[rockwool]

He is quite a distance from the tyrannical right-wing dictatorships, but I'm suspicious of authoritarianism in general.

It is absolutely pitiful how few refugees the U.S has taken in.

The US doesn't care what the UN says, the Iraq War proved that.

The HRW is highly critical of the United States and Israel as well, I doubt that they have some other scheme going on to overthrow Chavez.

Looking at how he has encuraged organization of the masses in their communities and just about everywhere, I see anything but authoritarianism (which I'm strongly against as an anarcho-socialist). His ruling by decree was during a limited period and can not be used again, unless their parliament desides to, unlike the executive order of the POTUS. Engaging the masses in their sociaties is the best thing for any democracy.

How could HRW not be critical of the US and Israel and still maintain some credibility? It took Reporters Sans Frontieres quite many years before their bias became evident and lost their funding (from the EU? can't remember..), so HRW is not as clearly biased. No matter if they are right some times and mention the US, that don't mean that they could be US pawns in the game of hegemony. The lies they are spreading about still have a function for preparing the public oppinions around the world for the comming agression against VE.

I don't see any other reason why they would blow things up, and spread the oppositions lies and thus give them their validation (as claimed by the Chavez gvmnt). You know how the Empire works and how often it lies. On the other hand the Chavez gvmnt has backed their accusations with FOIA documents.

 

[Samirol]

I think your criticisms of HRW are unfair since there isn't evidence of bias, but personal suspicions. They could be US pawns, but there isn't any hard proof that they are.

What will the HRW get out of lying? They will lose all credibility if their report is a lie. Until this point, their reports overall have been credible.

 

[rockwool]

I think your criticisms of HRW are unfair since there isn't evidence of bias, but personal suspicions. They could be US pawns, but there isn't any hard proof that they are.

What will the HRW get out of lying? They will lose all credibility if their report is a lie. Until this point, their reports overall have been credible.

I haven't entirely written of HRW yet for being pawns, I need more proof before I can do that, but I know not to trust Babylon by extensive experiance. I'd put my faith on what an activist run organization like Amnesty International has to say any day over BabylonRW.

If they have an agenda, like the US, outspoken or not, in specific matters or in general, they have everything to gain from lying. Just look at how far dubyas lies has taken him, and don't forget taht recent thread that deal with the psychology of democrats vs. republicans when exposed to questions, of which some were lies, how they reacted to them initially, and later when told the truth. Y'know, that Berekely research.

The propaganda surrounding US foreign politics are extensively based on lies, and agressiveness, and you know how hard it is to dismiss a lie and how much time it takes. A lie could be a small sentence, or even a word. Disproving the oppositions claim most often takes a lot of effort. As the media apparatus is controled by capitalists, you know the dismissal won't have a chanse, or very small, to be heard. When that happens, enough time will have passed, and a new round the world news bill issue will have surficed, for it to become a non-issue.

 

[slein]

I also do not think that the Constitution and the founding fathers would accept the loss of rights and loss of freedoms of choice that come with it.

You talking about the Patriot Act?

Just because you were told Socialism was bad in school does not make it a bad thing. Capitalism causes economic turmoil too methinks.

Then again, I know little about economics... applying science to humans and their actions kinda reminds me of voodoo or witchcraft. seriously.

 

[curtix]

You talking about the Patriot Act?

Just because you were told Socialism was bad in school does not make it a bad thing. Capitalism causes economic turmoil too methinks.

Then again, I know little about economics... applying science to humans and their actions kinda reminds me of voodoo or witchcraft. seriously.

In the real world:
Capitalism is > Socialism
In a perfect world
Communism > Capitalism
Socialism > Capitalism
________________________
Realistically there are no pure versions of any of these in the world today.
Even China is becoming more capitalistic every year.
People just need to stop expecting government to solve all of their problems then we can move forward.

I had a chance to sit down with two high level CPAs this weekend and we discussed the world economics. One was from Denmark and the other Shanghai. I asked them "Who has a better economic plan, Obama or McCain." The both concurred that Obama's wasn't feasible or good for that matter. They both thought it would hurt the economy, they also aren't fond of McCain's or Bush's polices. But over all I got the understanding from them that they were both going to vote anti-Obama purely on the economic standpoint more so than pro-McCain. We also discussed the ideas of the bail out and some pretty radical ideas on how to fix it. Very informative discussion.
Cheers -

 

[Samirol]

Curtix, nobody (except maybe blue ) is suggesting full on Soviet socialism, since that is proven not to work, but unfettered capitalism has dire consequences for the workers. Capitalism is so effective because it creates want where there isn't a need, and fills it.

Instead of merely saying that McCain's plan is better by using appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, provide an argument instead. I could say that I met with 5 macroeconomics professors from UC Berkeley and they said that McCain's plan would be disastrous to the economy, and we talked over some radical ideas on the economy.

I'm sure it was an informative discussion, but without providing any argument, you are saying nothing.

 

[curtix]

Curtix, nobody (except maybe blue ) is suggesting full on Soviet socialism, since that is proven not to work, but unfettered capitalism has dire consequences for the workers. Capitalism is so effective because it creates want where there isn't a need, and fills it.

Instead of merely saying that McCain's plan is better by using appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, provide an argument instead. I could say that I met with 5 macroeconomics professors from UC Berkeley and they said that McCain's plan would be disastrous to the economy, and we talked over some radical ideas on the economy.

I'm sure it was an informative discussion, but without providing any argument, you are saying nothing.

If you look at my post that you just replied to above I said that none of the pure forms are still used. Thus your comment of "nobody (except maybe blue ) is suggesting full on Soviet socialism, since that is proven not to work, but unfettered capitalism has dire consequences for the workers." is of moot point, because that is not what I am espousing.

It was a very informative argument and I know that we always are and always will be discussion varying degrees of these economic and political ideologies. As a whole it boils down to the degree of control and power that government has. The more we migrate towards the mindset of socialism the more power, control, and money the government gets from me. That is the argument in a nut shell. It is also an argument of can we trust the government in those manners. I say not - looking at history to make that claim.
Lastly - Bigger government is exactly NOT what America was founded on. The founding fathers would be at odds with the fact that the government already has more power than intended. I find myself moving more and more into the idea set of libertarian.
Tally Ho.

 

[Samirol]

That isn't the case, look at Norway, for example. They are much freer than us, yet the government has more economic control. Therefore, your core argument that government economic control leads to social and political control is false.

I don't think we should be restricted by what the founders wanted, the founders didn't like religion, and they hardly agreed. The Bill of Rights should be preserved, of course, but we shouldn't hold ourselves back from progress because the people that founded this country wrote a document based on ideals that are 320 years old.

I'm sure your discussion was interesting, but that does absolutely nothing for us if you won't relay some of the arguments.

 

[curtix]

... the founders didn't like religion,

What does this have to do with Socialism? or this discussion for that matter.

The Bill of Rights should be preserved, of course, but we shouldn't hold ourselves back from progress because the people that founded this country wrote a document based on ideals that are 320 years old.

Old doesn't equal bad so your argument is "fail".
What would you suggest that America do with her Constitution?

 

[Samirol]

It had to do with you bringing up the founding fathers, and how their ideas are outdated in ways.

Can you address the issue of Norway, it being a welfare state yet having less social control over the people than the U.S? That seems to violate your core argument that welfare states tend to become tyrannical.

I suggest a new Constitutional Convention to put in tighter safeguards against a powerful executive and encouraging a multi-party system, so we get rid of this sham democracy and put in something actually representative of the people and encourage coalition building.

 

[Defenestrated]

Watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3604591910224149865&ei=jc3fSKCMOqO2qAP3i7DVDw&q=the+fourth+world+war

 

[curtix]

It had to do with you bringing up the founding fathers, and how their ideas are outdated in ways.

Can you address the issue of Norway, it being a welfare state yet having less social control over the people than the U.S?

I suggest a new Constitutional Convention to put in tighter safeguards against a powerful executive and encouraging a multi-party system, so we get rid of this sham democracy and put in something actually representative of the people and encourage coalition building.

So I feel like you didn't really answer my questions.
But before I let you move on and start answering your question about Norway I want to clarify where we are.

First: You say religion is old and outdated, but I would challenge that you also have a religion, you have a set of what you believe, a moral compass, a deity or lack there of. You can not make a point of religion being outdated without throwing out your own ideals. Besides that religious freedom is one of the things that this country was founded on, to attempt to destroy that is to destroy what the country was built on.
Besides that America is a religious Nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religious_affiliation
Shows that 86% are religious. Should the government not reflect the majority. That is the BASIS for democracy. Simple reflection. I am not saying that we should force anything on anyone, but in America your idea of religion being old and outdated is the SERVER minority and this is majority rule country. I know you probably do not like that, but so far democracy this rules.

Secondly - The Constitution.
If it where up to you solely:
1) Keep it - its what this nation was built on. Everyone knows that.
2) Trash it - its a wreck - I have a better idea - lets remake this nation.
Can you choose one or the other.
Obviously I am a option 1 guy.

 

[curtix]

Watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3604591910224149865&ei=jc3fSKCMOqO2qAP3i7DVDw&q=the+fourth+world+war

ill try - can you summarize i don't have 72 minutes right now, who - what group produced it.

 

[Defenestrated]

The thing about a government reflecting the religious views of its majority is that the religious minority is automatically being oppressed. Issues of religion should be kept private and not be left up to mob rule.

EDIT: It is hard to summarize, but it is a documentary about globalization and the rise of international capitalism.

 

[Samirol]

Can you address how Norway violates your core idea, that government intervention in the economy causes social and political control?

I'm saying that the founders' dislike of religion is wrong, I wasn't bashing religion, I was pointing out that some of their ideas were outdated, since the control of religious leaders over the state is diminished. Their ideas such as restricting a dictatorship of the majority and protecting the minority are important.

I wouldn't say trash it, but make some changes that restrict the power of the executive and encourage coalition building and third parties.

Can you address how Norway violates your core idea, that government intervention in the economy causes social and political control? you said this

The more we migrate towards the mindset of socialism the more power, control, and money the government gets from me. That is the argument in a nut shell.

However, Norway is much more transparent and holds less control over its people than the United States.

 

[curtix]

It had to do with you bringing up the founding fathers, and how their ideas are outdated in ways.

Can you address the issue of Norway, it being a welfare state yet having less social control over the people than the U.S? That seems to violate your core argument that welfare states tend to become tyrannical.

I suggest a new Constitutional Convention to put in tighter safeguards against a powerful executive and encouraging a multi-party system, so we get rid of this sham democracy and put in something actually representative of the people and encourage coalition building.

You are ignoring my response. Do you realize that?
Do you realize that Religion ( that you brought up ) is not outdated. Did you see my link, the stats, check 1 is this thing on?

 

[Samirol]

You are ignoring my response. Do you realize that?
Do you realize that Religion ( that you brought up ) is not outdated. Did you see my link, the stats, check 1 is this thing on?

Please address my Norway comment, since it seems to violate your core idea that welfare states tend to extend political and social control over the people.

You misunderstand me, I'm not saying that religion is outdated, but some of the founders ideas about religion are outdated. I edited my post to include that I don't want a dictatorship of the majority, but more representative of the people. I merely mentioned the founding fathers' view of religion as evidence that some of their views are outdated, since I disagree with that idea.

edit: here, let me clarify my position. I don't want a total democracy (dictatorship of the majority), total socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat), or total capitalism/plutocracy (dictatorship of those who have the most money), I want a mixture where they work together with egalitarianism, providing safety nets for the people, protecting freedoms, and encouraging equality.

Please address my Norway comment, since it seems to violate your core idea that welfare states tend to extend political and social control over the people.

 

[rockwool]

There are different capitalist systems, just like there are socialist, but somehow this is forgotten when systems are mentioned. The Soviet system was a pretty bad system, and an authoritative system (just like the US system is for its inhabitants, but not corporations..), but it mainly failed because of the arms race and the constant threats and agressions it suffered from various countries. I'll get back to what those agressions were.

The Soviet Union wasn't blessed with a good starting point. Russia was very under developed compared to other Industrialized nations, and WWI was an even bigger blow to them because of that and the hunger/starvation that was quite extensive in those days. In the years after the revolution there was a civil war going on between the Red and the White side.

As soon as WWI ended, maybe even earlier, the UK, US and a few other western nations sent in several divisions that for years fought for the White side. That was agression no1. Three years into the revolution Lenin died and the paranoid Georgian (a coincidence that he's from the same country as Michail Saakashvili? I don't think so) Stalin took power. No comments of his deeds needed.

Like if Stalin wasn't enough, in came zie Germans. I know alot of what an occupation means as I come from a political family of whom some members fought on the Greek partizan side during WWII and the civil war between 1946-1949. Of around 430.000 Greeks dead during WWII only ~20.000 died in combat, the rest starved to death.

That was without failed politics of from a Stalin like leader (well, Metaxa was a dictator, with all what that means, but Stalin probably championed him), but the West was probably (like with everything else they have and still are interfearing in) undermining the Soviets all all possible ways, even after their civil war had ended, and therefore worsened the situation.

That the Soviet Union would have taken a completely different turn if Trotskij had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin is obvious. Needless to say, it would have affected all countries of the Warsaw Pact, and probably the whole of the world too, communist and capitalist countries alike. The capitalists were lucky that the biggest communist country in the world was in such a mess because of these and other reasons.

That way they could display one of the ****tiest examples of communism, and people are just to ignorant to know that everything isn't the same in another country just because they call their systems by the same name.

With that of a start the post WW years wouldn't come easy, and the arms race didn't make it easier. The Soviets felt threatened, with all rights as history had shown an agressive West, and fell for a game they couldn't win as their system wasn't meant to compete against a system where "money is created out of nothing". Had they been left alone, even with the ****ups of Stalin, the outcome would definately have been different.

Sweden is an entirely different capitalist system from the US. Comparing those two, and one like Taiwan where (young) humans are used like disposable machinery, and you will see various shades of sheit; knee deep, chest deep, and mouth full. Displaying the worst capitalist system in the world and saying that this is 'it', this is capitalism and there's no other way of doing it, is just as false as looking at the Soviet Union and stating the same about a Socialist system.

Long post, I know you monkeys love it..

 

[Samirol]

bump, because curtix still hasn't responded on how Norway violates his core idea

 

[curtix]

bump, because curtix still hasn't responded on how Norway violates his core idea

Here is one for you - and admittedly I haven't done much research, but I will.

From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.

Also pointing to Norway like -look they got it right when deciding to ignore:
Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia: is comical.

Hahaha http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1885960.ece
....
Seperate but still ongoing in my book - You Said:

... the founders didn't like religion,

What does this have to do with Socialism? or this discussion for that matter

<--- me.

It had to do with you bringing up the founding fathers, and how their ideas are outdated in ways.

So you are saying - religion is outdated. Just admit it, its ok.

 

[Samirol]

They ignored them because they are isolationist, and instead of addressing Norway, you brought up Sweden! On top of that, you are putting words in my mouth about religion! Also, the United States sterilized 65,000 people from 1897 to 1981. edit: Many countries around the world had active sterilization programs at one point or another.

Here, I'll make it clear, since you seem to have some problems comprehending

Norway violates your core idea, that a state that controls the economy also will control the political and social aspects of society

 

[curtix]

They ignored them because they are isolationist, and instead of addressing Norway, you brought up Sweden! On top of that, you are putting words in my mouth about religion! Also, the United States sterilized 65,000 people from 1897 to 1981.

Here, I'll make it clear, since you seem to have some problems comprehending

Norway violates your core idea, that a state that controls the economy also will control the political and social aspects of society

Looks like Norway violates there own core ideas.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1885960.ece
Besides I didn't bring up Norway.

 

[curtix]

On top of that, you are putting words in my mouth about religion!

I am quoting you and you still fail to respond. I am not putting words into your mouth.
Unlike Norway which I did not bring up you brought up RELIGION. Allow me to return the favor. -
YOU BROUGHT UP RELIGION
not me.

 

[Samirol]

I brought up Norway because it violates your central idea, which you outlined in an earlier post, that countries that have control over the economy also extend control over other aspects of society, and that isn't true.

Your link STILL doesn't say anything, about that Norway doesn't fit into your central idea. It points out that politicians tend to be untrustworthy, a major problem we see in every single country in the world.

I brought up religion as an example of an outdated founder belief.

 

[curtix]

I brought up religion as an example of an outdated founder belief.

So back this up please. Because I ALREADY showed that it is not an OUTDATED idea by linking you to research that shows 86% of Americans are religious.

 

[curtix]

It points out that politicians tend to be untrustworthy, a major problem we see in every single country in the world.

So given the fact that "politicians tend to be untrustworthy" as you say why on earth would people be stupid enough to let them get more power over the economy.

 

[Samirol]

The founders think religion is stupid, I'm saying it isn't stupid

With a politically active public, politicians keep in line, and if they don't, they get thrown out.

 

[curtix]

The founders think religion is stupid, I'm saying it isn't stupid

With a politically active public, politicians keep in line, and if they don't, they get thrown out.

You are completely off your rocker.

t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

...by John Adams.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."

...Patrick Henery

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible....(seperate)....While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest

George Washington.

"I believe the bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Savior (Jesus) of the world is communicated to us through this book."

- Abraham Lincoln

I got like about 100 more. Do I need to keep going - or you can say you were wrong right now.

 

[Samirol]

Not all were founding fathers, but important thinkers in the day

&#8220;The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion&#8221;
--George Washington

&#8220;Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man&#8221;
--Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
--Abraham Lincoln

&#8220;Of all religions, Christianity is without a doubt the one that should inspire tolerance most, although, up to now, the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men&#8221;
--Voltaire

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!'"--John Adams

&#8220;The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.&#8221;
-James Madison

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
--James Madison

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
--James Madison

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
--John Adams

"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words."
--Ethan Allen

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."--Thomas Paine
(The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY))

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."--James Madison
(The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.)

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion... has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."--Benjamin Franklin
(Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.)

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."--Thomas Jefferson
(Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.)

"[...] denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."--Ethan Allen
(Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.))

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
--James Madison

"No man on Earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and the least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse (Revelations). It was between fifty and sixty years since I read it and then I considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[curtix]

At best we have conflicting quotes from some of the same people.
Although you hit ole TJ up like a dozen times or something.
But lets look at the Mayflower Compact then and get to the root of this great nation:
Mayflower Compact Text:

n the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.[5][3]

(source)

Looks pretty religious to me...
Would you agree.

 

[Samirol]

Of course, the Mayflower was full of Puritans running from religious persecution in England to start up colonies so they could do their own religious persecution.

The Mayflower is an iconic ship, but not the founding or root of the U.S.

 

[curtix]

Of course, the Mayflower was full of Puritans running from religious persecution in England to start up colonies so they could do their own religious persecution.

The Mayflower is an iconic ship, but not the founding or root of the U.S.

It was the first paper government of the nation - thus the founding and root.

 

[Samirol]

Well, the first English colony was Jamestown, so I would say that Jamestown is the "root" if you want to call it that. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the point of the founding fathers' view of religion, but you are still ignoring one thing...

Norway does not fit your idea that when the government has economic power that it will extend that power to political and social aspects of life

 

[curtix]

Well, the first English colony was Jamestown, so I would say that Jamestown is the "root" if you want to call it that, but you are still ignoring one thing...

Norway does not fit your idea that when the government has economic power that it will extend that power to political and social aspects of life

I said once and will again that I am reading about Norway.
How can I respond without doing the research. I can't.
but I will try to get some done as soon as I can.

Besides before I start going down that road - Do you think Norway is what you would like to see worldwide? - just curious.

 

[Samirol]

It ultimately comes down to what the people of an area want from their government, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone. A lot of the basics behind egalitarianism conflict with the culture that exists, but I see it as a better place, a path to progress.

 

[curtix]

It ultimately comes down to what the people of an area want from their government, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone. A lot of the basics behind egalitarianism conflict with the culture that exists, but I see it as a better place, a path to progress.

point well put.
But riddle me this in my infant knowledge....
What drives a worker in a socialist Norway to work hard, to get higher, to make a better place for his / her family?

 

[Samirol]

point well put.
But riddle me this in my infant knowledge....
What drives a worker in a socialist Norway to work hard, to get higher, to make a better place for his / her family?

The same thing that drives the American worker, to make more money, get more stuff, get a better apartment/house/condo.

 

[curtix]

The same thing that drives the American worker, to make more money, get more stuff, get a better apartment/house/condo.

This is an interesting article from 05.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&oref=slogin
Is this still true today. Anyone from Norway here.

 

[rockwool]

Hey dumbasses (some namecalling to wake you up), Norway and Sweden are Capitalist countries!

Dumbass, Latin America, except for Cuba is Capitalist, probably most of Africa is capitalist too.

Yes, North Korea and China are/were Socialist in an economic sence. Cuba is socialist.


EDIT: Forgot, the sterilization programs in various countries have to be blamed on western psychology, which is soo young and unexperianced it hasn't realized it self the limits that come with that (much like a three year old). It belives it self the be the hot hot sh*t just because of the progressions it has made, but can't see how far it still has to go before it gets the whole picture right.

 

[curtix]

Hey dumbasses (some namecalling to wake you up), Norway and Sweden are Capitalist countries!

Dumbass, Latin America, except for Cuba is Capitalist, probably most of Africa is capitalist too.

Yes, North Korea and China are/were Socialist in an economic sence. Cuba is socialist.

Are you talking to Samirol - He brought up Norway.