The 2008 SOP Democrat stump speech

[_JS]

MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reaosn SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.

Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.

Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.

[sirs]

Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.

Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.

Well, obviously since the U.S. is apparently this big evil oil grabbing monster, our troops must be massing on Norway's borders, as we speak.  Right?  That is the reason we invade countries, right?

[_JS]

I seme to hear this Euro-centric version over and over again and I would reiterate that people in general would still rather be HERE than THERE. I am not sure how to prove this statement without research which I do not have time for right now. If people like the Europeans' way of doing things to avidly, then simply pack up and go there. Contribute to the Great Society over there.

Love it or leave it?  

People would rather be here than there? What people? Your statement is far too broad to possibly prove in any meaningful way.

And I'm not being Euro-centric. I'm giving very specific nations along with specific data. I am then asking a simple question: why can the Swedes and Danes develop such a society, and we cannot? Clearly it is not that the economics don't work - because they do. Denmark is in fine economic shape. So, you can take care of your people, without sacrificing your economy.

The only argument I've heard is that we are obligated to invade other nations or destroy them by subjecting them to tyranny as has been our history. That is a possibility. My counter argument is that our government should take care of her people and not destroy the lives of other peoples.

The other argument I hear is: love it or leave it. Classic Cold War crap.

I remain unconvinced that this country cannot remove poverty from its shores, but for some reason that is viewed as a bad idea. That nations like those of Scandinavia can do a good job as welfare states must be some anomaly that cannot be reproduced anywhere else. Apparently they are just that much more brilliant than we are.

[_JS]

Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.

Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.

Well, obviously since the U.S. is apparently this big evil oil grabbing monster, our troops must be massing on Norway's borders, as we speak.  Right?  That is the reason we invade countries, right?

I don't recall ever saying that.

In fact, we rarely invade anywhere.

[sirs]

Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.

Well, obviously since the U.S. is apparently this big evil oil grabbing monster, our troops must be massing on Norway's borders, as we speak.  Right?  That is the reason we invade countries, right?

I don't recall ever saying that.  In fact, we rarely invade anywhere.

That's what the left keeps claiming.......that the prime reason we went into Iraq was to take the oil.  and yet we haven't even done that.  Somehow, Bush is this criminal mastermind of getting all these other countries and their governments to to go along with the WMD facade, not to mention the vast majority of our congress, since they all knew Saddam never really had them, yet somehow isn't smart enough to actually procure the oil for America with the greatest military on the globe, or even plant a few WMD and claim "look, see Saddam did have them"

Which is it?  Looking for consistency here, from your side

[gipper]

Class warfare? I say social contract. Watch as it plays out. The question is whether the Bush Republicans have breached the contract. My vote is a resounding "Yes!"

[sirs]

Class warfare? I say social contract. Watch as it plays out. The question is whether the Bush Republicans have breached the contract. My vote is a resounding "Yes!"

Ahh, gotta love the new age leftest terms, to sway one's soul.  It's not class warfare, its a "social contract". It's not raising taxes, it's "revenue enhancements".  It's not conservatism, its "naziism"

[gipper]

I never said any of those negative things. And the "social contract," a pregnant idea in the history of democracy, goes back at least to Jean Jacques Rousseau and the currents swirling at the founding of our great nation.

[sirs]

I never said you did.  I said gotta love the new age leftest terms, to sway one's soul.  It's not class warfare, its a "social contract".  It's not raising taxes, it's "revenue enhancements".  It's not conservatism, its "naziism".  You're simply contributing to it, is all.

[gipper]

Beware, Sirs, and this is directed precisely at you: the goons of the right are about to make their exit from the national scene. THAT negative comment I embrace.

[sirs]

And we thank you for your opinion, and nothing more, of what you consider goons.

[The_Professor]

I seme to hear this Euro-centric version over and over again and I would reiterate that people in general would still rather be HERE than THERE. I am not sure how to prove this statement without research which I do not have time for right now. If people like the Europeans' way of doing things to avidly, then simply pack up and go there. Contribute to the Great Society over there.

Love it or leave it?  

People would rather be here than there? What people? Your statement is far too broad to possibly prove in any meaningful way.

And I'm not being Euro-centric. I'm giving very specific nations along with specific data. I am then asking a simple question: why can the Swedes and Danes develop such a society, and we cannot? Clearly it is not that the economics don't work - because they do. Denmark is in fine economic shape. So, you can take care of your people, without sacrificing your economy.

The only argument I've heard is that we are obligated to invade other nations or destroy them by subjecting them to tyranny as has been our history. That is a possibility. My counter argument is that our government should take care of her people and not destroy the lives of other peoples.

The other argument I hear is: love it or leave it. Classic Cold War crap.

I remain unconvinced that this country cannot remove poverty from its shores, but for some reason that is viewed as a bad idea. That nations like those of Scandinavia can do a good job as welfare states must be some anomaly that cannot be reproduced anywhere else. Apparently they are just that much more brilliant than we are.

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.

[The_Professor]

Beware, Sirs, and this is directed precisely at you: the goons of the right are about to make their exit from the national scene. THAT negative comment I embrace.

And another Johnson Great Society will take its place. Arrrgh!

[yellow_crane]

MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reaosn SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.

Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.

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?

[Amianthus]

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.