On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM, kirby urner <email@example.com> wrote: > I mean to generalize in the same sloppy manner people generalize generally, > meaning with lots of exceptions. > > I mean "on average" i.e. "on average the USAers are too socially unskilled > to have high living standards". > > They were the "richest and most powerful nation on Earth" for awhile and > what did they do with that opportunity? > > Now they're falling further and further behind, as the USG is further > cannibalized (sold off, privatized) by those who would prop it up as the > champion of their own sickly brand of oligarchic imperialism. > > I'm not sure how to get out of this mess. >
We're in this mess because of how people voted - enough people voted for enough conservatives over time to kill some progressive laws that served us well, those laws created under great progressives like Franklin Roosevelt.
Note: If you have voted for the more conservative Republican alternative when you vote, then you have partly caused this mess.
The only way to get out of this mess is to have enough people vote for the most progressive alternative over enough election cycles, to change the laws back to the progressive side, to keep going.
> This discussion takes me back to Paul's pathetic attempts to have us think > the USA could ever be like Sweden, >
I'm only talking about voting: I'm talking only about whether people vote for more liberal or the most liberal or more conservative or the most conservative candidate.
My arguing that people should vote and my wanting them to vote for the most progressive candidate among all the given choices says nothing as to whether I would think that enough people would vote in such a way over enough election cycles to cause the US to have the same type of laws as the Scandinavians.
My promoting that people should vote and vote most progressive is pathetic simply because you think that it will never happen? Yes? Then how is your arguing for your type of curriculum and view of mathematics any different? Do you actually think that it is any more likely that the USA will adopt your very different type of curriculum than people here will vote for enough progressives enough times to result in a more progressive set of laws? With respect to your ridicule and your use of "pathetic" here: Fair is fair.
> where intelligent policies prevail. Such > civilizations require a level of socialization that Americans just haven't > demonstrated at any point in their history. Vote all you want, campaign all > you want, but when the average social IQ is what it is... you go with the > army you've got. >
Are you saying that social IQ level is made evident by whether and how one votes - vote for a progressive, the social IQ is high, vote for a conservative, the social IQ is low? You have to be saying this since the only way to obtain the laws of progressive Norway is to have enough people vote and vote progressive as possible over enough election cycles, as I said above.