Bernie Sanders thinks our government should be more like the ones found in Scandanavia

Which Scandinavian country?

Norway and Denmark are controlled by right wing governments that restrict immigration, cut spending, and cut taxes. Sweden is a cultural marxist shithole being flooded by over a hundred thousand third world refugees a year, that is going into massive debt. In Sweden, income inequality that is rising even faster than that in the US at the moment due to the influx of cheap foreign labor in part. I thought Sanders opposes income inequality?
I'd say you're 100% wrong -
 
Which Scandinavian country?

Norway and Denmark are controlled by right wing governments that restrict immigration, cut spending, and cut taxes. Sweden is a cultural marxist shithole being flooded by over a hundred thousand third world refugees a year, that is going into massive debt. In Sweden, income inequality that is rising even faster than that in the US at the moment due to the influx of cheap foreign labor in part. I thought Sanders opposes income inequality?
I'd say you're 100% wrong -

And in your next post, you are going to show us.....right ?
 
Been over to scandanavia three times... things I noticed were ALOT less obese people, one thousand times cleaner, people nicer, people happier. They don't have welfare but they do have health care figured out. I got sick and went to a clinic and got some antibiotics.... cost me $1. I was shocked. They have education figured out too... far ahead of the US.
 
Scandinavian countries are sparsely populated, white, Christian and rich in natural resources...what was Bernie saying?
 
He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.

The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?


You guys get rid of Soros first. Otherwise, the Koch brothers make it even. Only difference is that the Koch brothers have also contributed to Dems.
 
the socialist dream

Not something a free people would want
Do you know what socialism is?
do you want the book definition or what actually occurs in real life?

real life; leftist filth want the government running everything and making it all fair.

you need the government to care for you from cradle to the grave b/c you don't know how to grow up and be an adult.
 
I would love to see America not run insane deficits like Scandanavia.

I would also like to see the rest of the world, countries like Scandanavia, start to spend money on their own military to defend their own sorry arses. That way Europe would not need to beg Obama to go attack countries like Libya for them. That way Europe would not have to offer lemmings like Obozo Nobel Peace prizes to do their bidding.

Problem is, military protection is expected to be provided by the US by pretty much everyone.

Comparing the two countries is really apples and oranges. Both are not near the size in terms of population, economies, or culture and system of government.

But leftists like Sanders probably has never thought about any of this. Bernie probably thinks that Scandanavia and socialism is wonderful, but has never heard of Greece. LOL. Why does socialism seem to work in some places but not others like Greece who is on the verge of collapse?

Now if the states broke up and did their own thing and wanted to be like Scandanavia, then I'd be all for it. That way conservative states can do their own thing and socialist states can do their own thing. That is more an apples to apples comparison that might actually work. But leftists would never go for it. That is because socialism is such a wonderful idea, it must be compulsory for all.

Competition and different ways of thinking are a threat to them, so they must be destroyed by the left.
 
Last edited:
If Scandinavia is so great nothing is stopping him from going there. If you want the freedom and protections of the constitution then stay here.
 
He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.

The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

What does he plan to do with all the blacks and hispanics?
 
HUGGY thinks our government should be more like one that resembles functional.

So you agree that Obama has been horrible.

So why vote to make it worse?

People vote for the "D" or "R" cause they either want to vote for the "working man" or they want to vote against "pinko commies"

In the end, both pretty much wind up doing the same things as they laugh at them all.
 
If Scandinavia is so great nothing is stopping him from going there. If you want the freedom and protections of the constitution then stay here.
Why would Sanders, a Socialist, want to move to Scandinavia, which Steinlight describes as Right Wing? See post #12
 
He can move there then, let this remain the one country where we have negative rights.

  1. A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.

Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin clarified the distinction in a famous lecture titled “Two Concepts of Liberty.” If negative liberty is concerned with the freedom to pursue one’s interests according to one’s own free will and without “interference from external bodies,” then positive liberty takes up the “degree to which individuals or groups” are able to “act autonomously” in the first place (Berlin, 1958).1 In other words, what are the conditions under which individuals shape their understandings of their own free will? What gives individuals a positive idea about how they should act, rather than negative limitations on how they may not act?

There was some disagreement about the relative importance of these two conceptions during the debates over the Universal Declaration and its Conventions.While the U.S. had adopted a welfare state model under the New Deal reforms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, economic and social rights were not part of the American political tradition in the same way they had been for many continental European governments or the increasingly powerful Soviet Union.

American disinclination to positive liberty can be attributed in part to the ideological campaign against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviets gave a high place to the collective over the individual. This meant priority for positive liberty, which they believed empowered the state to take sweeping action to provide for the well-being and “self-realization” of its citizens, sometimes at the expense of individual civil and political rights, such as the right to political participation.

Many in the West, however, viewed the Soviet position skeptically as a veiled attempt to return to the excesses of authoritarianism that the United Nations system of governance was designed to had been set up to prevent. Great injustices have often been committed for the benefit of the collective good. Berlin and others were wary of “the way in which the apparently noble ideal of freedom as self-mastery or self-realization had been twisted and distorted by the totalitarian dictators of the twentieth century” (Berlin, 1958)Insisting upon the primacy of negative rights, however, impedes the advancement of social justice by making it more difficult to justify allocating resources to help the underprivileged yet easy to justify inaction.

Ultimately, it remains an open question whether the positive and negative forms of liberty are two aspects of a common conception of rights or two distinct types of rights that are closely related without being identical.

The rest of the world is governed under a prevailing system of positive rights, including totalitarian shitholes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top