, i have no idea why so many people vote republican. If Sarah Palin is elected president in 2012 an O'Donnell is in the Senate, i'm moving to Canada or at least making a bomb shelter.
@njm203 I'm just going to move to Norway where they have the second highest GDP per capita in the world and have like the 4th best living standards. Guess what kind of government ideas they implement...... socialist! yep.
@rootbeerpeople Norway isn't heading in a good direction at all. In 2008, there was 4X more crime per capita in Oslo than in New York City. And look what they're attracting from the Third World with all that "free" stuff:
watch?v=_jksJXJ08i8&feature=related
Civil strife's inevitable when decisions are made categorically by government officials instead of incrementally by individuals via market transactions and voluntary social institutions. Lack of alternatives breeds such discontent and rage.
@luvmedo56 Good point about Norway! It seems socialist countries attract a certain kind of immigrant--the ingrate primarily looking for free stuff who grows angry that the host country doesn't subscribe to the cultural norms of his home country. Capitalist countries primarily attract immigrants looking for the opportunity to achieve personal fulfillment they were denied in their home countries. The latter are too busy building their fortunes to have time to worry about how others live.
@luvmedo56 first of all, you can't measure crime per capita. New York City has 4X the poulation of Oslo. Crime is way more detrimental in a higher populated area. Sceond, are you measuring crime overall? because the type of crime makes a difference in the way you understand the level of crime. Guns are more tightly restricted in Norway, so criminals don't have as easy of access to guns as we have. Your video just shows some muslims that are angry that the lights were called Christmas lights.
@rootbeerpeople >>you can't measure crime per capita. New York City has 4X the population of Oslo<<
Go look up what "per capita" means. Oslo has 4X as much crime per person and the crime is much more violent than New York City also: Looking at just sex- and violence-related crimes, Oslo had 9.2 reported per 1000 people in 2008 while New York City had only 5.8 per 1000 that same year. The people of Oslo are much more violent than the people of New York City.
@luvmedo56 I understand what crime per capita means. I'm saying that I don't think that measuring crime per capita is a good way of measuring it. If you have a town with 4 people and 1 guy is a criminal, that's a lot easier to deal with than a town with 100,000 people and 25,000 of those people are criminals. Also, you're saying that just in that one year (2008) Oslo had higher crime per capita levels than New York.
@rootbeerpeople >>Guns are more tightly restricted in Norway<<
Which might explain why the criminals in Oslo feel so much more at liberty to be violent in committing their crimes, because it's not just criminals who don't have as easy access to guns. It's also law-abiding citizens who can't protect themselves. Norway keeps the streets safer for its criminals. Violent crime in the District of Columbia went down significantly after it dropped its ban on guns. Suddenly, criminals feared something.
@luvmedo56 Haha yeah they're really scared. You are saying that a lot of crime is caused by people being pissed off because they can't have guns. Those people are hypocrites because they're causing crime because, what you're saying, they can't get guns as easily. Also, Finland has similar gun laws as Norway and Finland has the 5th lowest rate of crime in the world, so that's not really a factor with them. They just aren't as paranoid as a lot of Americans about their freedom to have guns.
@rootbeerpeople >>Finland has similar gun laws as Norway and Finland has the 5th lowest rate of crime in the world, so that's not really a factor with them<<
But their gun ownership rate is very different. Finland has the 4th highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world, with 45.3 guns per 100 people. Norway's at #11, with only 31.3 guns per 100. The country with higher gun ownership has lower crime. The price for committing crime is higher where more citizens can defend themselves.
@luvmedo56 How do these angry muslims show anything bad about the government? The city just called their Christmas lights "Christmas lights". I think you can agree that the government didn't do anything wrong in that case. Also, they have a democratic parliamentary which their people vote on. Sp don't try to say that the country does stuff that the people have no control over.
@HokiesAndDawgs: Yes, as a matter of fact he did. His government however, was a little bit different than ours. His leader is/was a dictator who controlled a "country" in the heavens. Think about it from an unbiased perspective. It's as clear as day.
@rootbeerpeople I can't speak for HokiesAndDawgs but for me, socialism is when you have to go to higher authorities for permission to get your body repaired in the way you'd like to have it repaired--even when you're willing to pay for the full cost out of your own earnings. When you need someone's permission to repair a piece of property by paying for it out of your own pocket, you don't own that property. The higher authority that grants the permission owns it. That's why socialism is slavery.
@happystance7able That's because socialism is based on spreading the wealth and making people more equal. under socialism, everyone gets the same kind of healthcare. Just because you have enough money doesn't mean you're more important than someone that doesn't and just happened to get in line for medical care for you. You're just going to have to wait like everybody else.
@rootbeerpeople >>You're just going to have to wait like everybody else<<
Explain the morality of legally restricting the medical options available to contractors with hurt shoulders from helping thousands of homeowners with repairs and who want to spend their own money to get healthy and back to work. Why should they wait behind hundreds of welfare recipients with hurt shoulders from playing tennis instead of working? The contractors pay for ALL the operations. They should be first in line.
@rootbeerpeople >>socialism is based on spreading the wealth<<
Isn't robbery based on the same thing? The way I see it, socialism is just legalized theft. "Spreading the wealth" is just a euphemism for theft. Theft is very destructive to a society and shouldn't be legally institutionalized in the form of socialism. It's immoral.
@happystance7able Apparently some countries execute socialism well and it actually works for them. The people vote on what they want in those countries. countries with the lowest crime and the highest GDP in the world follow socialistic types of government styles. Obviously they're doing something right.
@rootbeerpeople In 2009, the US had a gross external debt less than its GDP while Norway's was twice its GDP. Not sustainable! Norway's survival has little to do with productivity. Foreign countries and corporations flood Norwegian government coffers with money for a stake in vast, untapped North Sea oil reserves. Everything the Norwegian government spends of that foreign wealth is added directly to GDP without Norwegians lifting a finger. Everyone can't be like that nor should they want to.
@happystance7able Norway has the highest capital reserve per capita in the world which means that they have plenty of safety money, and it ranks as the second wealthiest country in the world in monetary value.
@rootbeerpeople The government of Norway has large currency reserves, not capital reserves. The IMF's 2005 Financial System Stability Assessment said Norway has very thin capital markets and very limited long-term investment opportunities in the Norwegian Krone. To inject that currency into the economy would only create inflation as no substantial economic growth would result. Any government could create Norway's type of reserves simply by printing money and putting it in a vault...
..so relinquishing ownership of your body to the government isn't necessary to create currency reserves. The Norwegian people are like sheep--unproductive and entirely dependent on the virtue of the farmer; the Norwegian government. To say the Norwegian people work is to say sheep work by chewing and pooping the grass the farmer allows them access to. That old, European sheep-farmer model appeals especially to people who see themselves as potentially great farmers. It appeals to wannabe tyrants.
In the brilliant model created by America's Founders, the government is not a farmer. It's a policeman with clearly defined/limited powers--just as police officers' powers are clearly defined and strictly limited in uncorrupt states. American government is charged with defending the great, wealth-creating American principle that each citizen is his own farmer and the only livestock he oversees is his own talents and powers of persuasion. Only by voluntary cooperation is net wealth created.
@happystance7able Why would the people vote for socialistic ideas if they're so bad? They don't have a dictatorship. During the Great Depression, The Scandinavian countries implemented socialist ideas and they were the first countries to come out of the depression. You have given me one example of socialism being bad in Norway (higher crime in Oslo than New York City in ONE YEAR). Give me more.
They vote for socialism because, once government monopolizes providing necessities, most people believe they couldn't be provided by men acting freely. Each person correctly recognizes that he himself doesn't know how to manage such a task. He also recognizes that neither does any other individual. In the unawareness of how millions of tiny know-hows naturally form and cooperate to satisfy the necessities of life, the individual cannot help but think governmental master-minding is the only way.
@luvmedo56 Do you think that Norwegians are isolated from capitalist ideas? Don't be silly. I'm sure they understand what capitalism is. They have the internet too.
@rootbeerpeople >>Don't be silly. I'm sure they understand what capitalism is.<<
Why do you assume that people raised under socialism, who prefer it, understand capitalism while you assume people raised under capitalism, who prefer capitalism, DON'T understand socialism? Why do you attribute a higher level of knowledge and understanding to socialists than you do to capitalists? There's no basis for that, given the long history of socialists' failures and capitalists' successes.
@luvmedo56 Because under socialism, people have much higher levels of education. That's why they understand what capitalism is and why the U.S. doesn't understand how socialism has good aspects.
@rootbeerpeople >>Because under socialism, people have much higher levels of education...they understand what capitalism is<<
Some of the most intelligent, highly-educated people who ever lived like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, who have studied socialism in much greater depth than you or I ever will, have concluded that capitalism is a much better system. Friedrich Hayek lived under socialism and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in economics.
@rootbeerpeople >>You're taking their studies out of context. I can guarantee you that they agree that socialism has good aspects.<<
Can you find me one column in the archives at tsowell()com where Dr. Sowell features the "good aspects" of socialism? There are over ten years of columns to choose from, so I'm sure you'll find it an easy task. He's also written over 40 heady books about it to select from.
@rootbeerpeople >>You have given me one example of socialism being bad in Norway<<
It's the freaking capital and largest city of Norway! It defines Norwegian urban crime. New York, likewise, is America's largest city and crime is 4X worse and twice as violent in Norway's capital. If you want more, go google it yourself, or just keep believing in your fairy tale that socialism produces peace and harmony. It's a fallacious myth. You act like someone having the tenets of his religion challenged.
@luvmedo56 Just because it's the capital doesn't mean as much as you think. Also, I looked up crime in the U.S. and Norway, Norway has a lower crime per capita level than the U.S. Oslo is the 11th most expensive city in the world to live in while New York comes in 27th. The cost of living in a city obviously reflects on its desirability. That's a fact. Don't try to deny it.
@rootbeerpeople >>The cost of living in a city obviously reflects on its desirability. That's a fact<<
Only in the imagination of economic morons. Relative cost of living reflects how the supply of essential goods and services is able to meet demand for those goods and services. Where supply is restricted--for whatever reasons, natural or artificial--the cost of living increases. Why is supply of essential goods and services more restricted in Oslo than in New York City? That's not desirable.
@luvmedo56 The prices to live in a place are considerably higher when there are more opportunities. That's why it's way cheaper to live out in the middle of nowhere. There aren't any opportunities. Obviously, if people thought that it's not worth the prices to live in a big city, then they wouldn't live there. There are a lot more jobs in big cities, and jobs in big cities tend to pay more.
@rootbeerpeople >>The prices to live in a place are considerably higher when there are more opportunities.<<
Only where supply isn't allowed to meet demand. Higher prices result from two things; higher demand AND restricted supply. You seem not to know the second half of that equation. Increased demand for housing wouldn't raise prices in the long term if supply of homes was allowed to increase. City zoning laws artificially restrict the supply of homes so that it can't meet the demand.
@luvmedo56 And the reason that they restrict the supply of homes is so the amount of people can be handled much easier. Also, when supply decreases, demand increases, and when supply increases, demand decreases. Those are the basic principles of supply and demand.
@rootbeerpeople >>And the reason that they restrict the supply of homes is so the amount of people can be handled much easier<<
No, in the areas of the country where housing prices are the highest, "They" restrict the supply of homes because "They" don't like the look of tall buildings and think there should be more "Open Space" wherever the hell "They" want it to be. Other people can't afford to live in the cities they work in because "They" want to make cities conform to "Their" vision.
@rootbeerpeople >>they also want to maintain an attractive appearance in their city. That only makes sense.<<
Makes sense to the wealthy living there already. It maintains the value of their property. But "They" didn't pay for the right to keep everything looking the way they want it to look. They only paid the price to keep their own property looking the way they want it to. If they want property to look a certain way, they should buy it. Like all socialists, they want something for nothing.
Rather, like all socialists, "They" want other people to pay the price for the socialists' desires--in this case, the desire of wealthy property-owning socialists for property that's not theirs to look a certain way, or to be used a certain way. Poorer people pay the price for these wealthy socialists. The poor pay by commuting long distances from where housing is more affordable. Many poor people die on highways so the wealthy in the cities can smile at how attractive their neighborhoods are.
Sheer idiocy! The supply of buggy whips is at the lowest it's ever been because nobody drives horse-and-buggies to work anymore. Has the demand for buggy whips gone through the roof because of the decrease in supply? Like a good socialist, you've invented your own imaginary, fantastical system of economics with no understanding of the role of prices in the real world.
@rootbeerpeople >>Obviously I'm talking about goods being used today<<
Horse-and-buggies and buggy whips ARE being used today. Mostly for recreation, but the Amish actually use them for regular transportation. It's just that the demand for them went down, so the supply of them also went down. You don't understand supply and demand. That's one of the things that makes you a socialist. Changes in demand change PRICES. Supply adjusts to those changes in prices.
@luvmedo56 >>Changes in demand change PRICES. Supply adjusts to those changes<<
Changes in supply causes prices to change as well, and demand will often change in response to those changes in prices. When the supply of something increases, its price will very often drop since it's not so rare anymore so sellers have to compete more to get business. Socialists cause trouble when they pass laws arbitrarily setting prices so they reflect, no longer supply and demand, but socialists' wishes.
The reason socialists screw things up when they arbitrarily set prices is that, in the real world, resources are scare and have alternative uses, even if such scarcity may not exist in the imaginary world that socialists live in, and even if these socialists who like to use government to set prices arbitrarily can't envision most of the alternative uses for the scarce resources used to produce the things and services they like to arbitrarily set the prices for....
...Socialists pretend to be gods when they set prices using the force of law. They act as if they know just how much of what is needed and as if they know just how many resources are needed to produce things and whether or not those resources might better be used to produce something else. The truth is, socialists don't know any of these things--nobody does because, in reality, that's massively complex and can only be accurately transmitted through the realtime feedback of free market prices.
....So socialists pretend to know what can't possibly be known because such things are unknowable due to their chaotic level of complexity, including the fact that they are constantly changing in realtime. But that doesn't stop socialists because these dreamers live in an imaginary world where scarcity of resources doesn't matter, so one doesn't need to know exactly how much of what is needed--where and when--in order to set prices so as not to create horrible shortages or absurd surpluses.
@luvmedo56 Whatever man. Everything each of us says, the other person is always going to have a rebuttal. I'm kind of sick of it. We're not making any progress in this debate. Obviously you don't like socialism, and I do. Neither of us is going to change their minds about their opinions. I'm done.
@rootbeerpeople >> it's way cheaper to live out in the middle of nowhere<<
Only housing is usually cheaper because the supply of homes is not artificially restricted by zoning laws there. Most things are much cheaper in cities; for example, activities with large fixed costs such as building water or sewage systems. Cathedrals, hospitals, theaters and other large things like that are much cheaper when their costs can be spread over a larger number of people crowded together. Cities are cheaper.
@rootbeerpeople Life in rural areas is MUCH more expensive than in cities in many ways. Things are difficult to come by. People pay for things by driving 80 miles to the nearest city for a small valve to repair their under-sink plumbing, or to buy a new TV set with the features they want. They mail order much of what they need and wait longer for it to arrive in the mail. They pay with their time and convenience. That's VERY expensive. People move to cities precisely to economize on that stuff.
@luvmedo56 I was talking about housing, but yes you're right. Cities are in the long run cheaper to live in. That's why people want to live there. Many people that do live out in the middle of nowhere are retired people (not all of course) and they have plenty of money from working in the cities.
@rootbeerpeople >>Cities are in the long run cheaper to live in. ...Many people that do live out in the middle of nowhere are retired people (not all of course) and they have plenty of money from working in the cities.<<
This is the only time you've demonstrated that you and I live on the same planet. I agree. Did you know our oldest citizens are as a group our wealthiest? Socialist institutions frequently involve transfering wealth from the working poorer people to wealthier retired people.
@rootbeerpeople >>Norway has a lower crime per capita level than the U.S.<<
But why attribute this to socialism, as many other factors could be responsible? Is it because you like socialism, so you want it to be the reason why crime is lower? Norway has a state religion, the Church of Norway, that had a profound effect on shaping the cultural habits of native Norwegians. Why is that not why crime is lower in Norway? How do we know crime wouldn't be even lower if Norway were capitalist?
@rootbeerpeople 83.8% of Norway's residents are ethnic Norwegian whose cultural patterns were shaped by the state religion, The Church of Norway. The U.S., on the other hand, is a nation explicitly set up WITHOUT a state religion (First Amendment) and it's a nation of immigrants from all over the world e.g. established by whites yet today, only 63% of its population is white. Cultural demographics drive crime, not economic systems. Socialism just subsidizes criminals so they have more free time.
In Oslo, where immigrants--people whose cultural habits were NOT shaped over the centuries by the Church of Norway--constitute a much larger percentage of the population, one can see more clearly the effect socialism has on crime. It allows crime to skyrocket because it subsidizes criminals. Criminals can better afford to commit crimes in the streets because their basic needs are provided regardless of how anti-social their behavior ergo Oslo's crime: 4X more and twice as violent as New York.
Yes. Cultural degeneracy accounts for crime, regardless of the presence or absence of poverty. Cultural degeneracy also often accounts for systemic poverty. e.g. The welfare culture, created by socialists in inner cities since the1960s, has produced generations of people with entitlement attitudes that make them unproductive. Socialists reduced the demand for inner city workers by making them deficient educationally and attitudinally.
@luvmedo56 The only thing is, Norway has the third highest GDP per capita in the world, so you can't say that they're unproductive. It's also a fact that Scandinavian countries (as well as most European countries) have a much better overall education system than us.
@rootbeerpeople >>Norway has the third highest GDP per capita in the world, so you can't say that they're unproductive.<<
GDP includes government spending. The bulk of Norway's GDP comes from government selling the birthright of the Norwegian people--their national oil reserves--to foreign entities via government bonds. It's like Greece selling it's territory (islands) to foreigners and spending the money on handouts to people politically valuable to politicians. You support that?
>>Scandinavian countries (as well as most European countries) have a much better overall education system than us.<<
Measured how? By the number of great universities in their nations? How do you measure that? By the number of people who go to Scandinavian countries to receive a great education at their universities?
@luvmedo56 None of the above. Actually, it's kind of impossible to compare two countries' education systems. It's more of an opinion whether a country has a better education system than another.
@rootbeerpeople >>it's kind of impossible to compare two countrie's education systems<<
Then you can't say socialists' education is better than capitalists' education. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions, but your not entitled to assert your opinions as facts.
@luvmedo56 Norway has much higher unemployment benefits, a universal healthcare system, and many other social programs. That is where much of their money is spent. They actually understand that when you invest in the people, you get a better overall prosperity level.
@happystance7able Norway has the highest capital reserve per capita in the world. It's a fact. Also, the situation with the high currency reserves is a little different than what you think. The currency that they printed has already made the effect that it's going to make because it's already printed. In other words, if the money was injected into the economy, inflation would not occur and the value of the money would not change (for reasons that are based on the injection of the currency).
@rootbeerpeople >>currency that they printed has already made the effect that it's going to make because it's already printed<<
No, inflation doesn't occur just because government prints money. Such new money only creates inflation when it's spent. Then it enters the economy and inflates the currency unless there's a net increase of productivity to maintain its value. Current US inflationary fears are based on this principle with respect to cash reserves in the investment community.
@happystance7able I see where you're coming from, but no that is not correct. The value of the money is not affected when it has already been printed and factored into how much total currency there is. However, if the country decided to print more money, the value of their currency would go down. The currency reserves have already been put into the economy but has not been put into the "people's economy". That is why currency reserves are important.
@rootbeerpeople >>Norway has the highest capital reserve per capita in the world<<
So what? The more government steals from people, the higher its capital reserves can be. Also, I'd increase reserves/capita in my family by killing one of my children. In light of fiveinslide6's alarming cancer survival statistics, Norway's reserves per capita appears to be at least in part the result of Norway killing more of its people via its health care system. And how about immigration's effect on reserves?
@happystance7able A person that has crappy health care coverage is a lot better off than a person with no health care coverage. When everyone in a society has access to health care coverage, That's a lot better than a society with some people having coverage and some people not having coverage.
@rootbeerpeople >>A person that has crappy health care coverage is a lot better off than a person with no health care coverage<<
Not true. Rush Limbaugh has no coverage. If the person with crappy coverage is also forcibly denied by his government access to medical treatment that would save his life from cancer, that person is far worse off than Rush Limbaugh, who has full access to the best medical care in the world. Your statement is simply untrue and I've just proved. it.
@happystance7able The difference is Rush Limbaugh can buy medical coverage whenever he wants because he can afford to do so. A person who does not have the financial ability to purchase health coverage would obviously like to have health care coverage. Even if it's not top of the line.
@rootbeerpeople >>[Norway] ranks as the second wealthiest country in the world in monetary value<<
if I chain you to a wall for the rest of your life and sell all your property for a billion dollars, how much of that billion must I spend on your care before you'll consider yourself wealthy? The government of Norway is wealthy because it sells vast oil reserves to foreigners and its GDP is largely the result of government spending to keep the Norwegian people complacent in their padded chains.
@rootbeerpeople And why are you persisting with this "lowest crime" thing? Somebody already schooled you about crime being 4x worse in Oslo than in New York City. On what basis do you say socialism leads to lower crime? Do you have any stats to back up your opinion or is it just based on a feeling you have? Do you approach issues like this intuitively? Are you inventing your own reality which you want to impose on the rest of us without having to construct a rational, fact-based argument?
@happystance7able I was not schooled. The statistics given to me: 1. I have no idea if they're true or not 2. Those were statistics for only a single year, in just one of Norway's cities.
@rootbeerpeople >>I have no idea if they're true or not...only a single year, in just one of Norway's cities<<
w w w()ssb()no/emner/03/05/a_krim_tab/tab/tab-2008-03-06-03()h t m l
So is Oslo's crime rate 4 times worse than New York's because the socialists are finding it "easier to deal with"? You don't make any sense. Your opinions don't square with the facts. It seems you decide what you want to be true and shut your mind to reality. You can't be "schooled" because you're brainwashed.
@rootbeerpeople >>I said that...it's not appropriate to measure crime per capita<<
But you said that only after asserting socialist states have "the lowest crime" so how are you measuring crime, then? With your feelings? About the fact that the crime you are "studying" occurs in a socialist country? So that if the crime is in a socialist country, it's "the lowest" in the world simply on that basis, whereas if its occuring in a capitalist country, it's "too high" no matter what it is? LOL
@luvmedo56 You and happystance7able keep mixing up everything I say. What I'm saying saying is that the Scandinavian countries overall have a lower crime rate, some of the highest living standards in the world, and have high capital reserves. I'm also saying that they have socialistic types of policies implemented such as their universal health care, and the people living there vote on things just as we do. You can go into tiny detail about everything but I'm giving you overall facts.
@rootbeerpeople >>What I'm saying is that the Scandinavian countries have a lower crime rate<<
Lower crime measured how? Per capita? You've already said that per capita measurement is "inappropriate", so I'm simply asking how you measure it in Scandinavian countries if not per capita. Do you measure it with your feelings? With your feelings about how much you like their socialism? Is it just that socialists' crime is always lower than capitalists' crime regardless of per capita measurements?
@luvmedo56 i was saying that measuring the amount of criminals per capita is not appropriate in my opinion. And yes, when the crime rate of Scandinavian countries' is measured per capita, they have lower crime rates than many countries including the U.S. Also, why do you get so pissed off that other people have their opinions? Obviously if I believe in something, then i think it's right. That's what opinions are.
@rootbeerpeople Or are per-capita measurements "appropriate" only if they support your opinion while per-capita measurements that don't support it are "inappropriate"? I think that, when you look at reality and find that it does not match your vision, you conclude that it's reality that's wrong. It appears to never occur to you that your vision could possibly be wrong. Narcissists force everyone around them to conform to their vision so the narcissists don't have to match it to reality.
@rootbeerpeople Why is crime in Oslo 4x higher and 2x more violent than in New York City? Oslo is a socialist city. What aspect about Oslo makes crime so much worse than other socialist Norwegian cities? And if that aspect--whatever it is--is to blame for higher crime in Oslo, how do you know that it isn't also the main factor in American crime? Oslo proves that you have not made a logical case that socialism is the factor responsible for lowering crime. Some other factor is.
@luvmedo56 Ok, you have measured that Oslo has more crime per capita than New York City, but what about the whole actual two countries compared in crime levels?
Comment removed
rocknotes 4 months ago
ALL ANYONE ON EARTH HAS TO DO TO HAVE ALL THE MONEY AND POWER IS TO HAVE A KID WITH OR SLEEP WITH ANYONE OF THE U. S. FED GOV'S KIDS SO THEY ARE IN THAT FAMILY AND CAN PICK THE CELEBRITIES AND PICK EVERYONE'S SALARY AND SEND THE COPS AFTER ANYONE THEY ARE JEALOUS OF AND STUFF.
rocknotes 4 months ago
Btw I in NO WAY support O'Donnell... She is a comic relief at best in any video she is in. I'm just simply saying people for some reason think because you don't have health insurance you die or don't get medical care which is false. If you want to keep letting the government tell you where your hard earned money is going good for you. That's your right. Just don't try to force it on me based on false fears.
wdglass1 8 months ago
I love how you all think its "free healthcare" like some other countries are running. There are hospitals that treat people without insurance for a reason.... Catholic hospitals for instance. Why should someone else get some of my already taxed paycheck? I don't have health insurance and had over $12,000 dollars in medical debt yet I am paying it off with a $9 an hour job and have over 2/3 of it paid off. You don't see me asking for a bailout or someone else to help pay my bills.
wdglass1 8 months ago
I want to ask americans. Why are so many of you against free universal healthcare. Whats wrong with helping people out. If its a christian nation like many of you claim. Why wont you "love thy neighbour" and not le them die just because they dont have any money?
davetonia1233 8 months ago
@davetonia1233
You don't simply "die because you don't have any money" in the U.S... There are hospitals out there that cannot refuse medical aid. That is simply a curtain they use to push universal healthcare. However you might not get the best care money can buy and that honestly is fair. If someone is homeless do you pay for their rent or do you direct them to a shelter home? The shelter might not be as nice as the rental home but at least you have a roof over your head.
wdglass1 8 months ago
ANYONE and I mean ANYONE, that wants to 'repeal' ALL of the Health Care Reform Bill, ALL of you can go FUCK YOUR SELVES and when your done with that FUCK OFF! Your a worthless piece of shit, that deserves to receive a coma-inducing ass kicking. To reverse coverage for children and canceling coverage when sick makes you one evil motherfucker. BTW: Illegal aliens will have no more access to 'free healthcare' than they did before this was passed, so pull your head out of your ass and wake the f-up
xinecallaw 8 months ago
@xinecallaw
Read my above comments and calm the fuck down. You might want to actually know what you are talking about before you start raging like that.
wdglass1 8 months ago
@xinecallaw YES!! FUCK YEAH!!!
MegaBeerFart 6 months ago
Of course she's against it. She's a "Rich-Bitch" and could afford to pay everything and anything. However, many college students are poor and can not afford health care, so the obamacare is good for them. Stay on there parent's healthcare until 26 if needed.
xXxPiousNinjaxXx 9 months ago
thenoblequran(Ctrl+Enter)
thankallahalltime 1 year ago
Oh , this stuff, for a better word, will go on probably till i die. If I paid health insurance all my working day's and then suddendly can't pay it anymore than have to go to the hospital? Lot of stories out there.
lencho234 1 year ago
@lencho234 Yes, it definately will go on til you die... its called politics. it has been around for hundreds and thousands of years... Do you know anything about politics???
Peteyftw207 1 year ago
@Peteyftw207 My comment meant more about "politics going on and on and on till it gets to the point where you really have no idea what idea to support ,so you just talk out your ars'.
lencho234 1 year ago
@Peteyftw207 not a nice tone there. What I know about politics is very disturbing , so I just leave my mindset to the stories out there that it will and always affect, "til you die". calmathe.
lencho234 1 year ago
Obamacare led to the results in November... Keep pushing this oppressive bill down our throats and the dems will be non-existent...
dex1391 1 year ago
Im an idiot? Says the person who never went to kindergarten.
Peteyftw207 1 year ago
I thought this video would be about some black ppl and some white monkeys fighting.
b0m83d 1 year ago
GRRR CBS WHY DON'T YOUR VIDEOS PLAY PROPERLY?
usedforspam37 1 year ago
its funny reading all the comments about democrats are stupid and republicans are dummies but what I learned is that u cant argue opinions only facts
Titan990 1 year ago
I dont like it when videos are cut up, why is there a cut there?
greedlusthate 1 year ago
Christine is right on. Democrates are stupid.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@glendaweil hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahaahahhahahahahahahahahahahah fucking republican propagandist crack me the fuck up, dumbass
seanfleming1 1 year ago
@seanfleming1 Briiliant my good man what a retort, as far propaganda the left has the world title on that, as a matter of fact thats all there good at, they sure cannot govern when they get the chance, see most recent election results to prove that fact, oh yea the dems. response is they did not go far enough with their left wing agenda, that my friend is hillarious.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@glendaweil i have no intentions to have an intelligent debate with you that would be impossible, i just wanted to feed a dumbass troll what he was asking for.....
seanfleming1 1 year ago
@glendaweil for someone who tries to sound smart and sound like Sherlock Holmes, you must have had a serious lack of spelling classes in your childhood. "There" would be used when indicating location; "The cat ran over there." They're, which is the word i think you were looking for, means they are. Learn to spell next time you try to act smart.
Peteyftw207 1 year ago
@Peteyftw207 What an idiot this is political discourse I am not really worried about spelling did you get my point or not that's the questionnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!
glendaweil 1 year ago
@Peteyftw207 thaats not nice to say. i smart. i learn. me good. you smart. right>?
lencho234 1 year ago
@glendaweil That must be why she is being investigated by the FBI for using campaign money for her own personal use...
The hypocrisy of the the far right is so blatantly obvious...
zbshogun 1 year ago
@zbshogun If being investigated was a crime I would worry but the left in its infinite wisdom always can drum up some so-called dirt on people they do not like. Lets wait on te results before we react.. That is called innocent till proven quilty.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@glendaweil In what ways?
Peteyftw207 1 year ago
Christine is right on.
glendaweil 1 year ago
She uses crap that even the staunchest conservative stays clear of. Free healthcare for illegal aliens? Is she that stupid. If any alien goes to an emergency room they will get treated. They r fucking human beings! ERs have always treated everyone if the situation requires immediate care. This happened under Bush, Clinton , Bush Sr. .. Typical conservative Tea Bagger bullshit. ER care and healthcare are 2 different things. Get your facts straight Christine. Typical conservative lying.
mikemk92 1 year ago
How does this girl have any political office at all. It's truely mind boggling. She's so brainwashed it's pathetic. She's not smart. She's not the right person or qualified. Please someone tell me how this shit is happening. Ever since Bush, the government is like "let's make the dumbass win so we can use him/her as a puppet for what we really want."
sk8rpimp68 1 year ago
@sk8rpimp68 The rich conservatives rely on the stupid conservatives to not check their facts. This is why the democrats were voted out of so many seats. Lies. Lies like: "$200 million/day in India", or "Death panels for healthcare", or "Obama's really a muslim" or "He's not even a U.S. citezen. People are too lazy or stupid (or both) to even check if it's true. A conservative christian said it, it must be true. Sadly, the conservs. aren't even concerned about teh folks who voted them in.
mikemk92 1 year ago
@mikemk92 >>Death panels for healthcare<<
What do you know that Paul Krugman doesn't know?
watch?v=tDnvmOQDkkw
fiveinslide6 1 year ago
@fiveinslide6 Okay. You're obviously trolling, take things out of context or I'm completely missing what point you've tried to make here. Bottom line... I know very little compared to Paul Krugman. He's not affraid to say things as what they really are. Economists have that luxury when they're brilliant. However, he is definitely not suggesting "death panels" as so many conservatives have done their best to sell their dumb followers on. What works should stay. What doesn't should go.
mikemk92 1 year ago
@sk8rpimp68 >>How does this girl have any political office at all. It's truely mind boggling.<<
It's the drugs that are doing that to your brain. You should consider quiting.
fiveinslide6 1 year ago
Comment removed
sk8rpimp68 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fiveinslide6 A troll who sucks at trolling, go back to Troll School and try again. Or you know you could, for once, try to write something pertinent
sk8rpimp68 1 year ago
@fiveinslide6 I gotta hand it to ya. You're fighting the hard fight here. Trying to make O'Donnell look good and Coons look bad because he has chosen public service when he clearly doesn't need the money is a tall order indeed. Good luck with that one. LOL.
mikemk92 1 year ago
@mikemk92 >>has chosen public service when he clearly doesn't need the money<<
You're completely ignorant about the nature of tyrants. Bin Laden didn't "need the money" either. Nor do the Saudi princes. Coons is one of those independently wealthy individuals with the leisure of indulging in the ego trip of inventing his own Constitution which gives arrogant elitists like himself special powers to impose their will on others, and he has the resources to set about implementing his scheme.
fiveinslide6 1 year ago
@fiveinslide6 There are more Republican millionaires and billionaires than Democrat. How is Chris Coons inventing his own constitution? Again, stop criticizing Chris Coons when you can't even give any good things about Christine O' Donnell.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>There are more Republican millionaires and billionaires<<
Not in the Senate. Total net worth of Democrat Senators is over $1.1 BILLION while Republican Senators are only worth about $286 million. Dems are supposed to represent the Little Guy? Almost 80% of all Senatorial wealth lies in the hands of Democrats. Christine would have made Republican Senators even more representative of the American People by further reducing their wealth per capita. (Do you know what that means?)
fiveinslide6 1 year ago
@fiveinslide6 That's not the point. The amount of money someone has doesn't determine whether they represent the little guy or not. It's their policies. How is lowering unemployment benefits good for the little guy? How is not wanting free healthcare for everyone good for th little guy? The Republicans don't understand (or don't want to admit) that you have to invest money into helping out the little guy (like paying people to rebuild infrastructure) in order to help the little guy.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>How is not wanting free healthcare for everyone good for the little guy?<<
It gives him a MUCH better chance of surviving cancer. In a detailed study by Dr. Michel Coleman et al entitled "Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study" Norway, Finland and Sweden were shown to lag FAR behind the US in 5-year cancer survival. Prostate: US 92.3% Norway 63% Finland 62.9% Sweden 66%. Colon/Rectal in men: US 69.3 Norway 51.1 Finland 52.5 Sweden 52.8% ...
fiveinslide6 1 year ago
fiveinslide6 1 year ago
When you have so many more people dying for socialist health care, it isn't free. It's WAY more expensive than private care. You pay with your life, your liberty, and your pursuit of happiness. You pay with everything that makes life worth living. We are not cows. Socialism is for cows.
fiveinslide6 1 year ago
@mikemk92 Your putting Coons on a pedestal for his "choosing public service" is laughable. The Left's incessant call for more "public service" is a call for more people to work in jobs NOT representing the preferences of the public, as revealed through the marketplace, but the preferences of elitists on ego trips, enforced through government and paid for by the force of taxation.
happystance7able 1 year ago
Of course, not every service to the public is a "public service" in NewSpeak. Those delivering tons of life-sustaining food to supermarkets are not engaged in "public service" as ignorant, arrogant, presumptuous ruling-elitist Leftists like Coons supporters use the term. No, such food producers are activated by the incentives of the marketplace, perhaps even "greed"--another fashionable buzzword intended to put Leftists on an altogether different, higher moral plane than those whom they control.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able Why do you think Repbulicans run for office? same thing. Give facts for both sides at least.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
Chris Coons won because he told the truth and Christine O'Donnell has no clue what the bill of right are
jnr2008 1 year ago
You can't beat those Knesset Kissers.It's time to repeal the 17th Amendment.
rentslave 1 year ago
She's a freak and a twit, thankfully she lost.
SeymourButtz99 1 year ago
@SeymourButtz99
Dems got destroyed last night....LOL.
HokiesAndDawgs 1 year ago
While Christine O'Donnell's knowledge of our beloved U.S. Constitution may be lacking, I do have to say that at my tea party, I enjoy it when her supporter, Sarah Palin, squats over my dinner plate and squeezes out a thick log of hot steaming poop. I proceed to consume the poop with a knife and fork like a finely-cooked roast beef. Christine O'Donnell attempts to do the same, but her anus is tight, in fact too tight so I have to use a stainless steel speculum to pry it open.
demonflayme6 1 year ago
May I add that once I succeed in prying open Christine O'Donnell's tight anus with my stainless steel speculum (courtesy of Ethicon), Christine then proceeds to hand me a soup spoon and makes the demand that I "scoop out the poop."
demonflayme6 1 year ago
I frankly think I frankly frank mother-frankers all the franking time.
ZacharyNMercer 1 year ago
Ohhh my goodness!!! Hahaha Chris Coons honestly strikes me as a real literal idiot!!!
wowthatscrazy2 1 year ago
@wowthatscrazy2 How?
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
WHY DO WE NEED TO SEE A FUCKEN PREGNANT BITCH BEFORE SEEING THE ACTUAL VIDEO??????????? HOPE SHE MIS-CARRIES!
fran9860 1 year ago
YOU ARE GOING DOWN YOU STUPID BITCH! ON ELECTION DAY, WHEN THE RESULTS ARE IN, I SHOULD LET YOU KNOW; MCDONALD'S IS HIRING BITCH!
fran9860 1 year ago
wow...i love how when she gets interrupted she makes that face that sais, "what an asshole". Yet that seems to be the only thing she can actualy do "well"
HeartlessSora1234 1 year ago
shes not the brightest crayon in the box, but people who actually think shes a witch might as well just vote for her
befon 1 year ago
Now I get it...Christine O'Donnell is a modern witch....trying to seperate church from state which she doesn't know much about....she is against abortion but yet practices witchcraft....and she has no financial stability and owes the IRS......you would want this woman in office....
DJLoressa13 1 year ago
Christine O'Donnell and other Yankee conservatives often call themselves Christian...
However, if Jesus would be President of the US, everybody would have healthcare.
If Jesus would be president, rich people would pay more tax.
If Jesus would be president, raw capitalism would definitely not be accepted.
If jesus would be president, the poor would be helped, etc...
tjobv 1 year ago
@tjobv perfectly said. Hypocritical on her part. Our country is ranked 11th in the world. The other 10 countries ahead of us have some form of universal healthcare. Unless your rich, i have no idea why so many people vote republican. If Sarah Palin is elected president in 2012 an O'Donnell is in the Senate, i'm moving to Canada or at least making a bomb shelter.
njm203 1 year ago
@njm203 I'm just going to move to Norway where they have the second highest GDP per capita in the world and have like the 4th best living standards. Guess what kind of government ideas they implement...... socialist! yep.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople Norway isn't heading in a good direction at all. In 2008, there was 4X more crime per capita in Oslo than in New York City. And look what they're attracting from the Third World with all that "free" stuff:
watch?v=_jksJXJ08i8&feature=related
Civil strife's inevitable when decisions are made categorically by government officials instead of incrementally by individuals via market transactions and voluntary social institutions. Lack of alternatives breeds such discontent and rage.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Good point about Norway! It seems socialist countries attract a certain kind of immigrant--the ingrate primarily looking for free stuff who grows angry that the host country doesn't subscribe to the cultural norms of his home country. Capitalist countries primarily attract immigrants looking for the opportunity to achieve personal fulfillment they were denied in their home countries. The latter are too busy building their fortunes to have time to worry about how others live.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 first of all, you can't measure crime per capita. New York City has 4X the poulation of Oslo. Crime is way more detrimental in a higher populated area. Sceond, are you measuring crime overall? because the type of crime makes a difference in the way you understand the level of crime. Guns are more tightly restricted in Norway, so criminals don't have as easy of access to guns as we have. Your video just shows some muslims that are angry that the lights were called Christmas lights.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>you can't measure crime per capita. New York City has 4X the population of Oslo<<
Go look up what "per capita" means. Oslo has 4X as much crime per person and the crime is much more violent than New York City also: Looking at just sex- and violence-related crimes, Oslo had 9.2 reported per 1000 people in 2008 while New York City had only 5.8 per 1000 that same year. The people of Oslo are much more violent than the people of New York City.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 I understand what crime per capita means. I'm saying that I don't think that measuring crime per capita is a good way of measuring it. If you have a town with 4 people and 1 guy is a criminal, that's a lot easier to deal with than a town with 100,000 people and 25,000 of those people are criminals. Also, you're saying that just in that one year (2008) Oslo had higher crime per capita levels than New York.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Guns are more tightly restricted in Norway<<
Which might explain why the criminals in Oslo feel so much more at liberty to be violent in committing their crimes, because it's not just criminals who don't have as easy access to guns. It's also law-abiding citizens who can't protect themselves. Norway keeps the streets safer for its criminals. Violent crime in the District of Columbia went down significantly after it dropped its ban on guns. Suddenly, criminals feared something.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Haha yeah they're really scared. You are saying that a lot of crime is caused by people being pissed off because they can't have guns. Those people are hypocrites because they're causing crime because, what you're saying, they can't get guns as easily. Also, Finland has similar gun laws as Norway and Finland has the 5th lowest rate of crime in the world, so that's not really a factor with them. They just aren't as paranoid as a lot of Americans about their freedom to have guns.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Finland has similar gun laws as Norway and Finland has the 5th lowest rate of crime in the world, so that's not really a factor with them<<
But their gun ownership rate is very different. Finland has the 4th highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world, with 45.3 guns per 100 people. Norway's at #11, with only 31.3 guns per 100. The country with higher gun ownership has lower crime. The price for committing crime is higher where more citizens can defend themselves.
luvmedo56 1 year ago 4
@luvmedo56 How do these angry muslims show anything bad about the government? The city just called their Christmas lights "Christmas lights". I think you can agree that the government didn't do anything wrong in that case. Also, they have a democratic parliamentary which their people vote on. Sp don't try to say that the country does stuff that the people have no control over.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@tjobv : not correct at all. are you saying jesus is a socialist? you have a lot to learn. poor libby. jealous of others.
captainkill1 1 year ago
@captainkill1: LMFAO. Jesus WAS a "socialist". He told people to sell their belongings and give to those who don't have. You fucking retard.
Drucef 1 year ago
@Drucef
But did he say the citizens should be enslaved by the government like socialist countries today?
HokiesAndDawgs 1 year ago
@HokiesAndDawgs: Yes, as a matter of fact he did. His government however, was a little bit different than ours. His leader is/was a dictator who controlled a "country" in the heavens. Think about it from an unbiased perspective. It's as clear as day.
Drucef 1 year ago
@HokiesAndDawgs Do you understand what socialism is?
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople
Yes, do you?
HokiesAndDawgs 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople I can't speak for HokiesAndDawgs but for me, socialism is when you have to go to higher authorities for permission to get your body repaired in the way you'd like to have it repaired--even when you're willing to pay for the full cost out of your own earnings. When you need someone's permission to repair a piece of property by paying for it out of your own pocket, you don't own that property. The higher authority that grants the permission owns it. That's why socialism is slavery.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able That's because socialism is based on spreading the wealth and making people more equal. under socialism, everyone gets the same kind of healthcare. Just because you have enough money doesn't mean you're more important than someone that doesn't and just happened to get in line for medical care for you. You're just going to have to wait like everybody else.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>You're just going to have to wait like everybody else<<
Explain the morality of legally restricting the medical options available to contractors with hurt shoulders from helping thousands of homeowners with repairs and who want to spend their own money to get healthy and back to work. Why should they wait behind hundreds of welfare recipients with hurt shoulders from playing tennis instead of working? The contractors pay for ALL the operations. They should be first in line.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>socialism is based on spreading the wealth<<
Isn't robbery based on the same thing? The way I see it, socialism is just legalized theft. "Spreading the wealth" is just a euphemism for theft. Theft is very destructive to a society and shouldn't be legally institutionalized in the form of socialism. It's immoral.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able Apparently some countries execute socialism well and it actually works for them. The people vote on what they want in those countries. countries with the lowest crime and the highest GDP in the world follow socialistic types of government styles. Obviously they're doing something right.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople In 2009, the US had a gross external debt less than its GDP while Norway's was twice its GDP. Not sustainable! Norway's survival has little to do with productivity. Foreign countries and corporations flood Norwegian government coffers with money for a stake in vast, untapped North Sea oil reserves. Everything the Norwegian government spends of that foreign wealth is added directly to GDP without Norwegians lifting a finger. Everyone can't be like that nor should they want to.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able Norway has the highest capital reserve per capita in the world which means that they have plenty of safety money, and it ranks as the second wealthiest country in the world in monetary value.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople The government of Norway has large currency reserves, not capital reserves. The IMF's 2005 Financial System Stability Assessment said Norway has very thin capital markets and very limited long-term investment opportunities in the Norwegian Krone. To inject that currency into the economy would only create inflation as no substantial economic growth would result. Any government could create Norway's type of reserves simply by printing money and putting it in a vault...
happystance7able 1 year ago 3
..so relinquishing ownership of your body to the government isn't necessary to create currency reserves. The Norwegian people are like sheep--unproductive and entirely dependent on the virtue of the farmer; the Norwegian government. To say the Norwegian people work is to say sheep work by chewing and pooping the grass the farmer allows them access to. That old, European sheep-farmer model appeals especially to people who see themselves as potentially great farmers. It appeals to wannabe tyrants.
happystance7able 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
happystance7able 1 year ago
Comment removed
happystance7able 1 year ago
In the brilliant model created by America's Founders, the government is not a farmer. It's a policeman with clearly defined/limited powers--just as police officers' powers are clearly defined and strictly limited in uncorrupt states. American government is charged with defending the great, wealth-creating American principle that each citizen is his own farmer and the only livestock he oversees is his own talents and powers of persuasion. Only by voluntary cooperation is net wealth created.
happystance6able 1 year ago 3
@happystance7able Why would the people vote for socialistic ideas if they're so bad? They don't have a dictatorship. During the Great Depression, The Scandinavian countries implemented socialist ideas and they were the first countries to come out of the depression. You have given me one example of socialism being bad in Norway (higher crime in Oslo than New York City in ONE YEAR). Give me more.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
They vote for socialism because, once government monopolizes providing necessities, most people believe they couldn't be provided by men acting freely. Each person correctly recognizes that he himself doesn't know how to manage such a task. He also recognizes that neither does any other individual. In the unawareness of how millions of tiny know-hows naturally form and cooperate to satisfy the necessities of life, the individual cannot help but think governmental master-minding is the only way.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Do you think that Norwegians are isolated from capitalist ideas? Don't be silly. I'm sure they understand what capitalism is. They have the internet too.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Don't be silly. I'm sure they understand what capitalism is.<<
Why do you assume that people raised under socialism, who prefer it, understand capitalism while you assume people raised under capitalism, who prefer capitalism, DON'T understand socialism? Why do you attribute a higher level of knowledge and understanding to socialists than you do to capitalists? There's no basis for that, given the long history of socialists' failures and capitalists' successes.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Because under socialism, people have much higher levels of education. That's why they understand what capitalism is and why the U.S. doesn't understand how socialism has good aspects.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Because under socialism, people have much higher levels of education...they understand what capitalism is<<
Some of the most intelligent, highly-educated people who ever lived like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, who have studied socialism in much greater depth than you or I ever will, have concluded that capitalism is a much better system. Friedrich Hayek lived under socialism and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in economics.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 You're taking their studies out of context. I can guarantee you that they agree that socialism has good aspects.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>You're taking their studies out of context. I can guarantee you that they agree that socialism has good aspects.<<
Can you find me one column in the archives at tsowell()com where Dr. Sowell features the "good aspects" of socialism? There are over ten years of columns to choose from, so I'm sure you'll find it an easy task. He's also written over 40 heady books about it to select from.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>You have given me one example of socialism being bad in Norway<<
It's the freaking capital and largest city of Norway! It defines Norwegian urban crime. New York, likewise, is America's largest city and crime is 4X worse and twice as violent in Norway's capital. If you want more, go google it yourself, or just keep believing in your fairy tale that socialism produces peace and harmony. It's a fallacious myth. You act like someone having the tenets of his religion challenged.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Just because it's the capital doesn't mean as much as you think. Also, I looked up crime in the U.S. and Norway, Norway has a lower crime per capita level than the U.S. Oslo is the 11th most expensive city in the world to live in while New York comes in 27th. The cost of living in a city obviously reflects on its desirability. That's a fact. Don't try to deny it.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>The cost of living in a city obviously reflects on its desirability. That's a fact<<
Only in the imagination of economic morons. Relative cost of living reflects how the supply of essential goods and services is able to meet demand for those goods and services. Where supply is restricted--for whatever reasons, natural or artificial--the cost of living increases. Why is supply of essential goods and services more restricted in Oslo than in New York City? That's not desirable.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 The prices to live in a place are considerably higher when there are more opportunities. That's why it's way cheaper to live out in the middle of nowhere. There aren't any opportunities. Obviously, if people thought that it's not worth the prices to live in a big city, then they wouldn't live there. There are a lot more jobs in big cities, and jobs in big cities tend to pay more.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>The prices to live in a place are considerably higher when there are more opportunities.<<
Only where supply isn't allowed to meet demand. Higher prices result from two things; higher demand AND restricted supply. You seem not to know the second half of that equation. Increased demand for housing wouldn't raise prices in the long term if supply of homes was allowed to increase. City zoning laws artificially restrict the supply of homes so that it can't meet the demand.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 And the reason that they restrict the supply of homes is so the amount of people can be handled much easier. Also, when supply decreases, demand increases, and when supply increases, demand decreases. Those are the basic principles of supply and demand.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>And the reason that they restrict the supply of homes is so the amount of people can be handled much easier<<
No, in the areas of the country where housing prices are the highest, "They" restrict the supply of homes because "They" don't like the look of tall buildings and think there should be more "Open Space" wherever the hell "They" want it to be. Other people can't afford to live in the cities they work in because "They" want to make cities conform to "Their" vision.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Well they also want to maintain an attractive appearance in their city. That only makes sense.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>they also want to maintain an attractive appearance in their city. That only makes sense.<<
Makes sense to the wealthy living there already. It maintains the value of their property. But "They" didn't pay for the right to keep everything looking the way they want it to look. They only paid the price to keep their own property looking the way they want it to. If they want property to look a certain way, they should buy it. Like all socialists, they want something for nothing.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
Rather, like all socialists, "They" want other people to pay the price for the socialists' desires--in this case, the desire of wealthy property-owning socialists for property that's not theirs to look a certain way, or to be used a certain way. Poorer people pay the price for these wealthy socialists. The poor pay by commuting long distances from where housing is more affordable. Many poor people die on highways so the wealthy in the cities can smile at how attractive their neighborhoods are.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>when supply decreases, demand increases<<
Sheer idiocy! The supply of buggy whips is at the lowest it's ever been because nobody drives horse-and-buggies to work anymore. Has the demand for buggy whips gone through the roof because of the decrease in supply? Like a good socialist, you've invented your own imaginary, fantastical system of economics with no understanding of the role of prices in the real world.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Obviously I'm talking about good being used today.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Obviously I'm talking about goods being used today<<
Horse-and-buggies and buggy whips ARE being used today. Mostly for recreation, but the Amish actually use them for regular transportation. It's just that the demand for them went down, so the supply of them also went down. You don't understand supply and demand. That's one of the things that makes you a socialist. Changes in demand change PRICES. Supply adjusts to those changes in prices.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 >>Changes in demand change PRICES. Supply adjusts to those changes<<
Changes in supply causes prices to change as well, and demand will often change in response to those changes in prices. When the supply of something increases, its price will very often drop since it's not so rare anymore so sellers have to compete more to get business. Socialists cause trouble when they pass laws arbitrarily setting prices so they reflect, no longer supply and demand, but socialists' wishes.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
The reason socialists screw things up when they arbitrarily set prices is that, in the real world, resources are scare and have alternative uses, even if such scarcity may not exist in the imaginary world that socialists live in, and even if these socialists who like to use government to set prices arbitrarily can't envision most of the alternative uses for the scarce resources used to produce the things and services they like to arbitrarily set the prices for....
luvmedo56 1 year ago
...Socialists pretend to be gods when they set prices using the force of law. They act as if they know just how much of what is needed and as if they know just how many resources are needed to produce things and whether or not those resources might better be used to produce something else. The truth is, socialists don't know any of these things--nobody does because, in reality, that's massively complex and can only be accurately transmitted through the realtime feedback of free market prices.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
....So socialists pretend to know what can't possibly be known because such things are unknowable due to their chaotic level of complexity, including the fact that they are constantly changing in realtime. But that doesn't stop socialists because these dreamers live in an imaginary world where scarcity of resources doesn't matter, so one doesn't need to know exactly how much of what is needed--where and when--in order to set prices so as not to create horrible shortages or absurd surpluses.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Whatever man. Everything each of us says, the other person is always going to have a rebuttal. I'm kind of sick of it. We're not making any progress in this debate. Obviously you don't like socialism, and I do. Neither of us is going to change their minds about their opinions. I'm done.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople Fair enough my friend. I enjoyed the banter. Be well!
PAX
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >> it's way cheaper to live out in the middle of nowhere<<
Only housing is usually cheaper because the supply of homes is not artificially restricted by zoning laws there. Most things are much cheaper in cities; for example, activities with large fixed costs such as building water or sewage systems. Cathedrals, hospitals, theaters and other large things like that are much cheaper when their costs can be spread over a larger number of people crowded together. Cities are cheaper.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople Life in rural areas is MUCH more expensive than in cities in many ways. Things are difficult to come by. People pay for things by driving 80 miles to the nearest city for a small valve to repair their under-sink plumbing, or to buy a new TV set with the features they want. They mail order much of what they need and wait longer for it to arrive in the mail. They pay with their time and convenience. That's VERY expensive. People move to cities precisely to economize on that stuff.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@ rootbeer >>Obviously, if people thought that it's not worth the prices to live in a big city, then they wouldn't live there.<<
Right. They move there because it's cheaper to live there overall.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 I was talking about housing, but yes you're right. Cities are in the long run cheaper to live in. That's why people want to live there. Many people that do live out in the middle of nowhere are retired people (not all of course) and they have plenty of money from working in the cities.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Cities are in the long run cheaper to live in. ...Many people that do live out in the middle of nowhere are retired people (not all of course) and they have plenty of money from working in the cities.<<
This is the only time you've demonstrated that you and I live on the same planet. I agree. Did you know our oldest citizens are as a group our wealthiest? Socialist institutions frequently involve transfering wealth from the working poorer people to wealthier retired people.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Actually the definition of socialism is spreading the wealth out.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Actually the definition of socialism is spreading the wealth out.<<
That's the definition of theft too. Socialism is the legalizing and euphemizing of theft.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Norway has a lower crime per capita level than the U.S.<<
But why attribute this to socialism, as many other factors could be responsible? Is it because you like socialism, so you want it to be the reason why crime is lower? Norway has a state religion, the Church of Norway, that had a profound effect on shaping the cultural habits of native Norwegians. Why is that not why crime is lower in Norway? How do we know crime wouldn't be even lower if Norway were capitalist?
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 All I'm saying is that Norway has a lower crime per capita level Than we do. You can attribute that to whatever you want.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople 83.8% of Norway's residents are ethnic Norwegian whose cultural patterns were shaped by the state religion, The Church of Norway. The U.S., on the other hand, is a nation explicitly set up WITHOUT a state religion (First Amendment) and it's a nation of immigrants from all over the world e.g. established by whites yet today, only 63% of its population is white. Cultural demographics drive crime, not economic systems. Socialism just subsidizes criminals so they have more free time.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
In Oslo, where immigrants--people whose cultural habits were NOT shaped over the centuries by the Church of Norway--constitute a much larger percentage of the population, one can see more clearly the effect socialism has on crime. It allows crime to skyrocket because it subsidizes criminals. Criminals can better afford to commit crimes in the streets because their basic needs are provided regardless of how anti-social their behavior ergo Oslo's crime: 4X more and twice as violent as New York.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 >>Cultural demographics drive crime, not economic systems.<< So you're saying that poverty doesn't account for any crime?
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>poverty doesn't account for any crime?<<
Yes. Cultural degeneracy accounts for crime, regardless of the presence or absence of poverty. Cultural degeneracy also often accounts for systemic poverty. e.g. The welfare culture, created by socialists in inner cities since the1960s, has produced generations of people with entitlement attitudes that make them unproductive. Socialists reduced the demand for inner city workers by making them deficient educationally and attitudinally.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 The only thing is, Norway has the third highest GDP per capita in the world, so you can't say that they're unproductive. It's also a fact that Scandinavian countries (as well as most European countries) have a much better overall education system than us.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Norway has the third highest GDP per capita in the world, so you can't say that they're unproductive.<<
GDP includes government spending. The bulk of Norway's GDP comes from government selling the birthright of the Norwegian people--their national oil reserves--to foreign entities via government bonds. It's like Greece selling it's territory (islands) to foreigners and spending the money on handouts to people politically valuable to politicians. You support that?
luvmedo56 1 year ago
>>Scandinavian countries (as well as most European countries) have a much better overall education system than us.<<
Measured how? By the number of great universities in their nations? How do you measure that? By the number of people who go to Scandinavian countries to receive a great education at their universities?
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 None of the above. Actually, it's kind of impossible to compare two countries' education systems. It's more of an opinion whether a country has a better education system than another.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>it's kind of impossible to compare two countrie's education systems<<
Then you can't say socialists' education is better than capitalists' education. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions, but your not entitled to assert your opinions as facts.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Norway has much higher unemployment benefits, a universal healthcare system, and many other social programs. That is where much of their money is spent. They actually understand that when you invest in the people, you get a better overall prosperity level.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@happystance7able Norway has the highest capital reserve per capita in the world. It's a fact. Also, the situation with the high currency reserves is a little different than what you think. The currency that they printed has already made the effect that it's going to make because it's already printed. In other words, if the money was injected into the economy, inflation would not occur and the value of the money would not change (for reasons that are based on the injection of the currency).
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>currency that they printed has already made the effect that it's going to make because it's already printed<<
No, inflation doesn't occur just because government prints money. Such new money only creates inflation when it's spent. Then it enters the economy and inflates the currency unless there's a net increase of productivity to maintain its value. Current US inflationary fears are based on this principle with respect to cash reserves in the investment community.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able I see where you're coming from, but no that is not correct. The value of the money is not affected when it has already been printed and factored into how much total currency there is. However, if the country decided to print more money, the value of their currency would go down. The currency reserves have already been put into the economy but has not been put into the "people's economy". That is why currency reserves are important.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>Norway has the highest capital reserve per capita in the world<<
So what? The more government steals from people, the higher its capital reserves can be. Also, I'd increase reserves/capita in my family by killing one of my children. In light of fiveinslide6's alarming cancer survival statistics, Norway's reserves per capita appears to be at least in part the result of Norway killing more of its people via its health care system. And how about immigration's effect on reserves?
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able A person that has crappy health care coverage is a lot better off than a person with no health care coverage. When everyone in a society has access to health care coverage, That's a lot better than a society with some people having coverage and some people not having coverage.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>A person that has crappy health care coverage is a lot better off than a person with no health care coverage<<
Not true. Rush Limbaugh has no coverage. If the person with crappy coverage is also forcibly denied by his government access to medical treatment that would save his life from cancer, that person is far worse off than Rush Limbaugh, who has full access to the best medical care in the world. Your statement is simply untrue and I've just proved. it.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able The difference is Rush Limbaugh can buy medical coverage whenever he wants because he can afford to do so. A person who does not have the financial ability to purchase health coverage would obviously like to have health care coverage. Even if it's not top of the line.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>[Norway] ranks as the second wealthiest country in the world in monetary value<<
if I chain you to a wall for the rest of your life and sell all your property for a billion dollars, how much of that billion must I spend on your care before you'll consider yourself wealthy? The government of Norway is wealthy because it sells vast oil reserves to foreigners and its GDP is largely the result of government spending to keep the Norwegian people complacent in their padded chains.
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able Again, the people there vote on what they want, and they got it. They can leave the country whenever they want.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople And why are you persisting with this "lowest crime" thing? Somebody already schooled you about crime being 4x worse in Oslo than in New York City. On what basis do you say socialism leads to lower crime? Do you have any stats to back up your opinion or is it just based on a feeling you have? Do you approach issues like this intuitively? Are you inventing your own reality which you want to impose on the rest of us without having to construct a rational, fact-based argument?
happystance7able 1 year ago
@happystance7able I was not schooled. The statistics given to me: 1. I have no idea if they're true or not 2. Those were statistics for only a single year, in just one of Norway's cities.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>I have no idea if they're true or not...only a single year, in just one of Norway's cities<<
w w w()ssb()no/emner/03/05/a_krim_tab/tab/tab-2008-03-06-03()h t m l
So is Oslo's crime rate 4 times worse than New York's because the socialists are finding it "easier to deal with"? You don't make any sense. Your opinions don't square with the facts. It seems you decide what you want to be true and shut your mind to reality. You can't be "schooled" because you're brainwashed.
luvmedo56 1 year ago 4
@luvmedo56 you're mixing around everything I say. I said that in my opinion, it's not appropriate to measure crime per capita.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>I said that...it's not appropriate to measure crime per capita<<
But you said that only after asserting socialist states have "the lowest crime" so how are you measuring crime, then? With your feelings? About the fact that the crime you are "studying" occurs in a socialist country? So that if the crime is in a socialist country, it's "the lowest" in the world simply on that basis, whereas if its occuring in a capitalist country, it's "too high" no matter what it is? LOL
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 You and happystance7able keep mixing up everything I say. What I'm saying saying is that the Scandinavian countries overall have a lower crime rate, some of the highest living standards in the world, and have high capital reserves. I'm also saying that they have socialistic types of policies implemented such as their universal health care, and the people living there vote on things just as we do. You can go into tiny detail about everything but I'm giving you overall facts.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople >>What I'm saying is that the Scandinavian countries have a lower crime rate<<
Lower crime measured how? Per capita? You've already said that per capita measurement is "inappropriate", so I'm simply asking how you measure it in Scandinavian countries if not per capita. Do you measure it with your feelings? With your feelings about how much you like their socialism? Is it just that socialists' crime is always lower than capitalists' crime regardless of per capita measurements?
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 i was saying that measuring the amount of criminals per capita is not appropriate in my opinion. And yes, when the crime rate of Scandinavian countries' is measured per capita, they have lower crime rates than many countries including the U.S. Also, why do you get so pissed off that other people have their opinions? Obviously if I believe in something, then i think it's right. That's what opinions are.
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople Or are per-capita measurements "appropriate" only if they support your opinion while per-capita measurements that don't support it are "inappropriate"? I think that, when you look at reality and find that it does not match your vision, you conclude that it's reality that's wrong. It appears to never occur to you that your vision could possibly be wrong. Narcissists force everyone around them to conform to their vision so the narcissists don't have to match it to reality.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@rootbeerpeople Why is crime in Oslo 4x higher and 2x more violent than in New York City? Oslo is a socialist city. What aspect about Oslo makes crime so much worse than other socialist Norwegian cities? And if that aspect--whatever it is--is to blame for higher crime in Oslo, how do you know that it isn't also the main factor in American crime? Oslo proves that you have not made a logical case that socialism is the factor responsible for lowering crime. Some other factor is.
luvmedo56 1 year ago
@luvmedo56 Ok, you have measured that Oslo has more crime per capita than New York City, but what about the whole actual two countries compared in crime levels?
rootbeerpeople 1 year ago