Leaderboard

I'll be joining the ranks and will be putting you on ignore soon. You bring little if anything to this forum. Only the usual childish outbursts and name calling that uneducated rightwingdingalings are so fond of. You bore people

Did Hitler just “deport” people to “work camps” to protect them from the war?

How old are you? Your arguments are unfair, lack sophistication, and jump to “You’re a Nazi” much as Chicken Little shrieks “The sky is falling.” You need to be specific about what you don’t like and explain why in a compelling way supported by evidence. Calling Peterson a Nazi is unreasonable slander. Equating someone with his intellect and wisdom with Nazism is ridiculous. You’re irresponsible.

I think the timing of the hostage release in ‘81 made it obvious to everyone except the usual obvious partisan supporters. At least it’s official for the record. Of course with political scandals all that matters is that you deny it at the time and maybe for a few years afterwards. By the time the truth is finally widely accepted, it’s occurred far enough in the past that nobody cares.

What is your point? I don’t understand what you’re saying. DeSantis passed a law. As a result of the law and the censors that DeSantis has appointed, Rosa Parks is being portrayed in Florida textbooks without mentioning her race.

No

Given all they're ever told from the 'elites' in media, arts, academia, and politics is what a shitty country Canada is, that it's practically the most racist nation in history and drenched in the blood of genocide, which it continues to practice to this day, and that every single person involved in its creation and growth was irredeemably evil on a par with Adolph Hitler it's hardly a surprise young people are feeling rather less happy about living here. I'm pretty sure schools and universities will soon require all students to start the day by bowing their heads in shame and grief at being Canadians.

Next generation conservative? I doubt it. This graph doesn't seem to speak very loudly to a surge in conservative values. If it did universities would be near the bottom of the list and the RCMP near the top.

So not everyone left of Poilievre is Pinochet? Wow you're out on a limb for this board...

We are trying to gaslight you but we are running out of matches. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/new-report-suggests-covid-pandemics-origins-linked-raccoon/story?id=97934478

The mindset of the extreme Left that tends to promote and support Socialism is not the mindset of people willing to tolerate argument or opposition. That's why even socialists who get elected and start out more relaxed, like Venezuela or Nicaragua, slip into authoritarianism. We can even see this in Canada, where anywhere the Left controls has rigid controls on what people may say and think and do. Look at the NDP. You aren't allowed to have any views which run counter to the leaders. Not so in the Conservative party.

Repeated studies have shown that tall people get promoted more. So do handsome/beautiful people. Fat, ugly, short people have it harder. This kind of discrimination is routine. Right from kindergarten. The less attractive you are, the less people want to see you and be around you. And by the way, if it's okay for straight white men to not want sex with men is it okay for lesbians to not want sex with men? Or are they "terfs" because they don't want to have sex with 'women' with male anatomy? The problem is YOU don't recognize any difference between sex and gender. As far as YOU and other trans activists and supporters are concerned the words are identical. You make no allowance for the fact that women-only spaces, sports, etc. are women-only because they're FEMALE only, in recognition of anatomical and biological differences. Trans supporters are perfectly fine with the idea young girls need to change in front of naked 'women' with male bodies and erections, who stare at them. That Marxists want to destroy western society is not exactly a bizarre theory. Nor is it the imagination of 'far right media' that so many on the Left show contempt for Western cultural values and beliefs and want to replace them, along with the philosophy and traditions which came down through the centuries.

No he didn't. Obama had the WORST job numbers in history, regardless of what your THE VIEW sources try to lie about.

Go back to school, snowflake. Learn what inflation is and what the cause is. Right now, you sound like a little third grader in a college macroeconomics class.

No, that’s Gender Studies pseudoscience. “Y’all” Is that purposefully selected from your liberal arts compelled speech manual? ? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/04/equity-language-guides-sierra-club-banned-words/673085/

To be fair, you should have yourself on ignore...

That, and the fact that he secretly sold Iran weapons despite laws prohibiting sales of US weapons to Iran.

The timing of the release has ALWAYS BEEN a STRONG indicator that it was a DONE QUID PRO QUO.

And I can provide the cites and links to prove that taking children from their parents is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which is why Putin was indicted.

Nobody thinks it's the jews. Sorry that's a total red herring. IF anyone hates the jews it's the marxists and the left these days.

If true that's pretty vile. It's amazing how often politicians and the people working for them sell their souls for power.

Troll, he is the only one here I have on ignore.

Really? Did they now? Who says so? Oh wait...the BS alert just went off in my head. All I had to see was this: So I had to know what they actually said so I searched past the paygated article in the Slimes that was linked in the OP. Here ya go: https://stsinfrastructures.org/content/florida-scoured-math-textbooks-‘prohibited-topics’-next-social-studies Here's what they actually said about Rosa Parks. Now they tried awful hard to lead easy believers in a direction they'd like to lead but nowhere did even the much litigated against New York Slimes try to claim that Ron DeSantis is mandating against teaching Rosa Parks is black. If that's what you took from the bogus title of this thread you're believing a lie.

A know -nothing above said Dodd Frank set off the 2007 crisis. Difficult since it was enacted in 2010. Most with a cursory knowledge of 2007 would at least know what the response was. Like if you wish know -nothings would read instead of posting here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

I'm sorry, you're right. Just because Trump deregulated these industries, thus causing the current problems, doesn't mean he should in any way be blamed.

Oh the defenders of Liberty proposing the use of the Notwithstanding Clause... the irony of it all..

Harper didn't "come up with".. he knowingly LET his imbecile back-benchers pass an unconstitutional Crime Bill every bloody day in office so they'd blow off steam and allow him to run the country. Not a single one was struck down by Trudeau, they were all struck down by the Court which includes many Tory appointed Judges. And this one is about eligibility for parole not letting people out of jail. You think 25 goddam years is not enough to have a faint hope? You one of those who think they let them all out cuz you saw one on TV they did? You think Clifford Olson is ever gonna stand a chance of being paroled before he's a drooling crippled old geezer in a wheelchair in the corner of some old folks home?

well said

Stop hiding behind your god and take responsibility for your own actions.

So now you guys suddenly believe polls? Cause you didn’t believe them when fatso was losing.

The NY Post is fake news. Find a real source. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I'm saying it's not illegal to misgender someone. It's also not illegal to refer to people with racial slurs. But if you do that, I can't promise you won't get yelled at. What did I lie about? She got in trouble for playing a video that went against the school's TOS. She wasn't arrested, she isn't being oppressed by the state. Y'all really don't know what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech does not mean there are NO consequences for speech. It means that the government will not arrest you for saying things. When Putin has a journalist arrested for criticizing him, that's an actual violation of free speech. When you're kicked off a social media site for harassing trans people, that's NOT a violation of free speech. Oh, the Nazis were completely wrong. Because yeah, the Bolshevists were homophobic. Joseph Stalin put gay people in the gulags. But according to the Cultural Bolshevism conspiracy theory that the Nazis spread, the Jews were spreading degeneracy throughout Europe because that leads to Bolshevism... somehow. Like most right-wing theories, it didn't make much sense. Seriously? Peterson talks about "Cultural Marxism" all the time. Lies. I'm right about everything. If you have to strawman, then you're probably wrong. Again, I don't think Peterson is a nazi. I think he's a retard who is unintentionally spreading nazism. By the way, if you want a metric for how bad this has gotten, like five years ago nobody was talking about "Cultural Marxism." This was something only actual neo-nazis talked about online. But now, thanks to people like Peterson, mainstream Republicans like Ted Cruz are talking about it. The Republican party has fully embraced fascism.

Yeah well even if true which I doubt at least he didn't sell out the country to China for a pound of cocaine for his son

The failing left wing goose stepping New York Times? The sleazy rag that compaigned AGAINST Reagan. Bottom line, Reagan was the greatest president in history. Gave American the greatest economy, SLASHED gasoline prices, ENDED inflation and defeated America's deadliest enemy (Soviet Union) without firing a shot. History remembers Reagan as the best. https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY? Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990: Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3 As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4 Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase. HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING? Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s: Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6 As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7 Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8 Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.) HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH? Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth: This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10 The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11 From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12 HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN? Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation: In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd. The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14 Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15 These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16 Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects. Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups: For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989; For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989. On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups: For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989; For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989; For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

The REAL Reagan Record. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569 What was Reaganomics? Reaganomics was based on the Laffer Curve. Economist Arthur Laffer developed it in 1974. The curve showed how tax cuts could stimulate the economy to the point where the tax base expanded. Tax cuts reduce the level of federal taxation immediately. These same cuts have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money in consumers' pockets, which they spend. That stimulates business growth and more hiring. The result? A larger tax base. Reaganomics was consistent with the theory of supply-side economics. It states that corporate tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy. When companies get more cash, they should hire new workers and expand their businesses. It also says that income tax cuts give workers more incentive to work, increasing the supply of labor. That's why it's sometimes called trickle-down economics. Tax Cuts Reagan cut tax rates enough to stimulate consumer demand. By Reagan's last year in office, the top income tax rate was 28% for single people making $18,550 or more. Anyone making less paid no taxes at all. That was much less than the 1980 top tax rate of 70% for individuals earning $108,300 or more. Reagan indexed the tax brackets for inflation.3 Reagan offset these tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere. He raised Social Security payroll taxes and some excise taxes. He also cut several deductions.45 Reagan cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 40% in 1987.6 But the effect of this break was unclear. Reagan changed the tax treatment of many new investments. The complexity meant that the overall results of his corporate tax changes couldn't be measured. Slow Spending Growth Government spending still grew, just not as fast as under President Jimmy Carter. Reagan increased spending by 9% a year, from $678 billion at Carter's final budget in Fiscal Year 1981 to $1.1 trillion at Reagan's last budget for FY 1989. Carter increased spending by 16% a year, from $409 billion in FY 1977 to $678 billion in FY 1981. Reduce Regulations In 1981, Reagan eliminated the Nixon-era price controls on domestic oil and gas.8 They constrained the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan also deregulated cable TV, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. He eased bank regulations, but that helped create the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989. Reagan increased, not decreased, import barriers. He doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.1 He did little to reduce other regulations affecting health, safety, and the environment. Carter had reduced regulations at a faster pace. Tame Inflation Reagan had campaigned on ending galloping inflation. That's when inflation rates reach 10% or more. In 1980 the inflation rate was 12.5%. These rates hurt the economy because money loses value too fast. Business and employee income can't keep up with rising costs and prices. Galloping inflation was already being addressed by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. He used contractionary monetary policy, despite the potential for a recession. In 1979, Volcker began raising the fed funds rate. By December 1980, it had reached 20%.9 These high rates choked off economic growth. Volcker's policy triggered the recession of 1981-1982. Unemployment rose to 10.1% and stayed above 10% for 10 months.10 This painful solution was necessary to stop galloping inflation. Had inflation not been tackled in this way, the economy would have fared far worse. Volcker's policies knocked inflation down to 3.8% by 1983.11

Unelected Joe IS a traitor. LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT REAGAN was the greatest president in history.