This data offered was not inaccurate. The observations were factually correct.

On second thought, no. That is also pure unsubstantiated speculation. The two examples I referred to were in their 20s when they emigrated and their work ethic predated their arrival in the US. It was not something that they adapted to, it was something they brought with them. As immigrants to the US have been doing for centuries. Well, except for a few British gentlemen who had to learn how to work hard at Jamestown several centuries ago.

Even so its better than an opinion based on a sample of zero as the GP offers.

Do I really need to mention for a third time my great-grandfather who stayed behind and has the same work ethic as my grandfather who emigrated has?

Actually you are doing the spinning. The disagreement is not about what country has a more productive economy. The debate is over the reasons, you claimed it was culture and work ethic. You speculation on that matter is wrong.

You do realize that my grandfather and my friend's father were born and raised in Italy and Greece, right? That they did not emigrate to the US until they were 20+ years old, right? That they brought their Italian and Greek culture with them to the US, right? That my great-grandfather never left Italy, right?

Yes, but a pace-of-life thing like sitting down for a nice long meal doesn't mean they are incapable of working quite hard when not at the dinner table.

The government is not as corrupt and incompetent as say Greece with respect to finance.

Really, my born and raised in Italy and emigrated to the US at age 20 grandfather has a work ethic that a very conservative American would consider exemplary. And Italian culture is not gone from his house as my father and us visiting grandchildren can attest. If you are working hard or studying hard he is kind and generous, slack off and you will hear about it. And the expectation level is not fixed, if you were lucky enough to be stronger or smarter than average then expectation are increased. He runs his house and raised his kids pretty much like his father. When visiting Italy I've seen my 90 year old great-grandfather tending his orchard. When my grandfather says to him, hey your 90 years old, take it easy. My great-grandfather replies that he'll take it easy when he's dead, that working keeps him healthy.

One of my friends growing up, his father was born and raised in Greece. He emigrated to the US in his early 20s also. He seemed to share a work ethic and some other traits with my grandfather. Strict house, exemplary work ethic, generous to family and friends who lived up to his expectations.

Don't confuse culture with the politics of the day. Its a welfare state government not the national culture that screws things up.

Latin is not to be taken literally in modern english. For example to decimate does not mean we will kill 10%. :-)

Actually the U.S. Supreme Court did *not* say that corporations are people. What the court actually said is that *groups of people* have the same rights as individual people, and that the nature of that group -- corporation, labor union, activist group, etc -- does not matter.

I apologize of actually reading the court decision rather than relying on the characterization of it by the talking heads on TV.

You are moving the goal post. The actual conversation is that the "progressive" label is being co-opted by the radical left. The California state legislature offers some good examples. Absolute control by the Democratic party for decades and unlikely to change, a strong tolerance and occasional embrace of its more radical elements. One example would be a ban on civilian ownership of firearms. I'm in California, some Democratic state legislators are literally behind such legislation each and every year. They consider this a regular every-day "progressive" position.

If anyone has a shitty argument it is you. Votes are politics true currency, money is just a tool to influence voters in order to get their *vote*.

A 1% has *one* vote. A 99% has *one* vote. The 99% have the power but they squander it, to believe otherwise is to be a denier of reality like climate deniers, to let politics blind oneself to reality.

Look at the two most powerful lobbying groups in the country, the AARP and the NRA. They have so much power not because of political campaign contribution but because ***their members show up on election day*** highly motivated to vote based on a single issue. Their opponents often fail to understand this, think it is simply political contributions, and in the NRA case raise huge amounts of money for anti-gun groups and then fail and fail again.

Politicians value votes beyond all other things. It is votes that put them into office and keep them in office. The secondary nature of money is easily illustrated. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by Bloomberg will convince NRA member to vote in favor of restricting guns. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by the Koch brothers will convince Occupy Wall Street members to vote against banking restrictions. Only the ignorant or ambivalent voter is persuaded.

To deny that the real issue is the ignorant/ambivalent voter is to doom one's efforts at reform. Only when the 99% insists on politicians representing their interests, and voting out those who do not, will politicians change their behavior. Reelections communicates to politicians that their actions are OK with voters.

Voters *are* communicating to politicians that it is OK to cash in. Until *voters" say otherwise nothing will change. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

No. My point is that the radical left is trying to rebrand themselves and usurp a nice sounding existing label. These modern democrats are PINO, progressive in name only.

So it serves two agendas. This makes it no less of an anti-gun.

There is nothing wrong with not owning guns. Its a personal choice, OK for some, not for others.

However creating policy and regulations when you are completely ignorant and misinformed about firearms, that is something else. Some non-owners are quite well informed and not hysterical. Some owners are quite ignorant and in dire need of instructions and education.

Progressives are *not* anti-gun, neither are environmentalists, etc. Ex. Teddy Roosevelt was known to be a fan of target shooting and hunting.

Call it what it is, the radical left. Don't let the radical left redefine and despoil the term "progressive" and they did "liberal".