[rsnnh12]

Year after year democratic/socialistic countries lead the pack in resident happiness. Forbes recently did a study and I believe 5 of the top 10 had this type of government. US was tenth. I wonder what these residents would have to say about how bad socialism is? Denmark was number one and is always in the top 5, along with Sweden and Norway. A mix of capitalism and socialism in proper percentages is the answer. However, every single economic system is socialistic.

Please explain how happiness could possibly be quantified

[dante1]

Please explain how happiness could possibly be quantified

Well I would suggest that you research Forbes and Rasmussen and any and all organizations that do these polls. Obviously they have methods because they do it. And we are not talking about liberal organizations, many non partisan studies have been done and without fail the democratic/socialistic political and economic systems lead the pack.

Check it out.

[dante1]

america also has more than 30 times the population of those countries so there is no comparison to be made.

Some people might argue that a larger population would be an asset?

[brooks85]

id agree, if the country was ran like china. But you give all those people freedom, their own choices and see what it adds up to.

[rsnnh12]

Well I would suggest that you research Forbes and Rasmussen and any and all organizations that do these polls. Obviously they have methods because they do it. And we are not talking about liberal organizations, many non partisan studies have been done and without fail the democratic/socialistic political and economic systems lead the pack.

Check it out.

I'm well aware of the studies, but its impossible to quantify happiness. Furthermore, every response someone gives is relative to their own culture, society, goals in life, etc. If someone wanted to be a janitor, and just have enough money to feed himself and pay for cable/HBO/the works, he'd be pretty happy, right? Does that mean everyone would be happy in those conditions? Of course not. Happiness (or perceived happiness) can't be compared across different cultures.

[wildcat2011]

I am so Glad I dont have a life like his. Not that mine is much better but, i sure wouldnt want to be him.

[dante1]

I'm well aware of the studies, but its impossible to quantify happiness. Furthermore, every response someone gives is relative to their own culture, society, goals in life, etc. If someone wanted to be a janitor, and just have enough money to feed himself and pay for cable/HBO/the works, he'd be pretty happy, right? Does that mean everyone would be happy in those conditions? Of course not. Happiness (or perceived happiness) can't be compared across different cultures.

I can't argue with you. However happiness or perceived happiness to me they are both the same. Not unlike the placebo effect if it works that is all that matters. If I think I am happy--well then I'm happy. I think cultures are irrelevant to the argument, but that is jmo.

[wildcat2011]

Happiness=Joy Without Joy, your cup never fills up.

[The Madcap]

Some people might argue that a larger population would be an asset?

In some circumstances. But not with regards to socialism, here's why.....

Any political ideology can be effective, but only when all those who must abide by it also believe in it, or the few who do disagree are so overwhelmed by the popular culture at large they are forced to accept or surrender to it. And so socialism works in places like Scandinavian countries because they have small homogenous populations who share one major collective culture. As a result, they can more readily assimilate their young people and immigrants into their system. In these places their collective ideology not only supports their socialist government, and reinforces its purpose, but also instills in its people not to take advantage of this system. There is some degree of shame and accountability that the people can hold over their neighbors if they find they are abusing the system.

Take Norway: about 95% of the population belongs to the same ethnic group. And I'd say probably 85-90% belong to the same church. When all the people of your country share the same values, it's much easier for socialism to function because the foundation of a collective identity already exists. Such a culture does not exist here in America, as he have too large, diverse, and spread out a population. The result is that there is no social or cultural reinforcement of a common value or ethic in America, and therefore the people become unattached and disconnected from one another. This disconnect gives us less resistance in taking advantage of one another and allows us to be more selfish and less altruistic, and thus take advantage of the system and the collective for our own benefit.

Many of these "happy" socialist countries have all learned this the hard way, as their open immigration policies have led to more and more foreigners coming in at such large rates they cannot be properly assimilated in the culture. The lack of assimilation has led to these foreign families moving in and living off the welfare state, with even more following in behind who want to join the party. This had led to places like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland having to seriously adjust their immigration laws to keep these people out. They want to keep these people out because these people don't get it. They don't understand why these countries are welfare states, and they do not protect or live within the codes of these cultures. And so these socialist and "happy" Scandinavian countries have become increasingly conservative, right-wing, and nationalistic in the last decade because foreigners are coming in and destroying their culture.

If you really want to understand this, just ask a guy from Helsinki what he thinks of Somalians or Ethiopians. Ask a Swede what he thinks of Muslims.

You should also read the story of the little red hen. After you do you'll realize why socialism has worked in Norway (because most everyone helps the little red hen) and why socialism will never work in America (because hardly anyone helps the little red hen).

Far too many Americans do not believe in socialism in order for it to work here, often including those Americans who are the beneficiaries of our socialism. We are a me-first society that no longer shares a common identity or culture. Under such conditions it is impossible for one ideology to prevail over another. This was obvious to the Founding Fathers. It is why they made state's rights such a big deal. There were far too many different cultures settling here for them all to be happy under the same government. It's why they resisted a federal government and established the articles of confederation. The only reason they scratched the articles was because they realized with no central government the country would be too vulnerable to attack and division by outside forces. So we got the Constitution, which created a central government, but a LIMITED government, one that basically was responsible for little more than a unified military and ratifying treaties. That way, the Germans who settled in Pennsylvania, the Dutch who settled in New York, the Brits who settled Maryland, and the Scotts-Irish who settled the Carolinas could all be in charge of themselves and not have to worry about being ruled by someone else's culture. This was the whole reason we have a bicameral legislature with a Senate (where every state gets two votes) and not just a House of Representatives (where votes are based on population).

Hopefully this makes sense and you'll stop being such a commie sympathizer.

[dante1]

For a guy whose verbosity is only surpassed by his theoretical bs one would think you would understand the huge, huge difference between socialism and communism. But you don't.

[The Madcap]

For a guy whose verbosity is only surpassed by his theoretical bs one would think you would understand the huge, huge difference between socialism and communism. But you don't.

That's the only response you got ain't it Dante?

I wonder if your father is proud you're such a pussy.

And just so you understand, the only difference between socialism and communism is what they label. Socialism labels a government infrastructure, communism labels its economic counterpart. They are a part of the same organism. Granted, there are varying degrees of communism, as there are varying degrees of socialism, just as there are varying degrees of a ball control offense, and using that analogy, perhaps you could better understand the reality....

Socialism = more rigid government control = conservative game management

Communism = economic system = ball control offense

Some socialist economic systems are more open than others, just as some ball control offenses are more willing to pass the ball than others, but overall the philosophy is the same. Some teams will only throw the ball on third down, some will throw it on second and short, just as some countries have totalitarian government regulations and central planning, and others have less intrusive regulation. But a ball control offense is still a ball control offense even if they throw it more than others, just like a socialist country still employs communism even if it lets the people retain some amount of autonomy.

Got it?

Stop being such a dope, and how about instead of nit-picking irrelevant points of contention in my posts, you deal with the larger picture? Or maybe even admit your lack of personal experiences have given you a limited view of the world and that maybe your conclusions lack perspective, and when confronted with the reality of a foreign land you might have to admit what occurs there is not always capable of being transposed congruently here, and therefore requires an adjustment in your line of thinking. God forbid, it would sure be a nice change of pace.

[PittsburghPlayer]

The pothead also believes in man made global warming. Thats right, starting up your car increases planet earth's temperature and earth will be destroyed in 50 years unless we stop driving our cars. Thats according to the douche bag. Since earth was hotter hundreds of millions of years ago it does kind of expose these lunatics for what they are.

Just because the earth may have been warmer millions of years ago does not mean that man has no affect on the climate. In fact to think we have no affect is on our environment is pretty ignorant, as for every action there is a reaction.

[dante1]

Mad dog, I won't even quote your bs. You don't know a thing about the subject, and you're embarrassed because you evidently did some research, and thought omg I am wrong! Big revelation you are usually wrong. I can tell your a bit touchy therefore the pussy comment, you assholes all resort to name calling when you are exposed. Pussy--lol

I leave the last comment to you--write the first chapter to War and Peace. You think you can confuse the issue by being wordy. So long handjob!!!

[The Madcap]

Mad dog, I won't even quote your bs. You don't know a thing about the subject, and you're embarrassed because you evidently did some research, and thought omg I am wrong! Big revelation you are usually wrong. I can tell your a bit touchy therefore the pussy comment, you assholes all resort to name calling when you are exposed. Pussy--lol

I leave the last comment to you--write the first chapter to War and Peace. You think you can confuse the issue by being wordy. So long handjob!!!

Whatever you say Chief.

[ByeShea]

Here I thought I'd be reading about Bill Maher tearing the right a new a-hole, but instead it's The Madcap using his general command of the subject matter to tear dante1 a new one.

Well done, Madcap.

[ABEHONEST]

Shouldn't King Mayan explain his admiration for " foul-mouthed" Mayer on his opinions about religion?
Or, does he only admire the biased political side of him?

A clue KM, there's the same guy!

[King Mayan]

[Shafted69]

i fukkin fell of my chair laffing so hard and new rules friday night lolol.

[d2bets]

Brilliant. Republicans hate him because he makes the truth obvious.

[The Madcap]

I'll give Maher credit, the first half of that was funny as shit. Then he started rambling about the Alinsky thing, which he clearly doesn't understand.

[DwightShrute]

I'll give Maher credit, the first half of that was funny as shit. Then he started rambling about the Alinsky thing, which he clearly doesn't understand.

thank you. Exactly what I thought when I watched it. He was funny up to that point. As soon as he gets political like he did, he purposely doesn't tell the truth and all I heard was blah blah liar blah blah. Sheep love him.

[King Mayan]

thank you. Exactly what I thought when I watched it. He was funny up to that point. As soon as he gets political like he did, he purposely doesn't tell the truth and all I heard was blah blah liar blah blah. Sheep love him.

alinsky was a community organizer, what was the lie??

And i would not talk about sheep..

Right wing propaganda is a multi million dollar industry, bill maher can barely sell 35 books

Baaaaaaaa'dddddd

[andywend]

d2bets,
I see you still REFUSE to SHARE THE WEALTH when it comes to your healthy 22K+ SBR point balance and yet you harp on and on about how right the democrats are for wanting to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor.

You criticize the millionaires and billionaires for not sharing their wealth and yet you won't part with any of your betpoints which have only a nominal value.

A crystal clear example of the hypocrisy within the democratic party and those that support them.

MadCap, your post #219 was very impressive indeed judging by the liberal response. You always know when you have liberal democrats over a barrel when they can't intelligently respond back to what you're saying.

[Andy117]

d2bets,
I see you still REFUSE to SHARE THE WEALTH when it comes to your healthy 22K+ SBR point balance and yet you harp on and on about how right the democrats are for wanting to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor.

You criticize the millionaires and billionaires for not sharing their wealth and yet you won't part with any of your betpoints which have only a nominal value.

A crystal clear example of the hypocrisy within the democratic party and those that support them.

MadCap, your post #219 was very impressive indeed judging by the liberal response. You always know when you have liberal democrats over a barrel when they can't intelligently respond back to what you're saying.

There's no reason to share points, no one NEEDS them.

[mmaed]

another burial.

He got it right.

[mathdotcom]

Why does anyone listen to celebrities and journalists who not only are unqualified to discuss these matters, but are by definition some of the dumbest and untalented people we have on the planet?

Actors are just like musicians. 0.001% succeed and become millionaire celebrities, and the rest keep living in basements supported by their friends and family while they try to make it big because they can't do anything else.

[andywend]

There's no reason to share points, no one NEEDS them.

Andy, go to the betpoints section and you'll see numerous posters asking for SBR point loans on a daily basis.

You try to make people believe you're a guy in the center but you're solidly blue through and through. I understand why you're ashamed to admit it though.

[thechaoz]

He's right but I wouldn't expect the average sbr member to understand.....

[McBa1n]

Why does anyone listen to celebrities and journalists who not only are unqualified to discuss these matters, but are by definition some of the dumbest and untalented people we have on the planet?

Actors are just like musicians. 0.001% succeed and become millionaire celebrities, and the rest keep living in basements supported by their friends and family while they try to make it big because they can't do anything else.

You're incredibly wrong on this. There ARE proper journalists out there - if they don't work for fox, they are 'liberal media' on these boards. There is no standard to being an 'expert'. An expert requires someone who reads a dickload about facts. Sometimes celebrities are ahead of the curve on matters. Crap, MOST politicians just tow the party line because, well, they are on some 'team' and they have to win regardless of their moral compass.

Just because you got big at an entertainment category does NOT exclude you from the argument - your awareness does, as well as the fact that most entertainers have WAY MORE TIME than us shmucks to follow politics, because, well, they make lots of money and can have extended downtime to read, rather than tune into Hannity or Bill O every night.

Again, it's about awareness, and reading sources rather than watching a channel with a CLEAR political agenda. That's where most politically aware people get it done, but again, if you watch fox, your viewpoint is already not yours, norst if their disinformation hits you - you're already done.

There are more journalists than we'll ever know just trying to report about important issues. Heck, most of them do it due to principle and get 0 money out of it - they do it because they give a shite. Although, it's a LOT easier to be blonde or hate black people and tow the Republican party line ever day and get a huge payday, just look at fox, that's how they all win.

But the underlying point is about 'facts', something most morons on these boards ignore because there's a Muslim African President that carries about the SAME agenda as "W", but he's actually FINISHING things like dealing with Bin Laden or pirates or whatever ****** up situation he has to deal with. Sad part is, we fell for the lies, just like the douches that were even worse - the ones that voted for "W" TWO times. F'n hell. Just read facts and know your neighbors and their lot in life, you learn a lot. And also pay attention to journalists - some suggestions - read Al Jezeera, BBC or CBC, you'll learn more about what's going on in this country than any of the major media bullshitters out there - and again, if fox is your source? You're irrelevant.