That's a racist chart. All the countries on the left are white and all the ones on the right are black.
Now Even Swedes Are Questioning the Welfare State
- Thread starter Poindexter
- Start date
Who knows. Trump supporters, all I see is a bunch of self-absorbed old men who alternate conversation between bargains they have found and things they think are too expensive. This goes from cleaners to escorts to medical consultants.
Colombia and Panama are flooded with American men with no vision beyond turning a dollar or saving one on the pension.
Think about this, where do conservatives go for a more ideal version of US conservatism?
Ok clearly you are in gibberish mode.
Don't like the challenge of identifying any country that is more perfectly US conservative vision as you are stuck there, trying to distract from being unable to answer?
Meltdown Arnie? Poiny had one yesterday also.
You can't think of a good place that is what liberals call their "Canada?"?
One place that your US "conservative" values seem better expressed?
The question can't be answered until we find out how you are using the term consevatism compared to its alternative, liberalism, as those apply to governance.
If you put this much effort into the question at hand (how you are using terms conservatism/liberalism) we might be able to make progress, maybe even progress toward peace.
Meanwhile, your view of Putin and the situation on the ground in Syria, remains narrow minded, and bigoted the more you insist on justifying it with quotes from Trump, whose tweets, and quips continue to sound like Shakespeare compared to your political palp.
Rob Ford was the funniest politician in all of history.
I can't. There is no US conservative ideal besides some common personality traits I have seen.
For "libs" I can rattle off any number of successful capitalist socialist countries. There are places that are not one or the other.. I can't think of one that is capitalist..whatever the US conservative ideal is now.
I could roughly identify what US conservatism was until the mid 80s. The left and right were overlapping a great deal on social issues, fiscal differences were more clear however there was a lot of across-isle voting. However the Dems had control for a long time and some guys like Newt decided they needed power so brought in party ideals that were not natural bedfellows with conservatism before this, evangelicals, abortion etc.
After that it just seemed the conflicting internal forces mutated US conservatism into something unrecognizable, a monster entity. I am reminded of the happy pet dog in the movie "The Fly 2" who had a bad teleport experiment ride.
I can see why you can't. You can't break away from bigoted stereotypes...people that you apply labels to.
But I'm not talking about people (as small minds are wont to do). I'm talking about principles (as larger minds are wont to do).
To avoid the confusion of conflating terms we must first isolate each term used in your term salads, and compare it to its opposite.
What is the opposite of social? Anti-social!
What is the opposite of save? Spend!
What is the antonym of conserve? Spend!
What are the two ways to spend? We can spend conservatively, or liberally.
What is the antonym of capital? Debt!
Capitalism: operating from a position of savings. (Strong position)
Debt: operating in/on a deficit. (Weak position).
The difference between capitalism and debt, to a trader, is the difference between operating on leverage (debt), or no leverage. Which is riskier?
I have not talked about people!
We need to get on the same page about terms first, before we can even wonder what principles people subscribe to, or why.
The reason you can't find a good country that is not socialistic is because there are no countries (what I call 'nations') that are not socialistic. It's the status quo! ( I keep saying that).
We do see anti-social behavior between nations from time to time. It's called "war".
And there is civil war to the extent that there is anti-social behavior within a nation.
A nation is social to the extent it's internal civil wars (politics) are not obvious, meaning, not shooting (hot) wars.
Regardless of how much bickering, how more or less social is the in-fighting, every nation has a pot of money that comes from the individual entities within the nation, which is meant to be shared somehow.
This is what political-national socialism is all about!
It's about how to collect and spend that pot of money.
There appear to be unfair/unwise ways to collect, as well as unfair/unwise ways to spend.
That's the whole story of national social politics in a nutshell.
Last edited: