Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean - why do we want people to pay for what they use? Like...get closer to balancing the budget, have health care for Americans and ask that IF people want a giant Security State, that they pay for it?
This is common sense.
Again, your English needs a little work. I have never heard the term "weaponize against the rich" before.
In fact, a google search shows you may be one of the first people on the planet to use it in that particular way.
Interesting.
I am not an unorthodox vocabulary user, but thanks nonetheless.
Alright and forgive me if some posts are very incoherent but I was walking quite a bit today
Anyways
Back to the topic
Look I am not saying conservatives are more minimalistic than liberals
.
You are reaching. Save it for a college debate team.
The "conservative" you may be talking about might have a 55K pick-me-up. He doesn't buy the stripped 20K model like I did (just to haul stuff). Power everything.
Instead of fantasizing, why not just look at Texas? As I said, bigger houses - bigger cars - bigger energy bills. That's materialism.
Rushbo uses an iphone. Trump uses an iphone. Case closed.
Unless you have hard data....you should take more walks and use an iphone to listen to podcasts. You may learn stuff. Then you can come up with better questions.
BTW, the "liberal" Europeans use about 1/2 the energy (which is "materialism") as their American counterparts. That means they live in smaller houses, don't heat them as hot or cool them as much, have more efficient cars, take more public transit, enjoy simpler pleasures (hiking as opposed to NASCAR), etc.
Then why do so many leftists and liberals weaponize against the rich???
"Weaponize"... weaponize what against the rich?
What are you talking about? What does that sentence even mean?
No offense, but it's really hard to figure out what you're trying to say here. It's like you're inventing your own language as you go along.
Again, I don't mean any offense - I like you a lot - but it's really hard to follow what you're saying when you don't even have a baseline definition for the most crucial term in your whole thread, "materialism." How can we discuss who is more materialistic or less materialistic if we don't even know what materialistic means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciano700
A lot of the countries mentioned in this thread I am about to link aren't heavily right wing
Well, that's a pointless reference, because it's just a 7-year old thread asking people to share their opinions on what countries are the most materialistic. It's meaningless.
And the metric they use to rank those states is how much money people spend on clothes and haircuts. That's how you want to determine materialism? I thought you were all hung up on smart phones and fancy wheel rims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciano700
Alright and forgive me if some posts are very incoherent but I was walking quite a bit today
Anyways
Back to the topic
Look I am not saying conservatives are more minimalistic than liberals
But in a sense
Corporate Democrats are the biggest materialists out there
A conservative doesn't give Fs about upgrading to the latest iPhone
On the other hand a lot of people from cities and urban areas do for instance
They feel that need to feel validated on the culture of status quo's
How do they do it? By being materialistic and especially with technology, because liberals and progressives are the biggest tech nerds in the United States
Meanwhile conservatives may use more natural resources, but that's becuase most of their work requires them
However on the other hand they are still way more experience-oriented than liberals or libertarians
They aren't big tech nerds and not to mention for them there's a whole lot to explore
Funny how liberals complain about the poor being exploited
And yet this culture of over dependence on materialism and big goverment adds to that, it doesn't solve the problem
Also, I think a lot of red states are poor due to poor infrastructure because they're small AF
But the homeless population in urban areas is worse, no contest
Also enviromentalism: How many neo hippies be around swagging their latest jordans, gadgets and sunglasses? Oh and don't even get me started on the poor exploitation of animals and children these people have to perform in the name of forced labor
Is not rocket science, it just takes observations
Of course corporate Democrats are materialists becuase once again cities are the epitome of corporate America, therefore there needs to be a way to get the money in and that is consumerism culture
Come on now and people say conservatives cannot handle criticism? Don't get all defensive
Hey I too think materialism and consumerism are just big fads in for cheap profit, that's all.
And dude... this is just all over the place. It's just stream of consciousness word salad. I don't think even you have any idea what you're trying to say or ask here. This is all just a great big mess.
You are reaching. Save it for a college debate team.
The "conservative" you may be talking about might have a 55K pick-me-up. He doesn't buy the stripped 20K model like I did (just to haul stuff). Power everything.
Instead of fantasizing, why not just look at Texas? As I said, bigger houses - bigger cars - bigger energy bills. That's materialism.
Rushbo uses an iphone. Trump uses an iphone. Case closed.
Unless you have hard data....you should take more walks and use an iphone to listen to podcasts. You may learn stuff. Then you can come up with better questions.
BTW, the "liberal" Europeans use about 1/2 the energy (which is "materialism") as their American counterparts. That means they live in smaller houses, don't heat them as hot or cool them as much, have more efficient cars, take more public transit, enjoy simpler pleasures (hiking as opposed to NASCAR), etc.
I am a gearhead and I must disagree with your comment. Now while NASCAR is mostly an American concept (NASCAR does have a Canada and Mexico series), other countries especially European countries are into auto racing too. I guess you don't follow F-1, must of the races and nearly all teams come from Europe. Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, McLaren, Alfa Romero are all European companies fielding F1 teams. The only in America is Haas which still run a Ferrari package rather than say Chevrolet which does offer engines to America's equivalent to F1, IndyCar.
Motorcycle circuit racing is also widely popular in Europe too. As of right now, MotoGP doesn't see any Americans and the field is filled with Europeans and some Asians.
I am a gearhead and I must disagree with your comment. Now while NASCAR is mostly an American concept (NASCAR does have a Canada and Mexico series), other countries especially European countries are into auto racing too. I guess you don't follow F-1, must of the races and nearly all teams come from Europe. Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, McLaren, Alfa Romero are all European companies fielding F1 teams. The only in America is Haas which still run a Ferrari package rather than say Chevrolet which does offer engines to America's equivalent to F1, IndyCar.
Motorcycle circuit racing is also widely popular in Europe too. As of right now, MotoGP doesn't see any Americans and the field is filled with Europeans and some Asians.
Also, Europeans are into bike rides and travelling and that's all I can think off.
They use more public transport because they also have a union and are more connected to eachother
Think it's fair for the US which has a more widen out infrastructure system?
What are you talking about? What does that sentence even mean?
No offense, but it's really hard to figure out what you're trying to say here. It's like you're inventing your own language as you go along.
Again, I don't mean any offense - I like you a lot - but it's really hard to follow what you're saying when you don't even have a baseline definition for the most crucial term in your whole thread, "materialism." How can we discuss who is more materialistic or less materialistic if we don't even know what materialistic means?
Well, that's a pointless reference, because it's just a 7-year old thread asking people to share their opinions on what countries are the most materialistic. It's meaningless.
And the metric they use to rank those states is how much money people spend on clothes and haircuts. That's how you want to determine materialism? I thought you were all hung up on smart phones and fancy wheel rims.
And dude... this is just all over the place. It's just stream of consciousness word salad. I don't think even you have any idea what you're trying to say or ask here. This is all just a great big mess.
Again it takes observation
Capitalism is a ***** they say, but capitalism is how we got almost everything we have today
Where would you be without your latest pair of Jordan's, iPhone, Starbucks or Cadillac?
Anyways, I will blame myself for starting the topic in a misguided manner, instead I should have asked "Who's more materialistic: Liberals or conservatives?" And then have revealed what inspired me to ask the thread
Also, Europeans are into bike rides and travelling and that's all I can think off.
They use more public transport because they also have a union and are more connected to eachother
Think it's fair for the US which has a more widen out infrastructure system?
Not only that but they have better mass transit and are closer together. Imagine our light rail or subway systems but far more efficient. I know many in Arizona fight the light rail while for me it is my desired way of visiting downtown Phoenix. I like mass transit as it removes some of my fears of getting around. I also think that European countries are closer together so the bike rides are more possible. In America we live outside the city of possible while in Europe you are right inside the action. Think of areas like little Italy. Also European countries are about the size of smaller to medium sized US states, making mass transit much more efficient than a national one in America.
Ialso think part of the problem is America is full of individuals rather than collectivist people. I'm not saying something is bad either way, but it is rare for Americans to really want to spread the wealth while Europeans are more likely to do that. Also with more Americans being individualistic, many think of things on their own. If they don't use say a light rail, they don't want it. Also being individualistic, they want to get around on their own, when they want to. I do understand that, but the confidence of not having to park in parking garages and pay up the nose for the use versus a cheaper all day pass at a less congested area is worth it more to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
