Author Topic: I'm Not Moving to Scandanavia After All... (Read 2456 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #45 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:38:05 AM »

-spawn is another guy from AGW, funked cross posted.

Momus-- · « **Reply #46 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:38:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Now ... who the hell is this Spawn shade account?

Spawn is the guy who originally posted this "article" on AGW and who has obviously come over as a result of the AGW fishies not biting today. He has a tendency to overestimate the import of journalistic opinion pieces and is fond of the old cut 'n paste. Sort of like a (barely) thinking man's Ripsnort.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #47 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:44:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes. we pay alot of tax, no doubt about that. We still have alot of spending power and because the wealth is more evenly distributed the crimerates are also alot lower than many other countries. Nobody werever they live here needs guns or other weapons to stay safe. Nor do we need any sort of health insurance to get excellent healthcare.

But I think these things have been discussed a "few" times before.

I own a large number of firearms not because I fear for my life but simply I like the sport.

You also don't have the diversity the US has which promotes a fair amount of crime.

For the most part, any decent job will give you full insurance in the US. The vast majority who don't have insurance are working as store clerks etc... This is fine if you don't mind living near poverty but most anyone who is motivated can get a good job with free insurance.

Nilsen · « **Reply #48 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:49:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I own a large number of firearms not because I fear for my life but simply I like the sport.

You also don't have the diversity the US has which promotes a fair amount of crime.

For the most part, any decent job will give you full insurance in the US. The vast majority who don't have insurance are working as store clerks etc... This is fine if you don't mind living near poverty but most anyone who is motivated can get a good job with free insurance.

Its good that you dont need the guns, but I have read many posts on this board by people claming they need them to feel safe in their own home or when walking the streets.

What diversity are you talking about?

Airhead · « **Reply #49 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:50:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Momus--
Spawn is the guy who originally posted this "article" on AGW and who has obviously come over as a result of the AGW fishies not biting today. He has a tendency to overestimate the import of journalistic opinion pieces and is fond of the old cut 'n paste. Sort of like a (barely) thinking man's Ripsnort.

Actually as much as Spawn and I spew venom at each other and disagree on everything and would like to see each other arrested he's a sharp guy who makes some good points.

Welcome Spawn.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #50 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:56:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Its good that you dont need the guns, but I have read many posts on this board by people claming they need them to feel safe in their own home or when walking the streets.

What diversity are you talking about?

It all depends on where you live. I just don't choose to live in high crime areas. I have never lived anywhere that would cause me to lock my doors or be concerned about being a victem of crime. Don't forget that the US is 3500 miles wide by about 2000 miles N/S. It's a huge country with just about anything you can think of for climates and societies.

Diversity is mostly what you see in a city. In some cities the are a lot of diverse but rundown areas which have serious crime. I'll wager that these few places account for the majority of US crime statistics.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #51 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:57:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Rabbidrabbit, what's a "large number of firearms"?

well, not that large... about a dozen of assorted pistols/rifles..

Nilsen · « **Reply #52 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:01:41 AM »

I don't have any numbers on where the crimes are so you may be correct on that.

Anyways.. its not possible to run a country like ours without the heavy taxes. If we did then 90% of our population would have to live in just a few cities and that is not an option.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #53 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:03:43 AM »

Good! I'm glad to hear you Oil spewing polluters are dirt poor. You deserve it!

But seriously I do belive this story, my sisters boyfriend is Danish and he complains of the high taxes, the high prices, the old junker cars everyone os forced to drive and all the other things forced on them to maintain this woderful nordic sense of egalitarian medoiocrity...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #54 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:07:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ok? So what's the problem? We got more guns per household here than you guys have.

But going by this article you prolly have no money for ammo...

Toad · « **Reply #55 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:12:25 AM »

From Encarta:

Quote

The population of Norway is 4,574,560 (2004 estimate).

The Norwegians are a remarkably homogenous people of Germanic origin.

Apart from several thousand Saami and people of Finnish origin in the northern part of Norway, the country has no large minority groups.

Norway is home to small numbers of Americans, Britons, Chileans, Danes, Iranians, Pakistanis, Swedes, and Vietnamese, among other groups.

You don't think this makes a difference? Basically one common culture in a very small country, sharing a common history, common social mores over a very long period of time? It's what he meant before when he mentioned "diversity".

-spawn · « **Reply #56 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:16:25 AM »

Airhead... and hat tip.

I like being surprised by people. Thx. For what it's worth, I like your nice guy with salient opinion approach best.

***

Yes, I'm from that other BB and came over based on Funked's comment that he posted here.

In any event, I think the interesting point is where different societies place their priorities. Personally, I prefer a society where high achievement is rewarded. However, I can certainly understand the case where a society decides that it's most important to put at net at the bottom to catch anyone who falls.

PS - Anyone who says that this is an editorial without any supporting data should see http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/. I suspect that the other report referenced in the editorial is also out there.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #57 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:17:24 AM »

Quote

my sisters boyfriend is Danish and he complains of the high taxes, the high prices, the old junker cars everyone os forced to drive and all the other things forced on them to maintain this woderful nordic sense of egalitarian medoiocrity...

Why the heck isn't he getting his bellybutton to US if he has it so bad then?

The thing about taxes is that everyone moans about them while paying but gladly accepts everything when it's served to them.

I'd be on the streets today or dead without the social safety. It helped me to get through extremely tough times and I'm grateful for it.

Bodhi · « **Reply #58 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:34:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
What this article failed to realize is that the value of the scandinavian system is based on fair distribution of wealth.

That statement in itself says it all... now I see where the liberals get their training, they goto Europe!

Tell ya what. When the day comes that the government feels that it needs to redistribute the majority of my money to those that are "less fortunate" or do not have the gumption to work harder or put themselves out to get ahead, is the day I will participate in the rise against the system. What you are peddling is nothing short of socialism that in the end stifles the individual for the supposed good of the whole.

To get it straight, I have no problems with economic assistance to those that are less fortunate, but I do have a problem with those that abuse that system. We, in the US, do not have a model system of welfare, as a matter of fact, it is abused horrbily and sponsors much waste and corruption. That is the result of a two party syustem that seem to do nothing but fight back and forth over whose way is better, neglecting the people in the process.

My thought on the perfect welfare system, is one which denies no one health care, and teaches economic responsibilty and the need to work to those dependant on the system. They can do as they like with their money when they are out of the system, but while on it, they will work, will take birth control, and will be responsible with their monies which includes groceries for their families and contribution towards getting off welfare (future career). If they want to go to school, fine, thats great, all for bettering ones self. They will maintain a part time job while doing such, whether it is a state sponsored job, or they find it themselves. In the end, I feel these ideas could and would help to make a better society, and might even bring back some of the work ethic that much of this country is missing, and show the folly that socialism really is.

That said, I still feel our way is better, with all it's warts, which is why we are still existing and thriving.

Nilsen · « **Reply #59 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:45:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -spawn
I prefer a society where high achievement is rewarded. However, I can certainly understand the case where a society decides that it's most important to put at net at the bottom to catch anyone who falls.

High achivement is rewarded here too. The more you achive, the more you get in return. Simple really.