Are we all left-tards here?

Come on now.  Are we?  While I myself wouldn't look for bible-thumping republicans, I think we should at least have a few moderates or radicals like libertarians ETC... 

Or is it the disproportionate european population here?

>>37
Sounds like you have a problem with the libertarian party more than it's policies.  And besides, exactly what do you see wrong with the US anyway? (Besides the whole blood for oil fiasco)

Really though, you're basing your criteria of what a "good" country should be on fairly subjective stuff.   You also have to consider that we have a much higher immigrant population than any of the other countries you mentioned; that has a big effect on our standard of living statistic.

Really, I'll take a low tax rate and be responsable for my own health insurance ETC... any day. 

>>38
The fair tax is a stupid and unworkable plan.  Nobody will want to buy ANYTHING, thus sending the economy into a hell-bound death spin.  The government, underfunded, will be unable to pay for the military to supress the riots that will ensue.

This plan is asenine and stupid.  I hope nobody ever reads this tripe.

>>42
noone will want to buy anything? ...

>>41
In case you don't know, >>37 is a cut'n'paste.

As for what's wrong with the US... get out much?

Taxes progress based on luxury. I get it.

>>44
Oh blah blah.  Name them, I dare you. 

I guess all of europe and asia doesn't have problems with their own unemployment rates or their econimies, amirite?

>>43
Nobody will buy anything when it suddenly costs twice as much.

Who gives a shit what we think anyway? The government serves the rich and powerful, period.

And now, back to more regurgitated memes:

>>46
* Violent government (Yeeeeee-haw! Bring it on!)
* Fat-fuck population (Wanna supersize that?)
* Retarded patriotism (The land of the Free!)
* Backward culture (MTV & Friends!)
* Cut-throat corporate environment (You've been made r-r-r-redundant!)
* Poorer education (i cant speel lol. wut? i cant afford coolege!)
* Shitty media (zOMG CNN & FOX!)
* High crime rate (bix nood got me a gun)
* Broken health-care (lol insurance)
* Rampant consumerism (I want that SUV! Put it on mah CC!)
* National debt (Ah, fuck, who cares!)
* Litigatious assholes (You'll sue me for this comment, right?)
* Shitty power (hello East grid & California!)
* Environment (What's that? Externality! Externality! *bbzbzbz*)
* Crazies like freemen and born-again (Jesus saves! lawl Rapture!)
* ...?

Some of that has nothing to do with the government, but that nation of yours is really fucked up anyway. Not like that matters, right, you patriotic tightwad? GO AMERICA!

I give up on this place, there's no talking to people who have already decided in the back of their mind that they're going to focus on the negative aspects of every single thing that comes up rather than coming up with intelligent suggestions for fixing them.

Leftists of all kinds don't REALLY give an honest bonafide shit about anything important at all, period. I am now totally convinced of this. Everything is subjective for them, their world is just a wishy-washy chaos of emotionally based opinions. I don't care to debate with that any longer.

eat me

I give up on this place, there's no talking to people who have already decided in the back of their mind
Everything is subjective for them, their world is just a wishy-washy chaos of emotionally based opinions.

LAWL! Look in the mirror you Libertarian nutcase! This is the funniest shit I've seen all day!

The problem with the US is that there isn't a socially liberal, economically conservative party.  If you want your vote to count, you either have to vote for an entitlement-crazed, union-controlled shit party or a party full of bible-thumping rednecks (with some corporations looking for handouts along for the ride).  It's unfortunate that libertarianism tends to attract tax scammers and conspiracy nuts.  The LP won't separate itself from them for the same reason old-style Republicans won't dump the Christo-fascists.

my roids are bleeding. Discuss:

>>53
I've heard that a lot, the US does need some sort of center ground party like the UK's Labour party (not that the UK's system is any better). There's enough people in America who're liberal who don't want to be considered in the same group as conspiracy nuts and enough conversatives that don't want to be in the same group as those bible-bashing lunatics. I'm pretty sure if a center ground party existed in America it would have a much higher membership count than the current parties.

* Violent government (Yeeeeee-haw! Bring it on!)
* Fat-fuck population (Wanna supersize that?)
* Retarded patriotism (The land of the Free!)
* Backward culture (MTV & Friends!)
* Cut-throat corporate environment (You've been made r-r-r-redundant!)
* Poorer education (i cant speel lol. wut? i cant afford coolege!)
* Shitty media (zOMG CNN & FOX!)
* High crime rate (bix nood got me a gun)
* Broken health-care (lol insurance)
* Rampant consumerism (I want that SUV! Put it on mah CC!)
* National debt (Ah, fuck, who cares!)
* Litigatious assholes (You'll sue me for this comment, right?)
* Shitty power (hello East grid & California!)
* Environment (What's that? Externality! Externality! *bbzbzbz*)
* Crazies like freemen and born-again (Jesus saves! lawl Rapture!)
???
profit

my ass is really itching now.

>>56

This is the most word-fucking-up post I've ever read. Finally, statements that I can agree 100% on.

>>49
Uh, really, besides the national debt (and maybe healthcare) you don't have any real points...  European culture is just as insipid and useless.

>>59
BTW, most of those problems are honestly caused by either immigrants or blacks...  A factor Europe by and large doesn't have to deal with. (and where they do they're having their own fucked up problems, like france with the riots)

>>60
I mean, statistically.  The ones who can't spell, the ones who don't have insurance, the ones who commit the crime; immigrants and blacks.

Honestly, I've got to take this moment to say how awesome /newpol/ has become recently.  Keep it up dudes.

Could you imagine an entire country that behaves like New England?  An ENTIRE country?

>>59
Good job at making a strawman! I am in awe to your amazing cognitive capabilities!

(I'm also in awe of your blinders.)

>>41
You should do more research. Canada has a much higher immigrant percentage than the US, but faces less problems with them since the system in place allows them to integrate into society much easier. Canada also has the fairtax system in place, under a more familiar name, the Goods & Services Tax (GST) for over a decade. The country is actually facing a labor shortage and has to rely on skilled trade workers from around the globe to fill the gaps.

In this sense, all the leftist policies in place (free medicare, English lessons, interpreters, Government housing, and social orientation councillors) actually work to raise the standard of living, since the people who immigrate to Canada can find jobs and want to stay in the country, opposing to being criminals and living off food stamps in shanty towns. The 'You reap what you sow' policy works in this case, but then again, Canada never had to deal with bix nood slavers, hippies, large population (it has less people than the state of California), or a Wild West, major events which led to the segregated societies which cause many of America's problems today. As a result, a unified policy for all of the country will probably never work.

>>50
Given the extreme trollishness of the OP, your complaint about a lack of constructive discussion on this thread seems, at best, disingenous.

"Leftists" have mostly learned to avoid real discussion with "Righists," who seem pathologically incapable of tolerating uncertainty or ambiguity.

Leftists = "The world isn't black and white, but let's find a way to make things better anyway."

Rightists = "The world is black and white, we know what's right, so let's make everyone fit into our model of right and wrong."

http://tinyurl.com/hu7w

>>67
That url is really quite something...

And here's the actual report: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

>>68
Maybe christian right wingers would actually fit into most of that, but you also have to admit that's a pretty condescending and biased study...  You could also say their stubbornness causes them to work hard, and apply their choices with utmost regard to how the outcome would benefit them and theirs...  That makes them look more like gryffindors than nazis.

So, in all this, you make some good points; you point to statistics that suggest that liberal countries are perfect little utopias where there's little crime and everyone is happy and has employment and a place in the world and is cared for no matter what happens to them...  But I just don't know about that.

Maybe the world becoming socialist is the inevitable wave of the future; but I just don't want to see a world where everyone is on the same footing, always, no matter what they've done or been through...  I want to be able to set myself apart, and I want to be able to see others set themselves apart.  It's just maddening for me to think of a world where everyone's the same...

In other words, security, as in, security about knowing that I'll always be protected from everything that could possibly happen to me is low on my list of priorities....  I don't believe that that would neccesarily be good for the human race as a whole either.

That's my reason for being right-wing.

Do you think I'm a monster?

>>Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form.
(taken from http://tinyurl.com/hu7w )

Is it not inconceivable that some forms of inequality are justifiable?  In the US, everyone has equal right to try to make  their lot better, and that's why conservatives see their "inequality" as justified.

>>70

I would venture that no present system which results in factual inequalities is justifiable-this precisely because there are heirs, investment opportunities, and crime.  Although America FACILITATES opportunity in many ways, The presupposed equality of opportunity does not even exist in the first place, here or abroad. 

>>71
anyone can be at least moderately successful if they play their cards right; you shouldn't expect everyone to be able to be bill gates, that's just unrealistic.  Doesn't mean it's not justified that you should be able to give your money to whoever you want when you die.

>>72

You have slipped a moral urgency into my reply which was not really present; moreover, the real burden rests on you to present your concept of an unequal system which is just.  Bear in mind that there are at least two 'types' of equality- factual equality (not possible, and, by common sense, not even desirable), and equality of opportunity, which is a false assumption of American life.  I am not making a general indictment of a system.  I am pointing to the fact that specific inequities do exist at the present time which make current systems indefensible, taken in their totality.  Do not assume that because I reject the 'equality' of current systems that I that I think a just, unequal system is impossible-indeed, it would appear to be the most probable and desirable social arrangement.

>>69
but you also have to admit that's a pretty condescending and biased study...

No, I don't admit it. You talk condescending, then with a magic wave of you hand dismiss an entire study with a few words.

These words mean nothing in the context of a study. The study is there, which means the method, the aggregate data, the resulting statistical analysis, and the conclusion. It's all there.

This is science. Think it's wrong? Indicate how methodology is flawed, or make an experiment or study that presents strong evidence for an alternate hypothesis. If not, your claims are no different from the ID whackos: pure unsupported fantasy.

That's my reason for being right-wing.

Anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. It also may help if you look up the definition of "pearson's correlation" and ponder how this relates to your whole post for a while.

"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."

— Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, 2nd wealthiest person in the world

"My wealth is not only a product of my own hard work. It also resulted from a strong economy and lots of public investment, both in others and in me. I received a good public school education and used free libraries and museums paid for by others. I went to college under the GI Bill. I went to graduate school to study computers and language on a complete government scholarship... While teaching at Syracuse University for 25 years, my research was supported by numerous government grants... My university research provided the basis for Syracuse Language Systems..."

— Martin Rothenberg, founder of Syracuse Language Systems and Glottal Enterprises

"Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant. Luck has a lot to do with it."

— Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, Inc.

This is a fantastic report. Let's debate the facts, not the mythologies.
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/press/2004/notalonereportfinal.pdf

>>75
Why do you want to make excuses for the so-called "less fortunate"? Poverty may not ALLLLWAYYYS be a choice, but the FACT is that SUCCESS *IS* A CHOICE. Deal with it.

One type of person on welfare will sleep all day and waste his food stamps on Cheetos and Ho-Hos, the other kind will be out there working his ass off to get OFF of welfare. I'm so tired of these excuses for the poor.

>>76

the Undeserving Heir is as common a phenomenon as the welfare cheat.  We should get rid of them both.

zOMG Estat^H^H^H^H^HDeath Tax!

"Death Tax" is a prime example of the stupidity of the common man. If I were in power I'd be fucking laughing all the way to the bank.

suck my dick u idiot.

>>73

I don't think that even equality of opportunity can be achieved in a democratic society.  In creating a mandate of equality of opportunity, you strip the voters' power to control the direction society takes, either directly or through elected officials.  Even in Democratic Socialist countries, there are regional differences in the quality of things like education and social services resulting from differing funding priorities.  That's not something that can be reasonably controlled.