It doesn't work because there is an intrinsic group think personality in the Nordic region. Most people in that region that were born and raised there are very sensitive to profit making and ostentatious displays.

Which means that people are glad to simply 'get by'. There is not a mass drive to be better than your neighbor or own more toys than them. Of course there are outliers, but the bulk of Scandinavians are very used to the accepted norm. They are more willing to accept massive tax rates because they know they will be taken care of by the government. They aren't necessarily concerned about 'getting rich'.

Contrast that to other areas, especially the USA, and you will find out that it would never work here because we are an individualistic nation. Even the bluest liberal wants to be rich here. It's more cutthroat, more selfish, than you will find in a Scandi nation.

Another huge reason it would never work is that they do not spend anywhere near the percentage of their budget on defense that we do. Denmark spends about 20 billion per year on defense. Norway, an oil rich Scandi nation that is considered one of our most important NATO allies, spends about 6 billion. Less than 1.2% of their GDP. This is one thing that Trump was actually right about. We spend around 700 Billion, roughly 3.5% of our current GDP.

"Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said. In 2017, only the U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.

Whether that level of spending is needed is another argument altogether. I personally think we overspend way too much on defense, but regardless it is a huge factor as to why we can't offer the same level of 'socialism' that the Nordic nations do. If we spent the same percentage as Norway, we would be saving close to 460 billion dollars a year that could be applied to other programs. Such as paying for college for qualified students or trade school for ones that are not college minded. Or providing benefits to new mothers that we currently don't.

At the time this song was most popular, there was much discussion of the meaning of refrain - parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme. One interpretation was that it was a nonsense phrase substituting for "sober and grave, grows merry with time" - as applied to the loss of a lover (or a lovers') affection (s/he'll get over it...) but contrasted with the clearly mournful tone of the song suggesting that this lover didn't....

So am I and my wife. Love British drama, crime & mystery shows. They're far more plot-drive and less needlessly dramatic (i.e. more realistic to me at least) than the majority of Hollywood fairs.

The completed Broadchurch (UK ver.) series was excellent too. The US version was laughable in contrast, even if they hired the SAME lead.

Really hope this guy beats Cruz in November. The contrast between them is substantial.

As promised, the most promising results when polling google scholar:

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample"

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_
an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

Probably one of the better studies, it breaks down orientation to a scale versus straight binary, though the results are then statistical correlations and my stats classes are too long ago for me to work that back into something resembling my claims above.

"Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample
of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs"
http://ioa126.medsch.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/47.pdf

19 identical twins in the study with at least one twin with non-hetro orientation, within those 19 pairs, 6 showed concordance. So 6 of 19 identical twins sharing orientation, 13 of 19 not. This supports my statement above that in studies identical twins more often than not don't share homosexual orientation. This study also lists the statistical correlation of this result as 0.68, the previous studies statistical correlation was lower at 0.51(1.0 would be perfect correlation). If I'm reading the statistics remotely right, the above study then is similarly in keeping with my statement.

"Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets"
http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

Smaller sample size and different polling methodology, specifically sought out respondents of non hetro orientation. Shows a higher correlation, 25 of 38 identical twins being concordant. That's 66% concordance so opposite of my claim that more often than not they are discordant.


Running out of time here to post results. If you keep digging though it's more of the same, identical twins don't come close to showing 100% correlation, highest study of the samples I've pulled is 66%, and it's by far the highest. This is in contrast to race and gender, where you fully expect 100/100 identical twins to match.

@MilkmanDan

One big problem is that different states are passing different laws. Connecticut, after Sandy Hook, made it illegal to sell guns or ammo clips that can accept more than 10 rounds and required owners of guns that were semi-automatic and could fire more than 10 rounds to register them. Additionally you need a permit to purchase a gun and background checks are required for all private sales.

Contrast that with other states like Missouri where literally anyone who is not a felon can buy a gun, doesn't have to register it, and doesn't even need a background check if the sale is private.

Legislation on gun control needs to be centralized. Until the federal government establishes uniform laws about licensing and registering firearms, which should include mandatory background checks, training classes, and a federal database that tracks all guns sold in the U.S., it's just going to be too easy to head to a state that has lax gun laws and stock up on all the firepower you need to carry out whatever heinous crime a person has in mind.

And I'm thoroughly pessimistic about it ever happening. The NRA and gun "enthusiasts" as well as the gun manufacturing industry are just too strong as a lobbying group. These kids are absolutely doing the right thing by protesting and they'll get their time in the spotlight, but eventually that spotlight will shift to something else and it will be business as usual in D.C. with politicians taking political donations from the NRA to fund their never-ending re-election campaigns.

That is true, but I've never claimed to be perfect, unlike Trump, nor do my mistakes adversely affect millions of people, his do, nor do I have access to high level advisors and information he chooses to ignore.

Also, I am capable of admitting my mistakes given evidence of them, again, in stark contrast to your hero. I've never once heard him accepting fault or responsibility for any of his innumerable failings, it's always someone else's fault.

Edit: on reflection, I realized your admission that Trump makes mistakes is a HUGE step forward for you, keep it up.

Odd that the part where it's a pure product of the RNC is so easily and completely forgotten because it ended up in someone else's hands late in the game.

You mean like when anti Clinton agents actually leaked their biased "evidence" against Clinton repeatedly (like the emails that weren't new or evidence of a thing that those anti Clinton agents presented as evidence of wrongdoing days before the election) with text/email trails degrading her in a similar way, but who weren't removed from that investigation in stark contrast to this investigation....that bias? You relished it then and defended it vehemently.

Um...that label was directed at Mr Jordan who was feigning outrage throughout this video and is undeniably a useless partisan dumbass, but if the shoe fits.....

Edit: lol, fusion GPS, an investigative company hired by the RNC in an effort to save itself from Trump.....Faux News' newest red herring, following a long line of red herrings.....Vince Foster, Benghazi, email scandal, birther movement, secret Muslim, death panels, pizzagate, uranium one.....how many alleged scandals have to fall apart before you realize they're incapable of truth?

There's such a stark contrast between the tone of the early coverage on that day vs what we see with any incident now. While a few of the presenters made mention of the previous bombing at the WTC, there seemed to be a very strong resistance to suggesting it might have been terrorism. I watched another video recently that was a somewhat similar concept, but was longer and bounced from source to source. In that video as in this one it felt like the various people speaking badly wanted the first impact to have been an accident or an explosion from within the tower, rather than a purposeful attack.

Given that the only footage of that first collision didn't come to light until much later and eyewitness reports are frequently unreliable, "we just don't know" was the best they seemed willing to offer. Until the 2nd plane hit, at which point I think the facts spoke for themselves.

Favorite part is the contrast between 11:37 John Wayne as Genghis Khan and 11:44 Meryl Streep as Julia Child. Awesome.

Cvjetanovic is more likely southern-slavic-last-name (Serb or Croat) - making him also historically more likely to have a fascist streak as opposed to anyone even remotely Polish.

Back to the video - these people are a pain to listen to. I totally appreciate Dags comment because you really have to keep reminding yourself this could be your neighbour, your childs friends parent, co-worker, someone on your football team or whatever... What a contrast with that adorable grandma insisting on toasting Hitler.

Just from a quick goggle search. First thing i came across, and that is all you will get as it's already better then someone saying something is fact without the willingness to back it up. Although i assume you got that stat somewhere and would be interested to see where from.

"As the National Center for Women and Policing noted in a heavily footnoted information sheet, "Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general." "

The info sheet they reference http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp#notes

I seem to recall a sifted video of a cop pulling over a concealed carry dude, who told him that he had a firearm and a concealed carry permit, but otherwise refused to answer questions.

The officer in that video had experience that these 2 guys apparently lack, and was very skilled at figuring out what he needed to without escalating things and/or overreacting.

Some of that could be wrong, I'm fuzzy on it. If I could remember it more clearly, I'd search and see if I could find it to tag as related. As I remember it, it seemed like the perfect contrast to this one -- the right way to do things compared to this one being the wrong way.

As usual, you have it all wrong.
The left wanted Comey fired for making false statements designed both in tenor and timing to harm Clinton's chances.
They are up in arms because it's blatantly obvious that Trump didn't fire him for his statements last June or July, they thought him their hero in November and said so clearly right up until yesterday when he moved to expand the investigation into Trump's campaign. If he was going to be fired for his actions last summer, that would have happened in January, not yesterday.
Trump IS under investigation. First, the only evidence he isn't under investigation is Trump's unsolicited self serving claim that he said that, second, do you think the investigator tells the target they're being investigated? Not unless they are colluding, like the house committee did.

The FBI and house committee both said there is clear, undeniable evidence, but it's classified so far. Trump could fix that today, but he won't, he's too busy having closed door meetings with the very Russian diplomats he's accused of colluding with. (Edit:and they just released in house photos of the meeting, no press was allowed, showing smiling and laughing Trump and the diplomats arm in arm clearly having a great time, a pretty stark contrast to his meetings with allied presidents and diplomats that were often decidedly unfriendly and standoffish) That's not snark, it's fact.

If the investigations were a witch hunt, Trump would want them publicly investigated thoroughly so the evidence would prove it....not stymie them at every opportunity and repeatedly fire the investigators while clearly being caught lying about the investigation and why he fired them all when he did.