Does anyone else notice that the left seems to always whine about being called socialists but never try to defend that they are not?

I am pretty much a socialist, I have no problem saying that. But people in the U.S seems to think it's the same as communism, and well...

Besides, I think it's rather silly if you have to defend yourself from being something you aren't all the time....

Considering that every "communist" regime has actually been a "transitional" socialist state, they're kind of right but I see what you mean. There are differing degrees of socialism.

I have absolutely no problem with you being a socialist. I don't even have a problem with Americans being socialists, as long as Constitutional law prevents them from making us into a socialist state. To each his own.

You'll have to forgive some of us from lumping you in with all kinds of other socialist ideologies. It is kind of a cultural thing over here. The memory of the Cold War has not yet faded, and many here were raised in the era of the evil Soviet Empire.

Calling oneself any kind of socialist is a political no-no in the U.S. There is a strong belief that socialism is a "slippery slope" on the conservative side, and even amongst some moderates. Liberals don't like being called socialists, either. They style themselves as "progressives" instead. In a nation that was founded upon the ideals of liberty and personal freedom, claiming that you are an adherent of a doctrine that cedes so much power to the state is not a good idea, even though many of us are exactly that.

Kind of odd, no?

I guess it all comes down to the society in which you're raised in. I live in Sweden, done that all my life, and I have no real desire to leave. Sweden is typically a socialistic democracy, most elections ends up in a west-wing victory, although the right wingers won last one (Sep. 2006). I wouldn't say that our democratic system is flawless, but I do find some points rather good. Two things makes the big difference between U.S politics and Swedish if you ask me: Taxes and healthcare. Our taxes are amongst the highest in the world (think Denmark is the only country ahead of us there). On the other hand,this results in a near-free healthcare system. Basically, the policy is that everyone should have the right to a proper healthcare. I see no problem here, so I'm willing to accept the high taxes.

We have more political parties within the government than you americans. It's working fine, so I don't see why not.

One thing I find interesting is how people (everywhere really) has decided to stay to one political group no matter what. I get the strong feeling that alot of american republicans wote republican because their family has always done that, and the same goes for the democrats ofcourse. This can be seen in all countries ofcourse, but I think it's quite usual in the U.S. Now, I've never been old enough to vote, but now I am, and will (most likely) vote the next election (Sep. 2010). I stated earlier that I was "pretty much" a socialist. Well, that's how I feel now, but unlike many in my age, I refuse to pick a side completely until the day of the voting. Even then, I might not be sure what to do. When it comes to matters of such importance as politics, you shouldn't make hasty conclusions.

I usually don't poke my nose in other countries affairs, but when it comes to the U.S, I feel that I have to stay tuned, considering how much power your single nation has.

dont forget that going to school, highscool or college is also free (in a few rare cases it does cost)

If that's your cup of tea, go for it:up: There is a lot of debate about the effectiveness of the U.S. healthcare system and a lot of people want to nationalize it, but you're absolutely right that the society you are raised in makes a difference. There is still something of a national consciousness of "Can-Do American attitude" and being "the land of opportunity". There's a mentality that one should take care of oneself and advance from their own work, merits, and efforts.
Personally, I'm not ready to pay higher taxes for a national healthcare system here for two reasons. 1) The taxes I pay already are outrageous. and 2) Our government can't even manage to run the things it is running now very efficiently. The last thing we need is a healthcare system with service like you would find at the post office or social security office or DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles)

That's completely reasonable, but what constitutes "proper" healthcare in Sweden? Here, doctors are required to stabilize patients even if they cannot pay, and many hospitals are very accomodating when it comes to payment plans. To me, that's free and proper healthcare. To you, maybe not.
However, I wouldn't use legislative authority to force other people to pay for my healthcare. I'd get off my sorry butt and get to work to pay off my bills. Some people here don't do that, they just want a free ride. American social perspective thing again, I guess.

And I applaud that. I wish we had more ploitical parties. We have a winner-takes-all system though, so lots of people end up voting for "the lesser of two evils"
You've got us beat in that field.

That's smart. And you are correct that people tend to vote the way their parents do. There's a term for it, but I forgot what it was.
Americans sometimes don't give a lot of thought to their vote, if they vote at all, because they don't like the people and parties they are voting for. We've only really got two parties, which are increasingly becoming two sides of the same party. I guess some people think, "why bother".
I vote in every election I can, local, state, and federal. I always throw my vote away by voting Libertarian, but the right to vote and the chance to show support for my party is worth it to me.

That's a wise thing to do. But consider for a moment what the U.S. used to be like.
We were an isolationist country, even managing to keep our noses out of two world wars for a good time. Americans listened to the advice of our founders and stayed out of foreign affairs as much as possible. But as our nation has moved farther and farther towards socialism, our intervention has expanded exponentially. Always with good intentions, but still interventionist.
So would you rather see U.S. power in the hands of a socialist government, one that can act as it chooses, or would you rather see it in the hands of the states and people, where it takes a lot of inertia to mobilize them?

And don't forget that in Denmark, youur parents can choose which school you go to, which is why your education system is better than ours.
Here, you're stuck with a school based on where you live, so there is no incentive for the school or the teachers to perform better.
Despite being a socialist country, Denmark is less socialist than the U.S. when it comes to education.

UnderseaLcpl, that was a great post, really, it's so nice to read something of that quality!:yeah:

Yes, I don't know how I could forget that part about schools in Sweden. Just to summon it up: Here you can search to any highschool you want (some restrictions depending on distance). The limit to where you can get in is not based upon the size of your wallet, but rather the size of your brain. To put it more properly: The better grades, the better school. Same goes for university ofcourse.

I find this particular system great, since it means that people are educated amongst others that share their aprox. abilities. Some schools are better than others ofcourse.

But I wouldn't say that I'd like to see the U.S try this, yet, because you just can't change things overnight. You can keep your political system, it's really none of my business. But it might be good to know that other democratic countries work well using socialism. It doesn't always lead to communism. The people of Sweden has alot to say about when it comes to politics. It was a public vote about changing the currency from Krona to Euro, and the (majority of the) swedish people said no, and we still have our old currency.

I would just like to throw in my biggest irritation of the political system of the U.S: The ability for a man/woman to become president even if the majority of the american people voted for "the other guy"...

Might as well add that Sweden hasn't been in a war (officially) since 1814. We gave Norway it's independence 1905, without bloodshed. The swedish government has the people's security as a top priority during crisis, as any good gov. should have. (And have).

Thanks. It's nice to have a civilized discussion with someone who has different views. I rarely enjoy that privilege.:up:

I doubt that would go over well in the U.S. It would probably be seen as discriminatory. As for me, I wouldn't support such a system here because I wouldn't trust the state to adequately determine who is intelligent. There are a lot of very successful people who did very well despite being poor performers at school, and I don't see the harm in letting individuals choose their own school. If a particular school is too difficult for them, they can choose another and vice-versa.
That should cause students to clump into groups of "similar intelligence" all by itself
without resorting to state interference and the costs associated with it.


The people of Sweden are also a more culturally homogenous group. Socialism may work better for them. Also consider that while Sweden may be socialist, economically it is a free-market economy. Number 26 in the in the index of economic freedom, in fact, as of this year. http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx
In terms of GNP per capita Sweden has hovered around the top ten for years now
http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/i...ank/PNBH2.html
Imo, because of that economic freedom.

What we face in the U.S. today is not only the erosion of our civil liberties, but the destruction of our free-market system. The government is nationalizing companies and overstepping constitutional authority. If only our civil liberties were in jepoardy, we could still be prosperous, but once the state begins to regulate the economy, they doom us to failure as a nation.

Consider, China, one of the world's emerging powers, with its' vast production power and population. Did you know that China was on the verge of economic collapse until they implemented the policy of "Special Economic Zones" where the state relinquished much of its' centralist authority over the economy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ublic_of_China (sorry for the wiki source, I'm lazy and it is easier to read, and find, than some other sources)
Now China is a world power. The SEZs are very prosperous, but the rest of China remains poor. People actually manage to starve to death there.
Even with their communist philosophy, China prospers because of free trade.

As you stated, Swedish citizens are also more politically active. That's a result of not having a winner-takes-all system, as I mentioned before. Even though Sweden is socialist, the parties have a lot more competition, and so must perform better if they wish to remain in power. In that respect, ironically, Sweden is also less socialist than the U.S.


That's a by-product of the winner-takes-all system. The electoral college is the only practical way we have found to represent the populace in presidential elections in that system.
We are in total agreement on this point. You have no idea how frustrating it is to be a member of a party that has to go to extraordinary lengths just to get on the ballot, let alone win an election. I really wish we would change that stupid winner-takes-all system to a direct representation system.

And the U.S. used to be like that, but that all changed as the leftists pushed their agenda further. I'd love nothing more than to see the U.S. follow Thomas Jefferson's advice; "Free trade with all nations, alliances with none" It would keep us out of wars and make us a much more benign superpower.


I feel that we can agree on a lot of points. Obviously, Sweden has a superior party system to that of the U.S. One that forces parties to compete. I think that's a good thing, and you like your system so I can only assume that you agree.

Sweden has a good degree of economic freedom as well. Not as much as it could if the taxes weren't so high, but quite a bit, nonetheless. Once again, I can only assume that you are happy with that.

When it comes to civil liberties and the power bestowed upon the state, we will probably disagree. I'm simply not willing to give up my freedoms, or the power to determine those freedoms, to the state, for whatever purpose. The founders intended that this should be so, and even gave me the right to own a firearm to enforce those rights if need be.
The United States has always been about individual freedom, since it declared independence. That is what made this country great. The promise of opportunity and self-determination. Freedom to choose and make decisions based upon your own initiative, and not that of a disinterested state.
Those ideals have been under siege for a long time now, and the defences have been breached on many occassions. Should they fall, the world will face a new Soviet Union. Maybe not a communist one, but a heavy-handed interventionist state that seeks to dominate other nations' destinies.
And it has already begun. There's hardly a place in the world now where the U.S. does not exert heavy (and sometimes military) influence.

Socialism may be okay for Sweden, but in the hands of a superpower like the U.S. it is a dangerous weapon.
"When you see contention amongst your enemies, go and sit at ease with your friends; but when you see them of one mind, string your bow, and place stones upon the ramparts."-Saadi
The last thing that the world(and the U.S.) needs right now is a U.S. that is of one mind.

Interesting way to put it. I agree fully, we do not want "one mind" to rule the United States. But that's not the case over here, I'm sure you understand that:salute:

One other difference when it comes to our countries would be the election of government. As far as I know, the two parties choose one man/woman to become the leader of the country, and then they compete for the post as the president. Sometimes I can't really understand: are you voting for the man, or the party? The american press can really make things confusing sometimes...this is ofcourse nothing that the gov. can handle:)

With swedish elections, as far as I'm concerned, it's all about the party. Nowadays we have two "alliances" between the west-parties and the right-parties. There are more efforts made to make the party look good than it's leader. The interesting thing here is that there aren't any clear candidates to become the head of the gov. (Prime minister). The winning party (parties) decide that, although, the last election it was pretty clear which man that they would elect (Fredrik Reinfeldt).

I could go on forever, but one thing I want everyone to understand: Sweden is as democratic as any country can be. When it comes to gender equality, we're at the top. That's just one example. We may be socialistic in our core, but we do not defy democracy.

Also interesting fact: The city Södertälje, south of Stockholm, grants more legal immigrants every year than the entire United States. The town has a population of aprox. 60 000. Area: 25.29 km2 :D

(That's legal immigrants, mind you):03:

[quote=Biggles]Yes, I understand that. I said that Sweden is less socialist than the U.S. in terms of their party system. That is not entirely accurate. I should have said "less centralist". You'll have to forgive me for occassionally using the terms "socialist" and "centralist" interchangeably. It's a culture thing.
However, the U.S. is going down the road to a very centralist system. An oligarchy, of sorts.

It is confusing. The two major parties hold primary elections that determine who will become their candidate. Once those candidates are chosen, they compete against each other.
Conservative voters generally vote Republican. Liberal voters generally vote Democrat. "Swing" voters have no clear party affiliation, and make up a big block of the voting populace. Sometimes they vote for the candidate of their choice based on party affiliation, and sometimes they vote based on their personal views of the candidate.
The debates and campaign ads are designed to target these "swing" voters. Party voters usually have their minds made up already. They subscribe to a party philosophy, and even if their party's candidate is not their preferred candidate, they will usually vote for him anyway.
So, to put it as simply as possible, The parties select their own candidates by voting for "the man". In the general (real) election, people are still technically voting for "the man". It is possible, for instance, to vote to elect a Democratic President and a Republican Senator or Representative. However, there are a lot of people who vote what is called a "straight-party ticket". That is, they vote for their party's candidates no matter what.

Does that answer your question?




That's fine with me, as long as those alliances don't eventually merge into parties of their own. Then you'll have a two-party system, like we do, and you'll be on the road to a centralist government.

Those are interesting points. Bear in mind, though, that the U.S. is not a democracy, in the purest sense of the word. It was intentionally designed as a representative democracy governed by constitutional limitations on federal powers to prevent what is called "tyranny of the masses". A good example of this concept is present-day Iraq, where the Shiites form the majority and have incurred the wrath of the Sunni minority, resulting in civil disocrd.

As far as legal immmigration goes, I don't doubt your findings. Immmigration protocols in the U.S. are very strict. However, millions of illegal immigrants have been pouring into the country for many years(not so much now, since the economy is suffering) Many of them were eventually granted citizenship.
Democratic leftists have championed these illegal immigrants for years, and I think it is just a ploy to garner votes. They know that most illegal immigrants are poorly educated, which means they will not question what they are told or be politically active. In addition, they are more likely to rely on Democratic social programs. On the other hand, legal immigrants from places like Europe and Asia have great difficulty immmigrating to this country. My own stepmother is a Ukranian nuclear technician, and she has been here for six years without being granted citizenship.
Coincidentally, the Democratic party has been the foremost supporter of strict immigration regulations, except when it comes to illegal immigration. Perhaps they fear an influx of educated immigrants? Or perhaps I am just paranoid? Either way, I would favor equal immigration requirements for everyone.

Your thoughts?

Read the article. The Senators are calling for an investigation. There are no actual complaints against the guy or his deputies. If there are no complaints, then it's political motivation.

Gee, could it be media reports?

Perhaps I missed something in reading that article?

Am I mis-reading the word complaint in the article?

I don't know if Arpaio is a good guy or a bad guy. A fair and open investigation should give us the answer.

So there have been several complaints , including one by a member of the mayors staff who claims he was pulled just because of the colour of his skin .

Everything I've read about this guy says he's a borderline nutcase. He may not be the poster boy for Democrat abuse as the Republicans might hope he is.

Didn't his deputies recently set somebody's house on fire then kept throwing the families dog back into the burning building every time the poor animal tried to escape?

Well that is for the investigation to decide but if that is the case I will happly put mr "Good American" Sea Demon on ignore.

BTW just FYI.. Hannity sucks.. If you want a good nutjob quote go with "Drive by media" by Limbaugh.

I am a liberal. :smug:

I'm a Liberal and a Social-Democrat.

I'm just an American. :salute:

And I'm a blind AFL umpire!:D