The 2008 SOP Democrat stump speech

[Xavier_Onassis]

Okay, I'[ll provide another reason, one you won't like, namely those countries have forsaken their Godly heritage. If we made ourself into their likeness, we would exhibit the values they espouse. And  I would postulate their view of Christianity and the sanctity of Life and Marriage is definitely skewed.
===================================================================
So, are you suggesting that the lack of serious poverty in Scandinavia is due to their "forsaking their Godly heritage"?
If so,
How many poor people could we raise out of poverty by permitting same-sex civil unions?
How many if we passed an amendment guaranteeing the right of a woman to have an abortion in the case of incest or rape?

[The_Professor]

Okay, I'[ll provide another reason, one you won't like, namely those countries have forsaken their Godly heritage. If we made ourself into their likeness, we would exhibit the values they espouse. And  I would postulate their view of Christianity and the sanctity of Life and Marriage is definitely skewed.
===================================================================
So, are you suggesting that the lack of serious poverty in Scandinavia is due to their "forsaking their Godly heritage"?
If so,
How many poor people could we raise out of poverty by permitting same-sex civil unions?
How many if we passed an amendment guaranteeing the right of a woman to have an abortion in the case of incest or rape?

No, I am saying I disagree with how they have their society set up in ways that violate the way I view Scripture. That's all. Others have their opinions and that is fine. Their societal "openness" in some moral areas disturbs me.

I obviously feel that to a large degree our Government, as one example, should follow certain basic Biblical concepts. But, we have discussed this here many times in the past so I'll let it lie at that.

However, that view also conlficts with my view that Government should pretty much leave people alone, so I am continually in somewhat of a quandry. Then again, life isn't easy and I am waxing philosophical so I will cease and desist.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am wondering if some people lack a "Godly heritage" Perhaps Scandinavians have something more like a "Viking heritage".

Should Thais and Tibetans continue with respect for their "Buddhist heritage" or should they go seek a "Godly heritage"?

I am for letting people make their own personal choices. I don't really see much difference philosophically between the government banning gay marriages and lifting all restrictions on stoning queers, or refusing to fund stem cell research and banning it altogether.

If the Bible is the absolute truth, then hey, go with the Bible: it's the word of God. Let's stone gays, disrespectful children and immoral women, 'cause God says quite clearly that's what we oughta do. While were at it, let's ban pork, shrimp and cheeseburgers, along with fabrics made of two or more fibers. God says we should. Go ahead, throw Jimmy Dean in the slammer for selling pork products. The more delicious they are, the more the chance that SATAN is behind them being delicious. I mean, pork sausage is not Godly, so it must be Satanic.

[The_Professor]

Besides, the craftmanshift in that country is extraordinary.

There are some ball bearings, for instance, coming from Sweden which are worth more than their weight in diamonds.

Ever heard of Swedish steel?

All of that can be picked up and moved. He was mentioning natural resources - things that you would have to go to Sweden to get.

Thank you!

[Michael Tee]

Ami:  <<We have treaties with those countries [Denmark, Sweden, Viet Nam, Iraq]  that obligate us to defend them. >>

I'll give ya 25% which is a failing mark in any academic institution I ever attended.  You have a treaty obligating the defence of Denmark (NATO), none with Sweden and none with South Viet Nam (which wasn't even a country before you tried to make it one after invading it) and none with Iraq.

To sirs, who seems to believe that U.S. failure to invade Norway for its oil is proof that the U.S. could not have invaded Iraq for ITS oil, I guess it's akin to the robber's defence that he couldn't have robbed the bank because if he was really a robber, he would have robbed the the shoeshine stand across the street from it too. 

For the record, here's the Wikipedia listing of the world's top ten oil reserves - -
in order:

Saudi Arabia    
Canada    
Iraq    
UAE and Kuwait (tied for 4th)    
United Arab Emirates    
Venezuela    
Russia    
United States    
Mexico    

Norway doesn't even make the top ten.  I think Canada's no. 2 because of the tar sands, which have a helluva lot of oil but are very difficult to exploit because it isn't just lying around in liquid pools waiting to be pumped up to the surface.  If you eliminated the tar sands from the count, Iraq would be no. 2 on the list.

[fatman]

I think Canada's no. 2 because of the tar sands, which have a helluva lot of oil but are very difficult to exploit because it isn't just lying around in liquid pools waiting to be pumped up to the surface

Most of the foreign oil that the U.S. uses comes from Canada, who is also our #1 trading partner (and we theirs).  As I understand it, there is a movement underway to begin developing and refining the Alberta tar sands, along with a natural gas pipeline construction in BC and Alberta (I am considering a job offer related to that construction).

[Xavier_Onassis]

Norway doesn't even make the top ten.

Most of Norway's oil is under the ocean, and reserves are a lot harder to prove when they are underwater and untapped.

The big deal these days in Canada is not the Athabaska tar sands, but the oil shale in Alberta, which seems to be easier to exploit. They say than nearly every Newfie family has one or more members making big loonies and sending money back home to Newfoundland and Labrador.

[fatman]

The big deal these days in Canada is not the Athabaska tar sands, but the oil shale in Alberta, which seems to be easier to exploit. They say than nearly every Newfie family has one or more members making big loonies and sending money back home to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I misspoke, I meant the Alberta oil shale.  My bad.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The big deal these days in Canada is not the Athabaska tar sands, but the oil shale in Alberta, which seems to be easier to exploit. They say than nearly every Newfie family has one or more members making big loonies and sending money back home to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I misspoke, I meant the Alberta oil shale.  My bad.
==========================================
Actually, no, it seems that oil sands are easier to process than oil shale. I thought it was the other way around, but it appears that the opposite is true.

They seem to use different names (oil sands, tar sands) for the same thing, which is a tad confusing.

I know I'd invest in oil sands rather than tar sands, so this appears to be due to attracting investors.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060424/24oil.htm

[fatman]

Whichever it is, I know that it's in Alberta.

[Religious Dick]

Second, this notion of "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way" has been tried. It was done in Chile in the 70's. It was done in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil at the same time. Government was cut in amazing amounts as quickly as possible. Public holdings were privatised like a fire sale at rock bottom prices. Social security was privatised, schools were turned over to the private sector, almost nothing was left for the people.

Do you know what the result was? Were the Chilean people suddenly wealthy? Were the poor suddenly better off?

No. Almost half fell below the poverty line. Half the population. Unemployment reached a third of the working population - 33%! Inflation was in the thousands of percent! The top 10% saw their wealth increase 83% during the time period of 1974 to 1990. The rest saw their wealth decrease in real terms.

That was the result of your "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way."

Yeah, transitions to free markets from command and control economies work that way. Same thing happened when Reagan did it here, and Thatcher did it in the U.K.

And in those places, like in Chile, the result was 30 years of unprecedented economic growth. I'll point out that Chile's still privatized Social Security system pays greater returns than ours does.

So forgive me if I don't believe that equality will come from Sir's theory on why the wealthy need their orifices licked. Today Chile, despite rolling back most of those ridiculous programs is still one of the worst ranking countries in terms of economic equality.

The best? Denmark, Norway, Sweden.

Are we somehow dumber than the Scandinavians? We cannot figure out how to have equality and a great quality of life? We like seeing desperately poor people? We like the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor falling by the wayside?

Why should I be interested in economic equality? Get back to me when everybody's contribution to the economy is equal.

Tell me again - what are you doing for me that you think I should pay taxes on the fruits of my labor to provide for your needs?

If you were getting rewarded commensurate with your contributions, you'd be keeping the Titanic company.

And by the way - we aren't dumber than the Scandinavians, especially when we are Scandinavians. See Minnesota - not much poverty among Scandinavians there, either. Does that tell you anything?

[Amianthus]

I'll give ya 25% which is a failing mark in any academic institution I ever attended.  You have a treaty obligating the defence of Denmark (NATO), none with Sweden and none with South Viet Nam (which wasn't even a country before you tried to make it one after invading it) and none with Iraq.

Haven't looked up South Viet Nam or Iraq, but Sweden is a member of WEU, which coordinates defense between some non-NATO European countries and NATO.

[Michael Tee]

My point regarding the tar sands was simply that Iraq would have been no. 2 on the list if the hard-to-extract stuff tar sands, oil shale, whatever) wasn't counted.

As far as the U.S. being obligated to defend Sweden, I have to ask Ami, how does Sweden's status in WEU, "co-ordinating defences" with NATO convert into a U.S. obligation to defend them?

[Amianthus]

As far as the U.S. being obligated to defend Sweden, I have to ask Ami, how does Sweden's status in WEU, "co-ordinating defences" with NATO convert into a U.S. obligation to defend them?

WEU and NATO have a treaty to coordinate defense among their member states. US is part of NATO.

[Michael Tee]

Coordinating defenses is not a duty to defend.  If the U.S. chooses not to put up any defence to an attack on Sweden which does not involve an attack on NATO members, there is no duty to defend Sweden and if the US chooses not to defend Sweden, there are no defences to be coordinated.  End of story.