Scott Mayers

I agree. I also think even should one be intending insult, like burning a flag, can and should be 'allowed'. I interpreted the guy as reflecting the frustration of backlash against some conspiratorial 'white' (and 'male') population through the extremes of the collective Nationalists (by my broad definition). I'm getting tired of it too. I've always been fair to everyone more than many others I've witnessed from all backgrounds. But it is becoming virtually illegal to speak against the present onslaught of cultural supremacists asserting their victimhood as due to a whole genetic 'white' and 'male' class, most of whom don't even associate with ANY cult themselves in contrast to those 'white males' who also support the trend, given their own onus to being the ones who are most guilty of such discrimination in fact! If you are one who feels that "we" all belong to some ethnic, cultural, or religious distinct group by default, it is most likely that YOU ARE of those who create the very stereotypes causing all the hate. The majority of people everywhere are mixed genetics who lack any strict association to your cultural nationalism or 'pride'. And you're enhancing the problem by such belief as you treat the 'cure' to your own in-group problems by a vengeful opposing discrimination that penalizes only those who disagree to either of your extremes.

Don't try turning the table on me here. It is you who require providing the prerequisite evidence. (1) Provide evidence that you, as some mere anonymous character here, actually 'care' to be accountable to your words and are not simply playing a sock puppet for promoting anti-intellectual religious thinking. The very fact that you are opting to evangelize in disguise presents reasonable doubt of your sincerity. If you actually believed in a "Christian Supreme being", you'd be confident enough not to be concerned about mere human beings knowing who you are. (2) You require also to provide a justification for HOW anyone should trust ANY source of ancient history asserting 'super natural' phenomena when it has no contemporary means for people to induce it back through time. It is already default to distrust even much of today's media reporting regarding non-supernatural phenomena when politics always plays a 'superior' role in how we receive it. But you are expecting the non-religious thinker to abandon even our everyday experiences that assure that past historical events are even MORE biased in the days when writing was still new and highly unpopular. So you require a type of initial presentation to us as a "Grand Jury" would (in the U.S.), as a means to even determine whether a case could be reasonably argued with fairness. (3) ALL written works contain at least some element of 'truth' with respect to social, political, economic, cultural, and SCIENTIFIC knowledge. But where religious texts are concerned, the authorities do NOT welcome open criticism nor doubt and so more often than not, even attempt to distort or hide what might be interpreted as secular, rather than supernatural. For example, the ancient tribes of ALL human civilization go through a stage of indicating their age by how many months they have lived. (like how many do this with infants for the first two years still) But this has falsely been RE-interpreted as meaning that the ancients lived absurd long lives favored by a supernatural being.

Your source (Bible) has devolved from originating as a collection of various metaphoric anecdotes of the general (and very mixed cultural) society of the times. You can glean hints at some 'history' but you have to interpret it in the context of how we today do of modern entertainment and media. Worse, considering we can't trust even the validity of much of modern media with even its greater complexity and depth than a mere ancient book, any religious 'scripture' is a Google times worse to trust than a "Google" search for "Who is Betsy?" [A "google is the number 10100 by the way.]

It's just funny how you don't recognize your own insincerity. But this can also be your intent to purposely deceive others to prop up more religiousity for its effective utility in politics. ??

In Palestine during those days, the horse represented Rome and its power. The 'Je sus christer' was said to have ridden in on a donkey, as a symbolic "fuck you" to the caesar/christ [both words from "Kha Ra Isis" variant of Egyptian meaning "the light carries to one in the same", a way to assert a man as being granted the power (Ra) to a man as favored to rule] . He was indicating that as simple a man he was, his significance is as meaningful as the king's power, a form of declaration of independence.

And its funny how Jesus was interpreted just this way.....why he rode in to Jerusalem on an ass, rather than a horse....why "Jesus Christ" actually was a summary phrase by the average Joseph and Mary who mocked ALL those soap box philosophers in the Temples when they asserted that they too were the God-anointed true King. These average people gave birth to the myth for mistaking the message for some literal beings. "Jesus Christ" == "Je sus christos" == "I am as equal to the King by God's grace" or, by some, "I AM the official King by grace of God". The mockery was FROM the average citizen to those who asserted either divinity or equal stature as King, an apparent "ignorance" to the status quo. As such, you too here prove that should you have just become the same as the idiots of the crowd who are too scared of the presiding King's threat of hell should you not follow blindly. And then a child stands up in the crowd to announce how the Emperor/King is literally naked. How dare such an arrogant child insult the King, right? If you actually believe in God, you wouldn't be so cowardly NOW to hide anonymously among the crowd. Should you not speak loudly without the fear of being exposed for being naked too?

Which 'original' map? If you assert that war itself by its might is sufficient justification now, then you can't complain against the tactics used by the Palestinians or Muslims or ISIL or X, from doing ANYTHING they do in defiance of this USING might, .....like ummm...."terrorism", as we deem the war tactics of dissident minorities using desperate measures for lack of technical power to have the fortune of the same standards of weaponry the Israelis have. [Remember David and Goliath? Would David not be considered a "terrorist" too?]

I hadn't seen all but the first page and last and think these sum up the concern with simplicity. We are still ALL humans and while I understand your own frustration, turn it around and think of how others too have discriminated against the Jews, as I understand you are too. Your emotions are fair but I'm hoping that you'll eventually be able to see that we all have the same problem and are only deluded where we think WE aren't responsible to prevent this. Israel is interpreted by many to be acting with vengeance on the Muslims for the discrimination they believe they endured yet don't realize they are also now just using the same methods of behavior the 'enemy' used against the Jew. I feel frustrated for you because you seem so hurt from the past discussions with you. And while I and others can understand you internally, you interpret the compassion involved towards the Palestinian cause as about FAVORING the Muslim with the added DISFAVOR against the Jew, when it is more about how externally we SEE that history is still just repeating itself unless we recognize what the problem is in common. "Cultural", "religious", "ethnic", "Nationalistic" ideas are a result of differences of economy; but only when or where people 'favor' some in-group without recognizing what they incidentally ignore, whether on purpose or not, it is the reflective behavior of being relatively ignored that creates the next "terrorists" when they are diminished as being trivial or 'hated' by you. So you have to step back away from your personal hurt in order to see that you only contribute to the problem when you think your present worth is justified on the past problems. The people of the relatively suffering community at present is to the Palestinians, not to their accidental nature of being Muslim and any potential hatred that this incidentally may involve. You only enhance their pride in solidarity to those very beliefs you want to extinguish against you.

Like you 'read' my initial responses to you (as to others here as well) to which you opted to trivialize? Before even attempting to READ your potential list of arguments, you have the very problem you indicate in the next post here: How do you suppose that my initial response is not related to attempting to determine even what you "posture" is worthy to invest in reading when my own response IS to your initial assertion that you refuse to respond to? You are up front asserting THAT you have such 'proof' to which I, as others, need to know WHAT you consider valid for proof first to determine that you are or are not just some 'delusional' person here. But your responses to me AND your evasion of this demonstrates you either LACK the intellectual integrity needed to look further OR that you are purposely being evasive. The first PART of your claim is NOT your preferred list of proofs but to your claim that you even "have" a rational justification that ANY book, especially from history, can have internal capacity to "prove" something absolute and validly 'true' about an entity external to merely its content of words. I can write a book and assert from the beginning that everything you are about to read is 'true' because I am God and that being such, I would not nor could not lie. Would you think not to ask me how the content that follows should further 'prove' my existence that an even MORE powerful entity it is about to speak of opts to use a medium (a book) that could more powerfully be 'proven' by the ever more powerful 'medium' of DIRECT PRESENTATION? We assume when you even use the word, "God", that you imply WE know that you are not simply using a term, like an algebraic, "X", to question. You are assuming we already know and believe that such an entity exists and would opt to do it in a way that ANY CON could do for willing to write such a book, that its content is even CAPABLE of validating the integrity of the very book it begs is valid. You don't follow still? Then I'll tell you straight forward, that I AM GOD. I did not write nor inspire others to write, that book. What I say here is true. AND, if you don't believe me, invest in the time to prove that I am not ... for I am enjoying your arrogance and would love to play along.

I don't have a problem with Immigration, bush_cheney2004. I think it should be done with permanence unless it is simply as a 'vacation', for being 'temporary'.

P.S. The temporary work could be akin to 'work vacations' where wealthy citizens here would go to third world places to both work, learn of cultures, and still get paid to survive while there. But those coming here are not intended to serve to fulfill those needed jobs that we aren't taking in reality unless it is out of trivial intent in kind to those work vacationers abroad. So they are not only not 'desperate' but may merely take such jobs here while they can see what they could possibly do to invest here AND find some hope to be permanent, rather than 'temporary' as this is likely sold.

Our "temporary worker" policy occurred in the Conservative's reign to which they would likely have a profit motive in mind but usually their usual disapproval of immigrants for other issues raises doubt about this. The 'temporary' status of this however, and to the fact that poor people from other nations would not actually be the real ones to come over here means that it is an exploit intended for another reason. They likely expected the wealth that HAS come over. As soon as this sudden population occurred a couple years ago here in Saskatoon (August 2012/13?) most of the people I'm aware of as such (neighbors) have more fortune than the average middle class already here. There's no way that they could afford such luxuries that I'm witnessing personally on McJobs! This is NOT the same thing as Mexicans crossing the border that ARE poor and require the same McJobs out of desperation.

Cool. Like I said, I can't confidently back any one economic ideal but do believe that if we at least discuss it, others will listen and hopefully play their own role at trying to be responsible too. If that link was only one point in determining what IS or is NOT a 'recession', I can't argue their specific definition as this is a political/economic term only. A 'recession' can be a term to merely describe people not spending money when the majority could actually be generally 'happy' for what they already have. Spending, even where more are desperate can be considered a 'good' economy only because those in business define it this way.

Ownership is becoming consolidated and today large businesses are more capable than ever of acting in ways that can intellectually hide their accountability. The jam example likely hints at a sincere monopoly. You can't assert we can buy what is not even being presented AS available. This is what the link in the OP represents for the stocking. They are pushing least quality products when in either monopoly or virtual forms of it and holding back the better quality to just enhance a false need for increased demand. It is thus not naturally 'free', but contrived only to 'appear' this way.

The pretense of things being 'fine' economically when they are NOT. You no doubt live in a nice self-owned house, have two cars, and two kids but believe you represent the 'repressed' for having to pay taxes no matter how well off you could be doing. [not accusing you, just a statement of the average conservative supporter.] But we ALL have to pay attention. If you also feed into trend to capitalize in these ways, you become part of the problem too. I don't even "know" which political ideal is 'ideal' but know that the present conditions here are what occurred in the U.S. already and we are not noticing or ignoring it.

I don't even KNOW what "Maui ribs" are. I assure you, supply has been limited to more than simply jam or meat. It is to all products lately. This is why you have to recognize how the supply-side is being NON-competitive and likely a hint of the monopolies that are actually occurring. Much of this is hidden by companies creating multiple brands merely to create the illusion of non-monopoly conditions. But when you notice how high normal-demand products are limited this way, the stocking of them is suspicious at least. Take chocolate as another example. The quality of chocolate has been drastically reduced in the last few years when we actually had previous high qualities for almost a decade. I pay attention to the details. For instance, there used to be a chocolate bar called, "Zero" which had luxury Belgian chocolate and in high demand. The company, however, was 'silently' bought out by Kraft AND without the recipe with it. Kraft denied it but were on record doing this. Then the same bars were switched to the new low quality chocolate (bait and switch). I noticed immediately but the bars remained on the shelves for about a year before the loyal chocolate lovers realized the con. The same occurred with Becel's product line, "I can't believe it's not Butter". They had increased their quality up to about 2008 when suddenly they changed their product to a lower quality version that no longer tasted like butter. They asserted that people 'demanded' this change but the taste was clearly too different. Then later, Becel came out with the same identical flavor but now in their "Becel" brand when people complained about it. This too is a "bait-and-switch" tactic intended to diminish the quality AND raise the prices at the same time. I could go on. But I'm totally disgusted by today's blatant abuses of the public. And I have to ask, what do you think in regards to the other issues I raised of creating false demand through the 'temporary worker' project? This too is a form of shaping success non-competitively. They falsely created the illusion of population that put pressure as a demand against the population's interest. It favored the 'demand' of the greedy construction and real estate industries, but to the disadvantage of the population, as we'll soon realize when the mortgages begin to default in the next few years.

Yes, I am fine on my own. And I simply refuse to bother buying what is being forced on us where I am able to. But speaking up will at least encourage others to speak up too without thinking they are simply only interpreting their own similar conditions as merely "local". This is what the conservative is attempting to hide. They don't like the skepticism that might threaten their own bottom line as they jump into the con KNOWING they are as guilty for participating in this scheme.

'She' cherry picks WHAT she will permit to be questioned. X is required to prove Y She will attempt to argue for some Y she feels confident of answering but not to the nature of X since it isn't in her list of 'proofs' she demands to be answered first as if this matters.

msj, As to the meat, NO, the prices are NOT lower! They also have limited the range of qualities. AND, to give another example, what was considered, "lean" or "extra lean" for beef, is NOT what they claim considering I've had to dump unusual amounts of grease when cooking these now. As to the jam, THERE IS NO SASKATOON BERRY JAM for ANY location here. I'm guessing by your defensiveness that you have your own preference for the present status? ...or not noticing? ...or relatively fortunate?

Funny example: I kept my last jar (empty) of "Last Mountain's Old Fashioned Saskatoon Berry" jam to try to seek out why here in Saskatoon we have no supply when it is in such high demand. The site, "CanadasFood.com", asserts you can even locate this by indicating your region in the list. Our jam supposedly is from berries grown locally too. Yet, the site does not even HAVE Saskatoon listed anymore! Of all places, what would the likelihood that our shelves are specifically denied "Saskatoon Berry" jam IN the city of Saskatoon? Would you, msj, think this is some mere proof of lack of demand? I think rather that the company has some deal to withhold their product even though IN DEMAND to sell us less desirable stock instead. I just contacted them now by email to see if they'll respond. Since they appear to be a collective company, I'm guessing jam by this company is still being sold here but via another lesser brand-named version and to the less demanded flavors.

No, "lack of sales" is NOT the only reason for not selling product. This is only 'true' if the products are NOT in demand. Take how food, like meat, gets tossed out rather than to reduce the price for consumers instead. You see the shelves filled with mostly unfresh sources. Do you suppose that people are just all collectively quitting meat to become vegetarians? And this has been done for too long. I also notice other quality of food products for instance that are in high demands being limited from being sold altogether to force people to choose what is 'next' available with inevitably lower demand.

"Deluge" == to flood, or overwhelm one with such depth in kind to one, such as your expectation to require others to answer ALL your supposed evidence with the requirement that we MUST go swimming in your supposed ocean of evidence you feign credibility for. You're tactic is to evade answering questions by those on the shore hoping they take a swim out to your depth so that you can 'drown' them in superfluous never exhausting claims of supposed 'evidence'. Answer the simplest question(s): If you won't even allow me one answer intrinsic in your claims, how could anyone expect any number of 'cumulative' claims? Is there any possible evidence one could possibly present to disprove even ONE of your supposedly challenging proofs?

I interpret the link in the OP as presenting the fact that the 'suppliers' are withholding product or services for things competitively. As such, this is an indicator of trouble. When the suppliers lack concern to require trading by stocking up, this indicates they have confidence to withhold actual competition by the very 'free market' to which they most likely also lobby the strongest for. This indicates stronger ownership (or 'power of control', in general) to fewer people who are holding the majority hostage by forcing them to accept their terms. Then we start to see junk quality goods and services being imposed upon us with lesser real options. This IS happening. Then inflation takes hold as the greed escalates by others using their own powers to do the same as they don't want to miss on the same potential profiting when they can in their own luxury. The propaganda attempts to dismiss these concerns is as flawed because it is in the very interest of those in power to deflate the doubt within the majority because it means they would demand more government controls and regulations against such forces. We ARE in a recession right now. It is a continuation of the previous case but is being continuously transferred between political borders like a hot potato. Example? (my own biased hypothesis here) The scandal of Target to have set up in Canada precisely when they were breached of security in the U.S. . Why would they open up shop here when they had such a loss? We have an agreement in our two countries (among others) that assert any corporate entity or 'ownerships' remain "domestic". Before, a Canadian company in the U.S. and vice versa were enabled to treat those entities as liable to their own sovereignty. So a company BEFORE had to go bankrupt in their own country should they establish base in another. However, with those like Target, their established setup here in Canada was likely NOT meant to be permanent but to transfer the debt of the losses from the U.S. entity to us as Canadians through their bankruptcy here. This means Target (U.S.) was 'saved' by transferring their losses to us. This is just one example of what I mean by passing the hot potato. But this is occurring everywhere and it cannot be kept up continuously. The problems of the mortgage bubbles in the U.S. IS happening NOW here!! I warned of this when I noticed our population suddenly increased dramatically here in Saskatoon via the "Temporary Worker" laws. They were intentionally designed to draw false population pressure by their apparent 'temporary' demand on housing. As such, our rents (and thus mortgages) all went up fast. The expectation of those exploiting this here has to do with those in construction-related industries using this to create new income. But such growth in housing WITHOUT any actual growth in other Prime Industries, is like staging a new Reservation up North with housing but with no economy to keep it going. This is a Ponzi scheme. The "Temporary workers" were sold on us as means for others to come here to fulfill jobs that we here supposedly wouldn't take. It treated the situation as though McDonalds was unable to get people here to work for them so desperately needed foreign workers to 'temporarily' fulfill these menial positions. BUT, how the hell does this get 'sold' to the foreigner? Certainly this cannot appeal to the desperately poor of some place like Ethiopia who need some job they can't get even there at their home and are so desperate for. If this was the case, you have to ask HOW could a poor person from such an impoverished country AFFORD to even come here to get such a job? Then, HOW could such poor people even be able to expect to save on some McJob to send home OR to even afford the ticket back? It doesn't make sense without it actually having a hidden motive.....to entice actual wealthy people who DON"T need McJobs to come here and buy up or invest in those construction industries. Such a 'temporary worker' is thus more likely to be the wealthier of those foreign countries expecting to come here to buy a real piece of Canada either expecting latter "non-temporary" status, or to go home with the money earned from their investments leaving the country via things like expected rent or other sales. The construction industries here, including real estate owners capitalize on the exchanges quickly. It is not a concern that such a thing could collapse since if this occurs, it is the foreign 'owner' now at default and so these become available as foreclosures when everything collapses and the very industries that capitalized on this scheme can buy BACK these at even cheaper prices to recycle the whole thing again. It's a win-win for the most powerful, such as those like Trump, for instance. And in general, we ALL pay for this as such schemes create a false sense of demand to which those in other services then control and limit the supply making the majority to require paying more for less.

I ask this often yet many don't seem to recognize that there is clarity to the question. They think that what is defaulted as "good" is unquestionable but what is "bad" is all that is necessary to challenge. Then you point out how relative these assigned qualities are by showing how what one considers 'good' can necessarily BE 'bad' to another without distinction UNLESS one or the other is somehow 'Superior' by nature itself. If one asserts some virtuous right to some 'favorable' stereotype with exclusion of only those that are 'unfavorable', then it follows that one might find it 'favorable' as a stereotype to BE hateful for themselves if even just for their own self-serving preferences. Then not even racism is 'wrong' because you'd be offending their supposed "nature" to BE racist as a cultural trait they inherited! So your assertion is completely sensible. If anyone asserts we need to preserve some 'culture' for the sake of it being there by some ancestor's characteristic behaviors, then it doesn't matter WHAT their particular 'culture' is, ...even if it is hateful of others, should be equally preserved. It is not possible, therefore, to think that ALL cultures are 'equal' to some WHOLE, in 'value'. But inversely, it wouldn't be fair either then to assume ANY specific culture is even better than any other nor worse. Thus, I say we have to remove ALL political laws that either favor OR disfavor people based on some specific culture other than to the absolute individual OR to the collective whole. Governments should embrace the stance of the American's First Amendment asserting that no laws should be made to be of, for, nor against "religion"....(one component of 'culture'). We should then extend this idea politically to "Culture" in general. This is why I don't like our Canadian Constitution. It 'favors' specific groups and 'disfavors' by default, the individual as well as the whole. Groups in between these extremes can still voluntarily exist but those who command forceful compliance to their own in-group upon the whole have to be sacrificed their own biased preference to impose their beliefs upon others in law. All that we have to consider politically are those particular factors that distinguish REAL differences. A "Women's issue" politically can be limited to literal biological factors related to them that they are unable to change regardless. But to think, for instance, that we might make a law that 'favors' women to something arbitrarily cultural, like having some intrinsic special right to wear high heels, for instance, should either not be promoted in law OR at least not to specifically dismiss all others (like men) to have anything limiting their own right to the same thing. Many 'feminists' would appear to agree to my last sentence by asserting that it IS alright for men to opt to wear high heels, right? But if we had some law that specifically says that it is a "hate crime" to dismiss WOMEN for wearing high heels if they chose to wear them, this specific law is not something needed to protect women as a class but to be extended to ALL people in general. I use this example in thinking about those cases where one might argue that someone is being 'hateful' or discriminatory against a women should she be wearing highly revealing clothing in the context of some environment where another presumes she is intentionally dressing to express some intent that causes unwelcome behavior. If a women should be allowed to 'dress as she wishes' in public, with exceptional privilege to bias, what distinguishes this behavior from anyone else to 'dress as he wishes' with equal expectations. Can I as a male opt to walk around without clothes (dress as I wish)? Not even all women would expect this behavior of other women. So such a law of 'etiquette' is arbitrary and more about 'culture'. If we admit a law that no one should be allowed to go naked in public, while 'cultural' in this sense, it would have to be one created universally for everyone, not simply just for one sub-group over another. So we have to be cautious of commanding special acceptance of some particular group based on some 'culture' whether 'favorable' or not as irrelevant to politics OR that political body IS being sufficiently biased to warrant others to disagree openly. "Hate crimes" would then themselves be equally "hateful" without sincere distinction.

I can deluge you with a thousand pages of 'proof' and then DEMAND that you have the burden to read it prior to questioning me, correct? But this is a 'forum' with the idea that we interact with one another specifically. If you want ME to prove something else you asserted is somehow 'wrong' as a WHOLE, you are just being dishonest here. If I can't even BEGIN to challenge you upon the simplest initial points I've asked of you here, you are purposely being evasive and attempting to dismiss any real challenge. If you want me OR others to actually competently challenge you, why are you evading such a simple set of opening questions I have for you up front? You necessarily require explaining how ANY source, like YOUR Bible, has special significance as a book intending to PROVE the existence of some 'god' when there are an unlimited set of other religions which also claim the identical same things of their own 'sacred' texts. I even give you charity here if you want to begin with the Judao-Christian texts but you have just dismissed me because you are certainly unwilling to take the simple questions that need to be responded to first. Your 'bible' is a BOOK and comes later than many other texts, including the whole history of Egypt's records that came long before Judaism. In fact, I can definitively prove with better clarity that your religion is an evolution of Egypt's history (as well with many other pre-Jewish cultures). Tell me if you expect that one must require disproving each and every possible claim that you make to demonstrate your 'proof'. If you do, then do you also retain some right to simply ADD another one if all such arguments were disproven? I'm guessing that if you have 100 arguments, that should anyone prove all 100 faulty, that you'd simply add another 100 and expect us to then DISPROVE those without end? Is there ANY means that ANYONE could possibly DISPROVE your belief or claims with closure (with certainty, that is)?