Federals Agains Liberals in Argentina Movie

If you want also include which country you lot like best or would live in if you could. I pick Canada, Sweden of the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland.

You lot literally listed the world's worst, most oppressive conservative countries. That'southward like me saying for liberals North Korea, China, Cuba and Laos.

Stefy says 2015-03-10T05:58:52.6997115-05:00

Oh well. Those are the right wing countries. I approximate we could theow in Israel. Fifty-fifty if y'all add together cuba and red china to the liberal list i think nosotros still have the better option.

Julius, none of those countries are left wing. Just because they are communist, doesn't make them liberal. In fact they are all socially conservative, and fiscally moderate with nearly of their policies. Also feel complimentary to add you own list of bourgeois countries that aren't oppressive, authoritarian states.

LOL a lot of conservatives voting on this poll know they wouldn't set up i foot in any major conservative land, let solitary alive there. Just saying.

Krampus says 2015-03-10T07:24:20.5698546-05:00

Patently a biased question, not terribly shocking past someone named briantheliberal. You lot forgot to mention the United States, which both does really well and is where I would rather alive. More people in America self Identify as conservative than liberal. If I remember correctly information technology's 38% (conservative) vs 23% (liberal).

Krampus, the U.s. is not a highly conservative country if it has a very strong liberal populace and government. We are moderate, or neutral. Our land is divided by two major political parties. There is cypher "biased" about this poll either than your own opinion.

You know what is a highly bourgeois country, Saudi Arabia. Information technology has one of the highest conservative populace on the planet, and it'southward government is based on strong social and fiscal bourgeois policies.

Warik says 2015-03-10T08:24:41.6043348-05:00

Communist china is more capitalist than communist. Their government is big and controlling but still practices capitalism which is closer to facism. Out of the options briantheliberal gave, i would prefer liberal countries over bourgeois but it really simply depends on the land

Anonymous says 2015-03-10T08:58:10.6324697-05:00

@briantheliberal Trust me, Canada isn't that great. Its basically the aforementioned every bit the U.Due south. I Lived in Toronto.

Don't forget that nigh of the "Liberal" countries included have capitalism as their economic organisation; Liberals typically hate capitalism, so this illustration isn't entirely accurate. Also, the definition of "conservative" isn't agreed upon anybody. American Conservatism certainly differs from Iranian Conservatism.

That is, you cannot evidence that Saudi Arabian Conservatism doesn't work and utilise that to bear witness that American Conservatism doesn't work.

Anonymous says 2015-03-10T09:16:38.3914816-05:00

The U.S is the only moderate one. With both liberalism and conservatism

Free Marketplace nations are typically successful; that attribute of American Conservatism has certainly been proven to exist a adept thing.

Withal, if you desire to play this game, at that place are multiple "Liberal" nations out there which fare horribly, such equally Cuba and North Korea (see what I did there?)

Republic of cuba and North Korea are not liberal. Cuba and especially Democratic people's republic of korea are both heavily restricted and rely on extremely high social stratification. The majority of their economic policies rely heavily on their military. They do not follow or hold with the majority of socially liberal policies either. The majority of the power and resource belong to the rich and elite, the poor usually have little to no power or admission to resources. None of this is based on liberal ideologies.

Spectre2, I suggest you lot take a good look at the Middle Due east, the vast majority of Africa, Southeast Asia and conservative parts of Key and Southward America so talk almost lies. They all alive in poverty and political tyranny. Meanwhile the countries you mentioned are still doing better than them. In fact the only reason they aren't doing equally well equally they could exist is considering of the conservatives in their countries are limiting their progress. Name 1 highly conservative country you would even consider living in.

mdmark says 2015-03-10T12:14:28.1363450-05:00

@Briantheliberal, your facts are extremely skewed. Past using strictly liberal ideology a country can not flourish. When money is taken from the people and pulled into the government (Africa) you stop up with, equally y'all stated, "political tyranny." The "rich and aristocracy" that live in those countries frequently work for the government or they are sponsored by the authorities. I'chiliad non saying conservatism is the end all be all, but the reason the U.s. is a peachy state is because liberal and conservative people tin work together to create jobs and let money to flow while also helping the poor.

They all believe in redistribution and so that differs from liberals how? Also bourgeois leaning countries I can list are Southward Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and of class Singapore. As to your poke at conservatism intelligence, is it a mere coincidence that all of these plant the highest four IQ countries? All above your evil communists wit low IQs?

Mdmark, if my facts are "extremely skewed" feel free to tell me what is correct. Notice I never said liberalism was perfect or the superior political platform, just countries that lean left are the most prosperous for a reason. I cannot call back of one highly social or fiscally conservative country that is successful, and non oppressive.

Julius, more lies from the right. Republic of korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore are all MODERATE just like the The states. They concord on to strong cultural values, but they are highly progressive nations that also rely on some socialistic policies. Don't have credit for something that doesn't correspond you lot.

mdmark says 2015-03-10T17:42:49.7132917-05:00

Every bit i said above, money that is taken from the people and filtered through the government only hurts the economy. The "Rich and Elite" are government workers in liberal countries. Instead of trying to provide everything to everyone (which is impossible and creates debt) countries should work on helping the small businesses prosper to intern create jobs. More jobs = less poor + more coin spent and put back into the economy. This is the conservative ideology.

And how is that somehow better than extreme commercialism where large corporations accept more power than the people? In the U.S. corporations take even sent the majority of our jobs to strange countries to avoid paying U.S. citizens a decent living wage, leaving millions of potential workers out of the job market. At that place has to exist a balance, and power needs to be express by the federal authorities, which is a liberal ideology. More power in corporations = less jobs, no coin being earned, spent or put back into the economy. That is the real conservative credo.

A lot of conservatives apparently don't want to admit that their policies only benefit the wealthy top one% of the land, and nobody else. But think when everyone is poor and don't have jobs, who is going to purchase the goods distributed by the corporations that just exist because of the people. Key word, rest.

They do represent me. Especially Hong Kong. I never totally disagreed with some socialism, as I practice not fully support the costless market. They are moderate, merely technically so are yours. They are definitely more conservative than USA, especially socially. Conservatism has nothing to practise with the i%, at least in the fashion I believe. It's not nearly giving them revenue enhancement breaks, it'due south about equality. Why practice the wealthy who built themselves up from nothing just similar the rest of us deserve to have their money sucked up like a vacuum and spit out to people who deserve nil? Nobody "deserves" annihilation. If any social welfare should be given it should be to the disabled and elderly only. Our corporate taxes are and then high companies are just flat out leaving. The reasons these jobs have been exported is considering unionization has literally killed the appeal of the american worker past demanding ridiculous wages and benefits for their skill sets. Americans would exist much more employable if they could at to the lowest degree accept fair salaries for their skills. Let'due south exist honest, working in a factory requires no education at all and anyone can exercise it. This is why these people deserve aught more than the accented MINIMUM wage! Such simple Ideas, such widespread ignorance

Without corporations millions and millions would no take jobs and so they need to be given incentive to stay here, non revenue enhancement them over the borders! Easy cuts can be made to the budget to brand up for this such as eliminating Marxist entitlement programs that do naught merely make people want to work even less.

Julius, Do they represent y'all? Hong Kong is divided by several major political platforms, four to be verbal, 2 beingness based on major left wing ideologies, the Democratic Brotherhood for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Democratic Party of Hong Kong. The others are the Borough Party, which is more than moderate and improve compared to the United States Libertarian Party and the Federation of Trade Unions. And so there is the Liberal Party of Hong Kong, which is actually the conservative party here (Liberal for some reason ways conservative in the East). The majority of Hong Kong's politics are moderate, they balance capitalism with socialistic policies to maintain economical stability. Different American conservatives, they don't rely also much on commercialism because they actually realize the importance of human being labor, and even have labor unions to protect workers from corporations who endeavor to abuse their power. This is pretty much the same or very similar in both Due south Korea and Japan as well. In regards to social issues, all iii countries are besides MODERATE, and their nations' political parties, similar the United states, are divided by age in which the younger ones are more than progressive and the older ones are more than conservative on issues like same-sex marriage, abortion etc... So no, they practise not represent you, because they aren't very unlike from the United States. Yous have your conservatives, you lot accept you liberals, there is a rest between the two parties and many times they piece of work together to maintain cultural and political club. Effort again.

And to exist clear, I am not against corporations or commercialism. I am against extreme wealth inequality and corporations who take jobs away from poor, hardworking Americans by giving them to strange labor workers who they barely pay enough to live like decent man beings to begin with, that too includes domestic workers besides, which is why I am for a rise in the minimum wage. If in that location was more regime intervention to prevent these things, I would have no issue with them, but for some reason conservatives remember it's "equal" for the rich to accept advantage of the poor by receiving all the tax breaks, and allowing them to find loopholes in the system to avoid paying taxes to begin with. Y'all phone call that equal? In that location is zilch equal about rich people living large, while the poor suffer. If they make more money, they should be paying more than taxes, not less, but they don't. If you are for equality you would be confronting this. There would be no need for "Marxist entitlement programs" if you actually immune poor people to brand a decent living wage.

https://melaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/equality-via-being-liberal-on-facebook.png

Krampus says 2015-03-11T09:04:43.0600175-05:00

You say that you are not against capitalism, simply your arguments are. What parts of capitalism do you actually agree with? Capitalism does benefit everyone, the wealthy get more of the benefit because they invest more than into it, such equally providing capital, entrepreneurship, and labor to start businesses to both make themselves some money and provide jobs to others. I don't know where you are getting your info that the rich don't pay taxes, the vast vast vast majority of tax acquirement the gov't takes in each yr is almost exclusively paid by the rich. Even if some do notice ways to crook the tax system and pay a much smaller pct of their total income, they are still paying way more than taxes than poor people. If someone who makes $1 million a year cheats the system and only pays one% of their income a year, that's $10k in taxes paid a year. Compare that to the boilerplate income in the The states of $27k a year paying 25% income taxes which is $6.75k in taxes paid a year. Sure the poor are paying a college percent of their total income, but that'due south a relative number. The rich are paying more in taxes than poor people no matter how yous look at it. The fact that they accept more money left over is irrelevant, why accuse them more than just because they accept more. It isn't very capitalistic to punish people for making money, in fact, its the sole incentive for people to better their lives. Why do you think they "steal jobs from poor people and send them overseas"? It's because of regulations and unions that get in impossibly expensive to pay for labor here. Contrary to what you plain believe, most business owners don't just have huge scrooge mcduck money pits to dive into and are just choosing to not give more to their employees, in fact business owners recognize that its worth it to them to pay more for quality workers. The trouble that workers here have is that they feel entitled to more money without producing the labor to match it. The issue I have with your socialist point of view of income inequality depicted in your linked schematic is that you believe that people should ever stop upward with the same outcome, regardless of the choices they make in life. You believe that if there is ever a state of affairs where someone comes out with a better effect that someone else so it MUST mean that that person was exploited by the showtime person, rather than the people having equal opportunity from the outset and having their consequence decided by their choices in life (i.Eastward. Finishing high schoolhouse, going to college, having a child at a immature age, non working, working, etc.). A more correct depiction of how a liberal would view that schematic you linked would be for all of the people would exist the same peak, man A got a college caste and job and worked hard for 2 boxes, human B got a high schoolhouse didactics and chore and worked for 1 box and man C didn't stop loftier school considering he had a kid, and chose non to work and get complimentary income from the regime. You liberal view would be that fifty-fifty though they started the aforementioned height, they didn't end up with the aforementioned number of boxes, so man A must accept been sexist/racist/bigoted and exploited both men B and C (who are both just victims of their society), while human being B, fifty-fifty though is exploited by man A, is also an exploiter of human C. So men A and B are threatened by the government through force of law to redistribute their boxes to the men who accept less than them, until they are all equal. This brings us dorsum to the ultimate question of socialism, which is: What incentive would man C (or anyone else) accept to work for more boxes, if they know that they can just become some for complimentary at other's expense.

heil8 says 2015-03-11T09:ten:26.7834458-05:00

Labor Unions dissever the different social classes and put them against each other. Strikes put rich against poor. This destroys social economic harmony which Hitler worked very hard preserve where people should not run into themselves every bit different social classes and bond to their social class. They should instead bind to nationality, ethnic and racial ties and not economic ties.

Krampus, "You say that you are non against capitalism, simply your arguments are." - And exactly where did I imply in whatever of my arguments that I was against capitalism? Nowhere. So correct off the bat, your making false accusations nearly me and what I believe. I made it clear multiple times that I am not against capitalism, I am against unregulated economical policies in full general. Relying also heavily on capitalism is NOT a good thing and does not contribute to the economic system when you large corporations accept too much power and deprive millions of Americans of potential employment by moving labor to strange nations to avoid paying their employees a decent living wage so they tin can make more and more money. And because conservatives are as well against the minimum wage, welfare and universal healthcare that only adds fuel to the fire. If people aren't making enough coin, they cannot beget to buy things and contribute to the economic system, that cannot beget decent health insurance (or any insurance), they cannot beget to pay for a college education. Conservatives want to plow everything into a money grubbing business organization, and it'due south that kind of greed that destroys a nation, instead of helping it. If conservatives were solely responsible for the economical policies of this state, merely the elite volition benefit, while anybody else struggles. Similar I said before, when it comes to economic problems, there needs to be a balance. Nosotros cannot rely as well much on i affair and expect everything to be stable.

"You liberal view would exist that even though they started the same elevation, they didn't finish up with the same number of boxes, so man A must accept been sexist/racist/bigoted" - Oh I run into, use the "racist bill of fare", because evidently every liberal in world thinks anybody is null but a bigoted, racist, homophobe. You have now lost whatever brownie in any of your statements when you resorted to idiotic stereotypes and assumptions about my grapheme. Then I won't bother reading or responding to whatsoever of your nonsense from this point onward.

Heil8, I hope you're joking.

Oh my goodness briantheliberal you take no thought what you are talking about. Hong Kong is literally the bourgeois haven of the planet. They accept the #one rated economic freedom in the earth. Guess who came in second. Singapore! Yes at that place are dissimilar parties, but all are very bourgeois in comparison to their usa translated equivalents. From http://www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong "The competitive and transparent regulatory framework supports dynamic business formation and operation. The labor market place is vibrant, with flexible and well-enforced labor codes. Working hours and wages are largely determined by the market. Monetary stability is maintained through the exchange-rate peg to the U.S. dollar. The government provides some depression-price housing and dark-green energy subsidies." Does it go more than conservative? Aye "The standard income tax rate is xv percent, and the top corporate tax rate is sixteen.five per centum. The overall tax burden equals 13.7 per centum of domestic income. Government expenditures amount to 18.5 percentage of gross domestic production. Public debt is depression, and a budget surplus has been maintained" These are all significantly low revenue enhancement rates, especially compared to the outlandish taxes American citizens and companies are supposed to say. USA has corporate taxes of up to 39 percent compared to the mere 16.5% in HK! To put this in perspective, the Difference between their percentage and HK's percentage is However ABOVE WORLD AVERAGE! Yous cannot place USA and Hong Kong in this vague "moderate" category. Hong Kong is Clearly more fiscally conservative. "Hong Kong has a 0 per centum boilerplate tariff rate and remains one of the world's most open up economies for international trade and investment. The highly developed and prudently regulated fiscal system offers a wide range of innovative financing options. The banking sector is dynamic and resilient. The large and growing financial exposure to the mainland continues to deepen." What more than can I say.

Likewise, I understand y'all are entitled to your opinion on minimum wages, but making them rise volition just create less jobs and companies will begin to quickly find innovations to replace them, creating even less jobs. I know it sounds prissy in theory to accept people get more and live decent, but the reality is that businesses are non going to put upwards with paying some American with no skill $15 an hour when they can go people in china to practise it for 50 cents an hour. The only reason our jobs are exported equally of today is because wages are already too loftier for businesses to have whatever incentive to stay. If they are raised significantly, you can be sure that companies will practise anything they tin can to avoid hiring them. Since all of these remaining minimum wage jobs require no education or loftier level thinking, they volition most likely only be automated, and then unemployment will start to skyrocket, versus if they were set by the market value equally the case is in HK, wages stay reasonable only do not drive out business.

Krampus says 2015-03-11T14:12:30.2958043-05:00

Brian, I wasn't bold anything about your character, I have seen you specifically call not only individuals on this site racist, but as well conservatives as a whole racist. Also, you don't need to specifically say you are against commercialism for people to notice yous are, you spout liberal ideology in almost all of your posts, and your beliefs that you vocalize are in nature anti-capitalism, such equally "power needs to be limited by the federal government, which is a liberal ideology. More power in corporations = less jobs, no money existence earned, spent or put dorsum into the economy. That is the real conservative credo.". Likewise, something worth noting, you lot don't seem to know the difference betwixt commercialism and corporatism (liberals tend to equate the ii). Capitalists are against corporatism because they believe in an actual costless market. Corporatism is not a costless market. Yous maxim that yous support capitalism, simply then preceding to say how evil information technology is in ane of your liberal rants is the equivalent to someone saying "I'm not racist, but...".

Varrack says 2015-03-11T14:18:52.0222409-05:00

Low tax rates are a sign of economic liberty.

Krampus says 2015-03-11T14:22:xi.4049829-05:00

Varrack, I concord 100%.

Stefy says 2015-03-11T15:44:30.6923239-05:00

Depression taxation rates are a sign of a culture of selfishness and ignorance.

Anonymous says 2015-03-11T15:56:56.8235253-05:00

I disagree that i credo is superior to the other in the U.S. Even though I would probably vote Democrat, I practice agree with some bourgeois policies over the liberal ones. I think a lot of people are forgetting something though. Being Democrat doesn't necessarily mean yous are liberal, and supporting the GOP doesn't mean you are conservative. They are just 2 parties which favor the opposite sides of the spectrum. The biggest reason I support Democrats is because I feel they are more than trustworthy compared to the GOP. I accept no problem voting Republican if they have a decent candidate.

Low tax for the rich only are non a sign of economic freedom. It's a sign of greed and self-destruction.

Krampus, like I said, you accept lost whatever credibility in what you lot say. And fyi, if yous don't desire to be called a racist, NEWSFLASH, don't say and do racist things! Wow! Isn't that surprising?!

Julius, hither yous go again with your lies. I actually know someone on this site who lives in Hong Kong and even they said you were wrong. In Hong Kong they accept progressive tax rates, social welfare and security (including the Comprehensive Social Security Allowance, Erstwhile Age Allowance, and transfers in kind like public housing), public hospitals, and healthcare facilities, anti-bigotry laws for race, sex and disability in identify, and soon for sexual orientation. They are even working on legalizing same-sex activity matrimony. None of these are conservative policies. Hong Kong is no more conservative than the United States. They are a highly progressive nation, especially among the younger generation of Hong Kong citizens. Proceed being delusional and taking credit for something you lot're non responsible for to make yourself feel better nigh your flawed ideologies.

Krampus says 2015-03-12T07:58:13.8060798-05:00

Wow, shocker brian, rather than counter any of the points I fabricated, you lot pulled the archetype become-to move from the liberal play book of dodging every single thing I said, calling me racist and running away under the guise that I lost credibility because I "assumed something about your grapheme" or accusing yous of calling people racist with no evidence of them interim in such a way. Similar I said, I didn't presume anything near your graphic symbol, I stand up by what I said. I have seen many instances of when yous call both a person and conservatives as a whole racist on this site, and only i example of which actually warranted it. And so y'all proceeded to insinuate that I am bigoted for assuming all liberals recollect that way, which is yous exhibiting the exact behavior you were upset that I "causeless" you would do. Evidence me an example where I actually contradicted myself, or lied, or made an invalid indicate to ruin my own brownie. I noticed you responded to precisely Zip of my points, particularly in regards to yous not supporting capitalism, which, let'south be honest: the real question of this poll should accept been: Would you rather alive in a socialist country or a capitalist country?

Krampus, I didn't dodge annihilation you said, I just don't feel like anything you say is worthy of a response because all you do is rely on prejudgments and stereotypes to bear witness a point that didn't make sense to begin with. But leave it to a conservative to falsely accuse a liberal of calling everyone a racist, that seems to be the only thing conservatives ever practice when a liberal confronts their ridiculous ideologies. I didn't even call you a racist anywhere in this comment department. You also have no prove that I called conservatives racist as a whole either. In fact, Y'all brought upwards the whole racist matter when you decided to assume that because I was a liberal, all I ever do is call people racist. Afterward that bespeak, yes, you lost your credibility because anyone who resorts to such asinine attacks are not worth talking to. You take already proven me right.

Oh and here is a tip, if you want someone to reply to you, go along it brief. Nobody wants to waste matter fourth dimension responding to ridiculous rambling that would fill up an entire novel. No sane human existence has the patience to read all of that, allow lonely respond to it. Nevertheless, I did read it, and when I came across your nonsensical stereotyping of liberals, I already knew it wasn't worth a response.

You can't just dismiss every fact. These tax rates are public information so actually I couldn't care less about what your misinformed friend thinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://world wide web.Internations.Org/hong-kong-expats/guide/15943-social-security-revenue enhancement/hong-kong-income-revenue enhancement-for-expatriates-15940 http://www.Guidemehongkong.Com/revenue enhancement/personal-tax/hong-kong-salaries-personal-tax-guide http://workinginhongkong.Com/working-in-hong-kong/hong-kong-tax/# The MAXIMUM charge per unit, for the richest man alive in HK is 17%. Compared to 39% in USA! This a huge difference! You can't simply throw all of this nether the table. I never claimed they had no progressive tax, only that information technology is considerably more than fair. Seriously stop denying literal facts you are incorrect you cannot deny it. HK is much more conservative fiscally than USA and its impossible to deny if yous have a brain (which I'm still not convinced you lot do) Besides, flawed ideologies? All the pathetic socialist European countries you listed are doing absolutely HORRIBLE right now. They run enormous debt and take no means of reducing the arrears to whatsoever reasonable figure. They have weakening everything and will completely plummet with the next few decades. How exactly is that correct? Meanwhile, HK singaopore and others are thriving. Also quit bringing upwardly social I told you I was never arguing for that yous imbecile. You are the one living in fantasy globe. My policies are far more than efficient than the pathetic liberal countries you mentioned, who are all failing miserably economically.

JuliusMach, "All the pathetic socialist European countries you listed are doing absolutely HORRIBLE right now." - Yep, and so are most of the Middle East, Africa, and highly conservative countries of Europe, S America and Asia. You know who is doing better than them? All of those "pathetic socialist European countries" you detest so much, not just economically, but socially also. Just maxim. Just yous can go along trying to accept credit for countries that really don't lean either way, those countries, including Hong Kong, aren't doing so well either so I really don't sympathize why you're so obsessed with them.

No they are not! I'm in no way supporting the economics you call "conservative". You but selection random countries with conservative social issues and bunch them in with me. I told you I didn't support Iran's fiscal policy whatever yet you lot just assume because they take no human rights, that makes them fiscally bourgeois. I just proved HK obviously leans heavy correct fiscally through various sources so take that as yous may and ignore it like yous just did information technology. I wouldn't actually say they are meliorate socially just that is entirely opinion based on both sides and there actually is no right respond to that. HK has a super depression deficit, very low unemployment, and very loftier standard of living without having to redistribute tons of wealth and sew together a super sized debt bill so I believe that shows they are definitely more than salubrious economically.

This thread conspicuously doesn't specify that is was based on fiscal issues to begin with. You are the one who chose to argue on behalf of fiscally bourgeois problems alone, and even then your arguments are still distorted and flawed. You claim that "HK obviously leans heavy right fiscally" but because they have "a super low deficit, very low unemployment, and very loftier standard of living without having to redistribute tons of wealth and run upward a super sized debt bill" so that automatically ways they are a conservative state when they are non. You lot completely ignored the fact that HK relies heavily on welfare, social security, a socialized healthcare organization, are very progressive on social problems etc... Along with Republic of korea, Japan and Singapore. There is nothing bourgeois about any of this. They are moderate, they do non lean further one way or the other, only like the United states. When it comes to conservative policies, in the United States, our healthcare organization ranked every bit one the worst on the planet, and it relies on capitalism. Only this isn't just most fiscal issues, it's the social bug that likewise determine whether or not a state is more liberal or conservative. And the more socially conservative the country, the more than oppressive and the lower the country is on the human rights scale.

mdmark says 2015-03-12T21:08:36.3603233-05:00

Brian don't tell me what my own ideology is and I won't tell you what yours is. I know exactly what my ideology is, while on the other hand, you obviously don't. That's why I'm trying to explain it to you.

mdmark says 2015-03-12T21:12:01.2720124-05:00

And @stefy When at that place are too many taxes all of the money goes to the regime and none to the people like you and me and briantheliberal. That'southward why high taxes are a trouble.

Mdmark, what the hell are you going on about? I never told you what your ideologies are. I didn't even addressed you anywhere in this annotate section. Stop trying to assail me for no apparent reason.

mdmark says 2015-03-20T10:31:45.4359409-05:00

And I quote (from y'all) "And how is that somehow meliorate than extreme capitalism where large corporations take more than power than the people? In the U.S. corporations have even sent the bulk of our jobs to foreign countries to avert paying U.South. citizens a decent living wage, leaving millions of potential workers out of the job market. At that place has to exist a residue, and power needs to exist express by the federal authorities, which is a liberal ideology. More ability in corporations = less jobs, no money being earned, spent or put dorsum into the economic system. That is the real conservative ideology." Where as you are clearly not bourgeois delight do not tell me what my ideology is and how it works. Y'all plainly don't understand bourgeois ideology, that is why I'm trying to explain information technology to y'all.

I don't have to exist a bourgeois to tell you what conservative policies are and how they work. Become over yourself.

ConceptEagle, if you argue without resorting to name-calling, get the f-ck off of my poll.

Bearding says 2015-03-26T20:02:39.1808929-05:00

How is it bad to non do proper noun-calling? Or did you mean you desire to me to cite correctly?

Anonymous says 2015-03-26T20:07:26.0667123-05:00

Oh nevermind I was thinking that name-calling only meant branding people with insulting titles. I am sorry, JuliusMach and BrianTheLiberal.

This is more than disciplinarian 5. Libertinism. If you desire to talk almost money wise, I would choose Conservative over liberal. America=Conservative

@themightyindividual uhh. So y'all call back Africa, Russia, Cathay, Democratic people's republic of korea etc. are the ones growing the global economy and not Poland Canada, Germany, and Norway Sweden and Finland?

I'm a conservative but I have a problem. I had a difficult time voting for "conservative countries" because a lot of bourgeois ones are oppressive regimes in the centre east. Notwithstanding, I picked information technology considering I feel like non-oppressive conservative countries practise better themselves such equally Austria.

Prc and Democratic people's republic of korea are conservative countries... And so apparently communism is conservative...

dlugose says 2020-09-04T23:09:55.8506720Z

Liberal countries adapt better to social needs, And take a greater tendency to trust in homo nature and the possibilities of producing better citizens using education, Rehabilitation, And accommodation of the programme of government to unforeseen scenarios when constitutions are created. While democracies tend to do better to meet the general needs, Education is necessary for citizens to make expert choices. Hamilton was right to be suspicious of a popular vote, As shown by the difficulty in getting Trump out of office despite repeated violations of the constitution, And the by lack of amendments to protect elections from huge involvement of corporations, And domination of the press by corporate interests. I have spent more than than three and a half years living out of the US doing volunteer work, And a year and a one-half in an American territory. One of the large factors - how people interpret their religious and scientific behavior is based in function if you consider conservative to be related to fundamentalism which is statistically true though not necessarily by definition. Fundamentalism can exist mitigated by universal proficient didactics.

lovelessoperepien37.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.debate.org/opinions/polls/liberal-countries-vs-conservative-countries

Share this post