lindajoy wrote:
Yes, well, while we may know, some may not be as bright as you so a little background was in order...
LOL... I didn't know I was so much "brighter". I just thought it was a matter of being informed.
lindajoy wrote:
Norwegian are smart people and I think their divestment is thinking of the future no doubt.. I also hope they achieve that divestment although their money may not carry them for it.. They have what somewhere around 52-55 million people in total, in comparison to other more populated countries.. And a lot less territory to cover as well...
Not sure what your point is. Yes, they are a smaller country. So?
lindajoy wrote:
As for the Scandinavian countries they do provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, along with an extensive welfare state which is not the same thing as a socialistic state though is it??
By that I'm guessing you mean one socialist engine doesn't make the whole state socialist. Of course. But again, I'm not sure what your point is. All developed countries in the world today are social democracies including the U.S.A.
lindajoy wrote:
Perhaps they are a social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy....This is what the Scandinavians practice isn’t not?? The best of both worlds it seems..???
I agree. Though I'm laughing at your choice of words... "HEAVY taxation and SPENDING"... It's like you can't help but telegraph your disdain for the "socialist" part of the system. I'm laughing because it's really not any heavier than the money we spend on the same things as market consumers when the government bows out. In fact, there's been an endless supply of reports over the years that all say the same thing about the fact that Americans spend more money on private healthcare than Europeans do on socialized healthcare AND we get less out of the deal.
lindajoy wrote:
As for your closing I’ll copy it but insert Democrats in its place.. See how that works??
Looks like you're going to tell me...
lindajoy wrote:
Do you know which party has had more control of this country for the last 100 years??
Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party over the last 100 years..
kinda shoots to hell your opinion that the Republicans are the ones to abuse the voters..
br Do you know which party has had more control o... (
show quote)
Not really. For most of those 100 years, equality has risen, civil rights improved, workers rights improved, education was made more accessible, social mobility increased and America reached it's peak of greatness. But thanks for explaining why. ;)
lindajoy wrote:
Just using all the promises Dems have given the blacks every election why are the blacks still not flourishing??? Just exactly what have the Dems done to help the blacks???
They gave them civil rights. What more do you think government is supposed to do? I thought you conservatives were all about a limited government role? The black community is dealing with cultural issues that governments aren't designed to fix.
lindajoy wrote:
Abuse, yep, it’s there alright..
Yes, it is
lindajoy wrote:
Neither supposed party give a damn about the citizens, you must know the s by now..
LOL - "Neither party gives a damn but I'm voting Republican 'cause the Democrats don't give a damn!".
But seriously, what I know (or at least what I think) is that they DO give a damn... (if they didn't, they wouldn't get reelected), but they can't satisfy everyone because the people are so divided on every issue that comes up, so for every citizen they help, there is another one infuriated that "they don't give a damn".
I also think you're putting too much emphasis on party. I actually went back and edited my closing statement before you I saw your response. I took "Republican" out because on second thought I knew that was quite accurate. In it's place, I put "I'll let you guess who you think that is". I was curious to see how you fill in the blank. Of course I figured you would assume I meant Republicans anyway and this would become a partisan argument. Well, I did say Republicans before the edit, but I am really talking about a cultural divide not a political one.
Political parties are transient and divisive. One might say even fickle. I often refer to the big switch during the Nixon campaigns when the Republican Party switched from the liberals they were to the conservatives the Democrats used to be. The progressive movement which was originally championed by Republicans straddled both parties throughout what we now refer to as the Progressive Era. And even today we can clearly see a fracture within the GOP along cultural lines, with isolationists like Gingrich advocating a completely different view from the neoconservatives like Bush.
So when I talk about the Great American Irony... (my phrase for our example of when half the voters in a country pledge their allegiance to the people who abuse them.) I am referring to a cultural condition, not a political one because as you say, neither side of the political fence seems to care. The difference is whether a culture promotes awareness or loyalty.
...I don't think it's the culture that promotes awareness that delivers votes to the abusive.