|
Right. And when immigrants are looking for freedom and opportunity, they’re all racing to Gibraltar. |
| |
Written By:
the wolf
URL:
http://
|
Uh, oh. Erb’s not going to like this:He explained that Iraq had managed to escape the ignominy of being in the bottom ten because, despite “extremely high levels of violence”, it had a “relatively stable Government” that controlled a significant area of the country and had good economic prospects. Iraq is a complete FAILURE and he WILL NOT ALLOW history to characterize it as a success. Get crackin’, Erb. |
| |
Written By:
Jeff
URL:
http://
|
|
Well, I read part of it and it said the US was hurt by widespread private arms ownership . . . making the US less stable, I presume. LOL. |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
|
You get more points for sleepy==stable |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
Zimbabwe Aren’t they in charge of the UN commitee for sustainable economies or something? |
| |
Written By:
Scott Jacobs
URL:
http://
|
Besides fishing a good deal of St. Pierre’s income comes from smuggling. Newfoundlanders from the Burin Peninsula which is a short boat ride away frequently make runs to the islands for duty free booze and cigarettes.
Or at least they used to when I was a boy living in Newfoundland.... |
| |
Written By:
Thye Meatriarchy
URL:
http://www.meatriarchy.com
|
Notwithstanding the fact that many of the countries in the study’s top ten were tax havens like Monaco, Lichtenstein and Gibraltar, the Times Online story states that Mr Le Mière said that the US had fallen down the scale, although it still scored an average of 93 out of 100, partly because of the proliferation of small arms owned by Americans and the threat to the population posed by the flow of drugs from across the Mexican border. Liberals will no doubt cite this study as evidence of our need for a more socialist state, however it seems that the criteria used in this study were related to some of our freedoms and the porous border with Mexico. If it weren’t for Democrats lusting after the votes of millions of poor, third worlders and leveling racism charges against those in favor of enforcing immigration laws we would have greater stability as it was apparently defined in this study. |
| |
Written By:
jt007
URL:
http://
|
The proliferation of small arms??????
When did that start?
Last year?, the year before?, 5 years ago?
Was there a magic number we finally hit?
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
You have to look at this in the right context — they are talking about stability from the point of view of the current government. So, hell yes, the governments of Switzerland and the US (high gun ownership in the general population) do face a stability issue — if they go too far, we have the means to throw them out. The Swedes and Brits don’t have that option anymore, so their government is more "stable".
I’ll have a little more instability myself, thank you. |
| |
Written By:
Phelps
URL:
http://phelps.donotremove.net
|
|
Lack of "social achievements" is just a PC way of saying standard of living, schmandard of schliving, we just have too much damned freedom here. |
| |
Written By:
Xrlq
URL:
http://xrlq.com/
|
|
Looks a lot like the World Health Organization study. I wonder if Gibraltarians(?) are worried about the word getting out and suddenly immigrants are bespoiling Utopia. |
| |
Written By:
rob
URL:
http://
|
|
I have a feeling that the current Supreme Court gun case is going to lower us on the list. Something we should take pride in. |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
1 Vatican .. and my mother wanted me to go to the seminary. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
One thing to consider is that many of these "top" places owe their security, stability, and safety to someone else’s military capability. With that understood, how can they make a claim to security and stability?
|
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
Don,
As prof Erb has said many times, the Europeans think we’re foolish for spending all that money on the military. They don’t really NEED our protection. In a pinch we should recall the Germans personally managed the defense of large parts of Europe for several years and I’m sure the other countries (except France of course) would be happy to let them ’defend’ Europe again under the right circumstances. |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
Looker,
I get the tounge-in-cheek element of your post, but my response is strait-faced:
Those little (tiny) countries at the top of the list couldn’t defend themselves if they devoted themselves to it 100%. They are just too small for that, at least Germany or France has the capability for a decent military.
Besides that, they achieve prosparity in large part do to a nitch they have in the existing order; they won’t necessarly fare well under other circumstances.
|
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
Prof Erb doesn’t think they actually need any military - it’s all going to be happy trade trade and agreements between like minded parties in Europe, the Middle East, Russia and China who are interested in free trade and freedom while sadly shaking their head at the world realignment and the decline of the United States to a second tier power.
You can see how well that’s going to work, right?
At any rate, the idea that Europe is happily sitting in the shade provided by America’s shield arm is pooh-poohed by the intelligentsia who know these things Don.
We’re just idiots for thinking the Pax Americana is necessary, or even real. |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
