I have told you before, you chose to ignore it.

Sweden: In the late 1800s, started to become like a modern capitalist country - corporations, banks, but not so much of give the poor more drugs and monies. In the 1920s to 1930s, was a capitalist stronghold, and was one of the least affected countries by the Great Depression. Everyone was rich. In 1960, Sweden taxed less than most NATO did, but had the second highest income by head in the world. But then, in the 70s or so, the socialists began to do their ways. A crisis lasted in the 1970s until the 1990s. Sweden's growth was very much behind NATO, until they basically said enough is enough and greatly cut government spending. Then, Sweden grew much faster than the NATO countries, but now it is relatively going down again, with socialism's coming back. But now, what is Sweden's income by each head, 10th or something? Luckily, many Swedes are coming to their senses and want to push out the Bolsheviki. TLDR Sweden's always been rich, but less richer when the socialists were in power.

Norway: Was the same country as Sweden until 1905, when it peacefully gained independence. Norway actually did grow more when the red flags came (in the 1950s to 1960s), but this is mostly since the 1950s was when Norway first started exporting petroleum in big amounts. Today, if Norway lost all its funds from petrol and fish (both of which are in lowering), Norway's GDP by each head would be about like Romania or Gabon. Norway has done some wise things with its economy, too, though, and in some cases, innovates. Norway has began to push out the Soviets, too (though they are still going to be there for a while). TLDR: Fish and petrol.

Denmark: One of the most well-off countries since the 1600s. The first country to become agriculturally independent (that is, there became little corelation between bad harvest and deaths at the same time) in the early 1800s. No minimum wage by law. In the late 1800s, Denmark economically grew about as fast as Sweden - above average in Europe. It was a top market for foreign investment. Some socialist programmes in the 1900s curbed trade a bit, but it was not much. The Red-Flags laneded on Denmark in the late 1950s, though. They made many more socialist programmes, and Denmark then, like Sweden, decelerated in the 1970s. In the 1980s, the Democratic Socialists were kicked out of the National Gathering, and replaced by more moderate leftists, who fixed things a bit (no minimum wage, f.e.). It has basically stayed the same ever since. TLDR: Ditto Sweden, but poorer a bit.

Meanwhile there will still be the middle class who are living the office space life.

You say like that's a bad thing

Let those scum die. We're not going to respect psycopathic killers. Frankly it's disgusting how much soldiers are respected everywhere, and I'd like more not to pay folk for killing folk. Now, I'd be kinder if this was an antigeneven draft, but there isn't in America, so yeah, let them rot.

This is one of the sickest things I've ever seen on this forum. Are you freaking serious? Let 1.5 million people die just because they were affiliated with a military branch? Most of them are just average people who had no other way to earn money, most of them have never even actually killed someone.

You call them psychopathic killers, but you're the one who's advocating what surmounts to the murder of over a million people. Might want to rethink this particular line of logic.

One more reason to count you with the other blind over-nationalist folks of this forum.

MGSB, a Nationalist? Sure, and I'm a Progressive Liberal.

Seriously though, do you read any of his posts? MGSB is just about the opposite of a Nationalist. I'm starting to think you don't know what the word really means by the way you casually label darn near everyone with it.

Let those scum die. We're not going to respect psycopathic killers. Frankly it's disgusting how much soldiers are respected everywhere, and I'd like more not to pay folk for killing folk. Now, I'd be kinder if this was an antigeneven draft, but there isn't in America, so yeah, let them rot.

Wow I can't believe I'm saying this...I now like Paugers more than Жұқтыру.

One more reason to count you with the other blind over-nationalist folks of this forum.

He's a libertarian not a nationalist. Your political labeling is always counterproductive and dead wrong. At this point you may as well call me a fascist.

But Jai: you think borders should be a thing. FASCIST ALERT!




/sarc

Also when he said let them rot, I seriously doubt many would actually die. Maybe be poor, but not mass deaths.

Edited 3/28/2016 16:06:46

Cause that makes it so much better??

have told you before, you chose to ignore it.

Ignore what? You are the one ignoring my requests: not giving again any accurate facts, sources or figures nor supporting your arguments with anything worth it. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway are economically not competitive and suffering from their socialist model, I say prove it, what you have again written is not proving that their model does not work at all.

what is Sweden's income by each head, 10th or something?

Income by each head this is all you've got? This is the only figure ("10th or something", even not precise or rigorous here) and data supporting your whole empty paragraph (since you just give your own biased story of Sweden and other Nordic nations without any other figures nor relevant arguments supported by sources). Income by head or GDP are inadequate measures since they are giving average measures, a country like the US have great inequalities and with a high number of rich people (billionnaires and millionaires) it can make the overall data higher, whereas it does not prove at all the great majority of American citizens are living better than in Nordic countries, it measures income, but not equality, it measures growth, but not destruction, and it ignores values like social cohesion and the environment, it is in fact an inaccurate, untimely, and vague indication of economic activity. So if you want to talk about economics try better and find more accurate measures and datas.

And last but not least, comparing the Swedish model with Bolshevism or Communism is a total idiocy, are you that ignorant?

He's a libertarian not a nationalist. Your political labeling is always counterproductive and dead wrong. At this point you may as well call me a fascist.

Explain how is it counterproductive? nationalism and libertarianism can mix together Jai.

How is saying America owns Europe nationalistic? America uses the governments in Europe to spy on the people there, they keep Europe from forming their own army, had and still do have enormous influence over Europe. NATO which is American funded and made, is steadily going westward and expanding American influence. Me saying something partially truthful in a joking matter says nothing about my political beliefs.

Why? They did not live when the Native tribes were beaten and had their land's taken

I guess you are also part of the people against a recognition of the Armenian genocide? "they did not live when their ancestors were beaten and their land's taken" is a rather selfish statement and a total lack of respect of their ancestors.

If it's a matter of ethnicity, does that mean I get to vote in hypothetical Basque referendums, or that people can simply have their own countries because of their ethnicity?"

If a majority of these people want a self determination referendum you have no right to forbid them this right, it is not about ehtnicity but people's will for freedom.
The Republic of Lakota is an example among many other attempts of these people to have their own sovereign nation. The United States of America has continually violated the independent Native Peoples of this continent by Executive action, Legilsative fiat and Judicial decision. By its actions, the U.S. has denied all Native people their International Treaty rights, Treaty lands and basic human rights of freedom and sovereignty. This same U.S. Government, which fought to throw off the yoke of oppression and gain its own independence, has now reversed its role and become the oppressor of sovereign Native people.

That's dumb, we're all talking hairless apes that are made of the same stuff, get used to it. Existing does not mean you get to be your own country.

Existing does not mean you get to be your own sovereign nation but what about the current independent existing nations then?

Edited 3/28/2016 19:45:31

I guess you are also part of the people against a recognition of the Armenian genocide? "they did not live when their ancestors were beaten and their land's taken" is a rather selfish statement and a total lack of respect of their ancestors.

I never said I wouldn't recognize atrocities, I said I wouldn't give them independence. They're human, they owe it to their ancestors to help unite humanity , not to divide it.

If a majority of these people want a self determination referendum you have no right to forbid them this right, it is not about ehtnicity but people's will for freedom.

This is not about freedom, this is about race. Racial and ethnic divisions are awful and are responsible for awful conditions in many places.

The Republic of Lakota is an example among many other attempts of these people to have their own sovereign nation. The United States of America has continually violated the independent Native Peoples of this continent by Executive action, Legislative fiat and Judicial decision. By its actions, the U.S. has denied all Native people their International Treaty rights, Treaty lands and basic human rights of freedom and sovereignty. This same U.S. Government, which fought to throw off the yoke of oppression and gain its own independence, has now reversed its role and become the oppressor of sovereign Native people.

They've been non-independent for more than a hundred years. It's not like Romania should give away Transylvania because they're not all Romanians, same with Transnistria, same with Tibet, same with Tuva, same with South-Eastern Nigeria, and same with Euskadi.

À Ellipse and JaiBharat:

Calm down you patriots. I'm not so against clerks and nonkilling files, but that's noone. Now, I'm not for killing any soldiers either despite that's what they would have coming (whether in peace or in war), but they should be spit upon, and damned to hell. But all I am suggesting is not to give money to these scum. Would you give money to serial killers and honour the twisted aims of them? An army is the most evil organisation in the world.

An Army that helped saved the world from the rampant nationalism of Hitler? That ended two world wars? They deserve to be spit on?

but they should be spit upon, and damned to hell. But all I am suggesting is not to give money to these scum. Would you give money to serial killers and honour the twisted aims of them? An army is the most evil organisation in the world.

Wow...I'm blacklisting you. This is inappropriate and heinous. People who would die to protect their family and friends deserve to be condemned to hell? Where do you think you deserve to go O Holy One? With a propensity to see people suffer, certainly not in heaven. And for that I will pray for you.

Soldiers are not serial killers, and only the most radical and extremist of people with no comprehension of history nor the organization of social civilizations would argue on this line.

I doubt any soldiers who are active today fought in WW2. Besides, back then people would be drafted against their will, and were doing something that was arguably good though.

Most soldiers who even kill are mono-killers, only a few are serial killers.

The tooth-to-tail ratio for the US military for 2008 was one to three, which means that for every combat troop there were 3 non-combat related service personnel. Only 25% of the military would see combat and in that I doubt every single one has even shot a bullet at another human being.

à GeneralPE and JaiBharat:

First, American army played a small role in the Second World War in Europe and even way smaller in the First. It played a bigger role in the Pacific war, it would make more sense to brag about. Second, they very much did war crimes and killed innocent lives knowingly, just as almost every army did in the Second World War. Third, that's not at all what's happening today, and like Smedley said, I very much doubt that soldiers serving in 1945 are still serving today.

You know why serial killers? It's for a noble cause. Maybe to protect their lifestyle, maybe to right society, maybe for love. But it doesn't matter: what their delusions may be doesn't justify ending lives. I spit upon anyone who kills for their own purposes, especially just for money and their country (totally different setting in a draft, though). Filthy rat soldiers have every wound and death coming to them.

Frankly, you ought to damn them, too, if you hold human life above patriotism. But I'm kind and won't put every soldier on criminal try, despite that being better than what they've earned.

However, to reward psychopathic killers with regular money, and think they're the best folk ever, these killers, that's just extreme patriotic militarism.

The US was most definitely the second allied country in terms of importance in Europe.