Would Scandinavia please take Obama?

[Walsingham]

I reckon the USshould do a third world solution and just cancel the debt. I mean, who the **** is going to be the bailiff to call that in?

[Guard Dog]

I reckon the USshould do a third world solution and just cancel the debt. I mean, who the **** is going to be the bailiff to call that in?

Actually (my last post was a little tounge-in-cheek) I believe their (Obama admin) solution to the debt is to allow the dollar to devalutate to the point where the debt is worthless. I do hope that is not the case because it's been tried before and it did not go over so well. Look up what happened to the Weimar Republic in the late '20s. Maybe Obama thinks the US would survive the resulting turmoil, or he believes it will not be that bad. I think it would doom the country and lead to a break up, but I already believe that is going to happen at some point anyway. Hopefully not in my lifetime.

 

As for gold investing, it's not bars but coins. Canadian Maple Leafs to be exact. But otherwise Gorth wasn't far off!

[Calax]

I think it would doom the country and lead to a break up, but I already believe that is going to happen at some point anyway.

Honestly, I think this would be a good thing to a degree. You rarely find a country as large as ours being able to subsist with the population centers so far apart.

 

*shrugs* It might also be good as it'd shake up the political system enough that the government can get something done that's worth it rather than just trying to screw itself over in a power play and argue over details that might ore might not be relevant to the discussion or even correct.

 

>.>

[taks]

Instead I've bought Gold, Real Estate, Guns & lots of ammunition. Thats my investment portfolio these days.

hehe, camping equipment. i should get a bunch of propane, too, to run my stoves. we're geared well enough to survive the mountains in the winter, actually. the only stocks i have ever owned are in 401(k) plans - well, IRAs, my last company did a SIMPLE IRA.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

I do think that the best course of action is to break up this nation into smaller nation states because of all the partisanship within our state and federal governments. Too many conflicting ideologies is breaking this country apart. You have those are Pro-Life. You have those who are Pro-CHoice. You have those who wants fully socialized healthcare system, with those on the other end of the spectrum. We have those who think that gays should have full rights, and those who wants to keep treating them as second class citizens. There are those who think that a strong centralized government is best while others think that the individual states should have more power. ANd so forth and so on. The United States is going schizo and maybe breaking itup based on ideological grounds will bring back some sanity.

[Humodour]

Breaking the US up into an alliance of smaller countries does seem an attractive choice.

[Calax]

I do think that the best course of action is to break up this nation into smaller nation states because of all the partisanship within our state and federal governments. Too many conflicting ideologies is breaking this country apart. You have those are Pro-Life. You have those who are Pro-CHoice. You have those who wants fully socialized healthcare system, with those on the other end of the spectrum. We have those who think that gays should have full rights, and those who wants to keep treating them as second class citizens. There are those who think that a strong centralized government is best while others think that the individual states should have more power. ANd so forth and so on. The United States is going schizo and maybe breaking itup based on ideological grounds will bring back some sanity.

If we set up a liberal and conservative pair of states, who would survive longer?

[Humodour]

I do think that the best course of action is to break up this nation into smaller nation states because of all the partisanship within our state and federal governments. Too many conflicting ideologies is breaking this country apart. You have those are Pro-Life. You have those who are Pro-CHoice. You have those who wants fully socialized healthcare system, with those on the other end of the spectrum. We have those who think that gays should have full rights, and those who wants to keep treating them as second class citizens. There are those who think that a strong centralized government is best while others think that the individual states should have more power. ANd so forth and so on. The United States is going schizo and maybe breaking itup based on ideological grounds will bring back some sanity.

If we set up a liberal and conservative pair of states, who would survive longer?

 

They'd both simply drift towards the centre.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I think the state that is fiscally conservative but socially liberal would last the longest.

[Rosbjerg]

I do think that the best course of action is to break up this nation into smaller nation states because of all the partisanship within our state and federal governments. Too many conflicting ideologies is breaking this country apart. You have those are Pro-Life. You have those who are Pro-CHoice. You have those who wants fully socialized healthcare system, with those on the other end of the spectrum. We have those who think that gays should have full rights, and those who wants to keep treating them as second class citizens. There are those who think that a strong centralized government is best while others think that the individual states should have more power. ANd so forth and so on. The United States is going schizo and maybe breaking itup based on ideological grounds will bring back some sanity.

 

Our population is as divided and we are only 6 million people in total.. We have a multiple party system and that works pretty well to calm the tides. I think your problem is that you've been thinking in North/South, Eat/West or Democrat/Republican .. generally a further polarized western dualistic view of reality.. for too long.

[Pidesco]

I do think that the best course of action is to break up this nation into smaller nation states because of all the partisanship within our state and federal governments. Too many conflicting ideologies is breaking this country apart. You have those are Pro-Life. You have those who are Pro-CHoice. You have those who wants fully socialized healthcare system, with those on the other end of the spectrum. We have those who think that gays should have full rights, and those who wants to keep treating them as second class citizens. There are those who think that a strong centralized government is best while others think that the individual states should have more power. ANd so forth and so on. The United States is going schizo and maybe breaking itup based on ideological grounds will bring back some sanity.

 

Our population is as divided and we are only 6 million people in total.. We have a multiple party system and that works pretty well to calm the tides. I think your problem is that you've been thinking in North/South, Eat/West or Democrat/Republican .. generally a further polarized western dualistic view of reality.. for too long.

 

 

And in that multiple party system aren't there only two parties with a chance of actually winning elections?

 

Edit: Venstre og Socialdemokraterne?

[Lare Kikkeli]

We have three parties in Finland, the social democrats, the conservatives and the liberals, aka the workers, the farmers and the yuppies. they have a kind of balance of horror, and all three are in reality so close to each other that it doesn't really matter who you vote.

[Rosbjerg]

And in that multiple party system aren't there only two parties with a chance of actually winning elections?

 

Edit: Venstre og Socialdemokraterne?

 

No, the Conservative party ruled for 10 years about 15 years ago.

 

Besides those two big parties need the support of at least 2-3 smaller parties each in order to have a chance at winning, if they don't have that, the other side gets more votes.. Which makes things interesting, because a leftwing party could technically get smaller rightwing parties to support them and vice versa.

[Wrath of Dagon]

We don't need to break up, we just need the red superstate/ blue superstate idea I've proposed before.

[Walsingham]

We don't need to break up, we just need the red superstate/ blue superstate idea I've proposed before.

 

Ah yes, the one party state idea. THAT'LL END WELL.

[Pidesco]

And in that multiple party system aren't there only two parties with a chance of actually winning elections?

 

Edit: Venstre og Socialdemokraterne?

 

No, the Conservative party ruled for 10 years about 15 years ago.

 

Besides those two big parties need the support of at least 2-3 smaller parties each in order to have a chance at winning, if they don't have that, the other side gets more votes.. Which makes things interesting, because a leftwing party could technically get smaller rightwing parties to support them and vice versa.

 

Does that mean the bigger parties never get absolute majorities on their own? Nice.

[Wrath of Dagon]

We don't need to break up, we just need the red superstate/ blue superstate idea I've proposed before.

 

Ah yes, the one party state idea. THAT'LL END WELL.

It's not a one party state. Do conservative countries (heh, there aren't any) never have parties because they all agree on everything? What about liberal countries? Any time you have elections, you'll get at least 2 parties.

[Humodour]

The Australian Senate is almost never ever ruled by a single party. Usually smaller civil rights parties (such as the Greens or Democrats) make up the balance of power. However, since any bill needs to pass both the Senate and House to go ahead, we've effectively got a 3-party system (even though the House, which forms government is essentially 2-party). Not to mention that one of the larger parties, the Coalition is a coalition of the agrarian Nationals and the traditional conservatives the Liberals which doesn't always see eye-to-eye.

 

The Senate is preferentially proportionally elected but the House remains preferential instant run-off. This is good because it allows smaller parties to gain existence in the Senate and then eventually expand into the House if they are stable and useful (rather than a phase like that disgusting One Nation racism party).

 

My main concern at the moment is that Labour's Internet censorship scheme will pass the Senate because the Liberals just replaced their mildly Libertarian leader with a bat**** crazy religious nut and will hence change their stance to vote for it. The Greens can't defeat it alone. Screw you Abbott.

 

Oh, this has nothing to do with Obama or Finland. Oh well.

[Humodour]

We don't need to break up, we just need the red superstate/ blue superstate idea I've proposed before.

 

Ah yes, the one party state idea. THAT'LL END WELL.

It's not a one party state. Do conservative countries (heh, there aren't any) never have parties because they all agree on everything? What about liberal countries? Any time you have elections, you'll get at least 2 parties.

 

Exactly. Which is also why, over time, any overly conservative (or liberal) country would drift back towards the centre.

[Rostere]

Actually (my last post was a little tounge-in-cheek) I believe their (Obama admin) solution to the debt is to allow the dollar to devalutate to the point where the debt is worthless. I do hope that is not the case because it's been tried before and it did not go over so well. Look up what happened to the Weimar Republic in the late '20s. Maybe Obama thinks the US would survive the resulting turmoil, or he believes it will not be that bad. I think it would doom the country and lead to a break up, but I already believe that is going to happen at some point anyway. Hopefully not in my lifetime.

 

As for gold investing, it's not bars but coins. Canadian Maple Leafs to be exact. But otherwise Gorth wasn't far off!

 

It's really something that has been going on much before Obama, if you look at statistics you will see that US national debt has increased steadily since 1980 (and become a veritable sword of Damocles!), with the only exception of a very short period the latter half of the 1990s. I remember a quote from **** Cheney: "Deficits don't matter". Obviously that's also the pessimistic mindset of the majority of Americans, or why else would they vote again and again for these people whose economic "skills" leave so much to ask for.

 

I do hope for your sake that Obama raises the income taxes if he is to continue on this spending spree.

 

Also, your investment in gold should probably prove to be well placed if things continue along this road I have not yet placed all my savings in gold, though. The real "dip" is still some time ahead of us.

 

Are you actually arguing a swede, who's very likely been to stockholm multiple times about how it looks? I can vouch for what he says b/c I've been to stockholm it looks exactly like that.

 

That's actually an understatement, I've lived in Stockholm virtually my entire life, both in a suburban villa and in the the very centre of the city, so I really should know what I'm talking about.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Rostere

[Wrath of Dagon]

Exactly. Which is also why, over time, any overly conservative (or liberal) country would drift back towards the centre.

I'd like to put that idea to a practical test.

[Walsingham]

We don't need to break up, we just need the red superstate/ blue superstate idea I've proposed before.

 

Ah yes, the one party state idea. THAT'LL END WELL.

It's not a one party state. Do conservative countries (heh, there aren't any) never have parties because they all agree on everything? What about liberal countries? Any time you have elections, you'll get at least 2 parties.

 

I must have misunderstood your plan then. i apologise. I thought you meant that Red states had to remain red (and vice versa).

 

Mind you, I don't see any real problem with national asemblies having a bit more strategic continuity. I'd cheerfully move to a country where I could depend on people being a bit less bloody intellectually lazy, and with clearer concepts of civic responsibility. And beer.

[Rosbjerg]

Does that mean the bigger parties never get absolute majorities on their own? Nice.

 

It has never happened so far - the only time a single party was able to rule on it's own was 150 years ago when the King choose the cabinet and the people elected the parliament.

 

Oh, this has nothing to do with Obama or Finland. Oh well.

 

And seeing as Finland isn't part of Scandinavia either you are even further off the mark Well not technically anyway, but they are usually included in the definition.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Does that mean the bigger parties never get absolute majorities on their own? Nice.

 

It has never happened so far - the only time a single party was able to rule on it's own was 150 years ago when the King choose the cabinet and the people elected the parliament.

 

Oh, this has nothing to do with Obama or Finland. Oh well.

 

And seeing as Finland isn't part of Scandinavia either you are even further off the mark Well not technically anyway, but they are usually included in the definition.

 

We're not a part of Scandinavia at all. That's like saying Israel is a part of Europe. Close, but totally wrong. We're reindeer herders who drink reindeer piss to get high, not vikings.