OtherGround Forums "Socialist" countries dominate quality of life

7 days ago
3/3/18
Posts: 9535
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 9963

So on a list that uses public healthcare and income equality as part of its rankings, the countries that prioritise that score higher? Noooooooo

 

What next, cars painted red score higher on a "what's the best red car?" List?

7 days ago
10/14/12
Posts: 5877
JPro -

The US is 17...... yeah ok guy.

Youve probably never left murica lol

7 days ago
3/3/18
Posts: 9536
HULC - 

So on a list that uses public healthcare and income equality as part of its rankings, the countries that prioritise that score higher? Noooooooo

 

What next, cars painted red score higher on a "what's the best red car?" List?


What are some criteria of quality of life that YOU would prioritize instead? Let's see how much they would change the rankings.

7 days ago
8/7/19
Posts: 35
So countries that are not socialist and several that pulled back on their social programs as they started to fail in short order

LMAO.

We have 100 years of history with fully socialist countries.
These countries were complete economic failures and murderous regimes.


Welcome to reality, kid.

Le Shat
7 days ago
9/14/04
Posts: 7125

Those countries don’t have a bloated military budget that is the size of the next 10 nations. Those countries aren’t the policemen of the world. They have a lot more government (tax payers) money to throw around to people. 

7 days ago
2/4/07
Posts: 29780
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.
7 days ago
11/20/13
Posts: 8566
Sandy Pantz -
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.

So that's the best reason not to cut the militay budget? Or are you just whining?

7 days ago
4/27/15
Posts: 12406

I'm no statistician.  Anybody know if there could be a correlation drawn based on demographics here?

7 days ago
3/27/03
Posts: 43344


7 days ago
3/3/18
Posts: 9537
Sandy Pantz - 
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.

So he's not doing it because he's afraid Democrats will criticize him? lol

 

7 days ago
2/4/07
Posts: 29781
ksacs revenge - 
Sandy Pantz -
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.

So that's the best reason not to cut the militay budget? Or are you just whining?


I'm saying orcus is retarded, as are you
7 days ago
2/4/07
Posts: 29782
Ill Portents - 
Sandy Pantz - 
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.

So he's not doing it because he's afraid Democrats will criticize him? lol

 


No, I'm saying you're retarded.

Hope this helps, retard
Edited: 7 days ago
11/20/13
Posts: 8567
Sandy Pantz -
ksacs revenge - 
Sandy Pantz -
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.
 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?

 

The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.

So that's the best reason not to cut the militay budget? Or are you just whining?


I'm saying orcus is retarded, as are you

Whining it is...REEEEE!

7 days ago
3/3/18
Posts: 9538
Sandy Pantz - 
Ill Portents - 
Sandy Pantz - 
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.

So he's not doing it because he's afraid Democrats will criticize him? lol

 


No, I'm saying you're retarded.

Hope this helps, retard

Yet you're the one saying we can't have the quality of life those countries do because we are opting to use all our money to protect them militarily, instead of raising the quality of life of our own citizens.

And you Trumptards are okay with this? What happened to America First?

7 days ago
2/4/07
Posts: 29786
Ill Portents -
Sandy Pantz - 
Ill Portents - 
Sandy Pantz - 
Ill Portents - 
Al Cappucino - 
Ill Portents -
Steve4192 - 
Thats fukin illegal - 

so basically what they are trying to say is quality of life is better in cold climate, predominantly white, socialist country's 


Size matters too.

It's easier to finance all those public programs when you don't have to provide them to hundreds of millions of citizens. The top nine countries on that list COMBINED have a smaller population than the United States. Germany at #10 is the one with a population in excess of 25 million.

It also helps that Uncle Sam subsidizes all of their national defense. They can all live in peace and sleep well at night because they know that if the worst happens and someone tries to violate their national sovereignty, Big Bro 'Murica will swoop in to save them.

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to talk about "per capita"?

 

Is this one of those situations where you DON'T want to acknowledge his entire post?


The first half of his post, the answer is "per capita". The U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than all but two of those countries, therefore despite the population size, should be more able to pay more per citizen on those things than almost any of those countries can.

The second half of his post, yawn. Nobody is forcing the U.S. to spend an absurd amount on our military, or to (as has happened in the latest budget) increase it beyond what even the Pentagon said they needed.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can explain why you guys fucking LOVE to talk about per capita when it comes to, say, black crime, but mysteriously switched to focusing only on absolute numbers in this case. Because I'm really curious.


If Trump cut the military budget, retards like you would say it's evidence that he is a Russian stooge, just like when he criticized NATO.

So he's not doing it because he's afraid Democrats will criticize him? lol

 


No, I'm saying you're retarded.

Hope this helps, retard

Yet you're the one saying we can't have the quality of life those countries do because we are opting to use all our money to protect them militarily, instead of raising the quality of life of our own citizens.

And you Trumptards are okay with this? What happened to America First?

Except I didn't say that.  You're making that up because you're dishonest.  And retarded.

 

Hope this helps.

7 days ago
11/9/17
Posts: 7877
Sandy Pantz - All the immigrants should probably go to those countries instead then. Trump's doing them a favor by keeping them out.

Yeah, as racist, white supremacist nation, black man hating, immigrant hating a country the US is it sure doesn't seem to be stopping millions of people coming in. Hmmm! Something doesn't add up now does it? 

7 days ago
6/30/10
Posts: 2672

Canada #1 lmao!  High tax, no health system. Nothing‘ s good here. 

7 days ago
10/15/13
Posts: 30871

I find it retarded that people who have suceeded in the greatest country/economy/freeest country in the history of the world, want to change it so badly.

OP obviously has reaped the benefits of our economy as he has been able to post every 15 minutes of his workday, every day, for years.

 

 

Edited: 7 days ago
5/14/09
Posts: 1302
Al Cappucino -

Something else about those countries that have a common denominater......can't quite put my finger on it......

 

Anyone????

There all whites countries, just say it dont be scared homie

7 days ago
2/4/07
Posts: 29787
Vale_Tudo_83 - 
Al Cappucino -

Something else about those countries that have a common denominater......can't quite put my finger on it......

 

Anyone????

There all whites countries, just say it dont be scared homie


So why is it white countries are so much more successful at implementing socialist policies? Are white people just naturally smarter central planners? kkksac, maybe you can weigh in here if you aren't too busy burning crosses?
7 days ago
11/20/13
Posts: 8569
Al Cappucino -

I find it retarded that people who have suceeded in the greatest country/economy/freeest country in the history of the world, want to change it so badly.

OP obviously has reaped the benefits of our economy as he has been able to post every 15 minutes of his workday, every day, for years.

 

 

And we became "greatest country/economy/freeest country" by not changing at all.

7 days ago
1/2/15
Posts: 8109

According to who? 

7 days ago
11/20/13
Posts: 8570
Sandy Pantz -
Vale_Tudo_83 - 
Al Cappucino -

Something else about those countries that have a common denominater......can't quite put my finger on it......

 

Anyone????

There all whites countries, just say it dont be scared homie


So why is it white countries are so much more successful at implementing socialist policies? Are white people just naturally smarter central planners? kkksac, maybe you can weigh in here if you aren't too busy burning crosses?

You still butt-hurt? You aren't nearly as interesting as you think you are.

7 days ago
4/3/08
Posts: 6916

Didn’t read. Not socialist, regardless of quotation marks.