Unfortnately yes. Norway (also a socialist democratic welfare society) is one of the worlds main distributor of fossil fuels. What's your point?

It's true that it does a major difference, however our lifestyle will continue the way it was before corona when the crisis is over, ergo not fixing the global warming

That's a bit harsh if you ask me. I'm not trying to be a partykill, but it's tough to watch someone you love not being able to do things they liked to do like knitting and embroider and simple stuff like that.

A reasonable conclusion would be that it is now 50 years since the entertainment exploded and resulted in way more celebs than before. The number of dead celebrities will rise as their "population" grows

First it hit the GOP

then the Clinton family,

now the Trump train's heading

towards the land of free.

2 weeks off work? Where? I don't see any :p

Smarter than you I hope .

You do have a Queen and a Monarchy

Sadly .

Are you saying that rich people are dumb?

I asked you to give me a link that proved the opposite. You gave me a link showing rich people are conservative, so it is not me who is saying rich people are dumb, it is you.

Find an article claiming the opposite then .

We can kick your ass in English grammar.

*whose

;)

Google: intelligent people vote left

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html

https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/ 04/why-are-high-iq-people-more-liberal/

Google: intelligent people vote right

Couldn't find anything relevant, went back two pages in the search.

it is a well know fact that the majority of liberal students become conservative when they get their first paycheck

The original link I gave you concerned people of all ages.

Plus Denmark is on the 7th place for countries with most Nobel prizes pr capita ;)

Denmark is a world leader in sustainable technology :)

Clearly you didn't understand what I said in the quote, which contributes to my claim that intelligent people tend to lean left, so thank you for your support.

Living under somebody means oppression. The bible speaks of the woman as being beneath her husband, she is to do obey him. The same is true for absolute monarchy - people live under a reign, they are oppressed.

That is not the case in Denmark. Denmark has some snobby people running around going to galla parties and whatnot. Neither the Queen, her husband, her children or their spouses are allowed to have political opinions, not in any matter whatsoever - not even concerning the Royal Family or the Monarchy of Denmark.

You can continue arguing that I live under a Monarch, but you are simply babbling propaganda to try and win an argument you have lost three times already. I suggest you keep the faint dignity you have left and let this argument go to rest.

I've tried to ask you if you understand the concept of constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy three times, yet you have ignored it every time. I hardly think you are in the position of demanding reasonable debating behavior after how you've treated me these past two days or so.

Here is a link to a list by Business Insider of the 11 most educated countries in the world. Among these 11 are Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Finland - all nordic state which is home to socialism.

US is number 8, while Denmark is no. 6 - which means Denmark has more educated people pr capita than the US.

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/wef-global-competitiveness-report-most-educated-countries-in-the-world-2016-10

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-level-of-education-correlate-with-political-affiliation-How-does-each-party-account-for-any-difference

Still the article is disputing your implication that liberal people are less intelligent.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-level-of-education-correlate-with-political-affiliation-How-does-each-party-account-for-any-difference

let me remember you are a socialist and not a leftist right ?

That's correct.

Studies show that academics usually lean left. .

Thanks for those quotes. Worth remembering. :)

Im the fool yet again :p

Did anyone else click because you thought he spelled the Beatles incorrectly?

In my opinion it's justifiable to go through a grieving period because of that election. I would think it to be ridiculous if it was any of the other of the 16 republican candidates who was elected, but yeah with Trump I can understand it.

Hopefully step three and four last long enough for step five to never come.

I don't think that would make much sense, since I'm arguing that you can be choose to be offensive. But thanks for the offer

I disagree, I think being offensive can be a choice, just like you said being offended is.

I think there is a difference between people being offended by others existences, and people being offended by actual insults.

Being offensive can be a choice too. If you actively say discriminatory things, and other things like that then you are actively trying to be offensive.

That's what I'm trying to explain. Being offensive is not the same as offending. Not in my opinion at least.

Being yourself isn't offensive, even though people are offended by it.

Being offensive in my opinion is actively and purposely generalizing beyond reason, and stuff like that.

I have tried to explain the difference between purposely and not purposely offending. Unfortunately I can't explain it differently than I have.

I don't think it is fundamentally about another person. I just think the perception of it is wrong.

What you are talking about is inaction, and someone being offended by that. Like someone being offended by a queer for being a queer.

What I am talking about is when you actively offend, when generalizing beyond reason. I think there is a difference between these.

They are not offended, maybe they don't understand what offensive means.

You don't understand it conceptually or personally?

Conceptually.

And those who are offended by queers are merely that... offended. That's about them, and not about the queer.

You have to ask who causes it? Because the definition of offensive is; causing resentful displeasure. I don't see how a person simply existing can cause that. If you feel offended by their existence then you yourself are causing resentful displeasure.

You are perceiving ''being offended'' as the same as ''being offensive''

If I am offended, that is my problem. If I am being offensive, that is mine too.

Offending and being offensive is not the same, not in my opinion at least. "offending" is about the other person, "offensive" is pointed the subject in discussion.

"offending" has a broad definition because it relies on what the receiver defines it to be.

As someone whose mere existence is offensive to others

I don't really understand this.. sorry.

It should be your concern if you are offensive .

Being right and being offensive do not walk hand in hand, you can be right without being offensive, and failing to find that way is definitely not admirable.

Just because you're right doesn't make it okay for you to offend people.

Can you repost the link? It isnt working for me. .

Well the republicans have never won the public vote yet still lost the electoral votes, so that's maybe why they aren't on the streets right now :)

So? Isn't that the point? when the system goes against you ... you talk about it right?

It seems to me that you're against people expressing their opinions.

There have only been five candidates for the US presidency that won the popular vote but lost the election. All five of those are/were democrats, so saying that this system has worked for democrats is a lie - the flaws of this system has only affected democrats so far, so it is therefore only natural and understandable that democrats are dissatisfied with it.

Probably :p

So for people to be dissatisfied with a president he needs to have physically hurt them? The only valid reason to think a president is unsuited or unqualified is if he is violent?

''Show me on the doll where Donald Trump hurt you'' is an argument used by those who have none.

No, you seem to be very much against these protests, Im just saying that people have a right to express their views according to the constitution

And thats their right .. according to the constitution. Freedom of speech :)

What makes you think I dont. ?

I do. .