dialamah

People who bring home six-figure incomes, even after taxes, whining because people who bring home half or less than that before taxes don't pay enough, or that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't make enough money. Can you spell entitlement? Me me me me! Give me more and take away from those people! Perhaps instead of focusing on how unfair life is for you, be grateful you were born with the health, intelligence and drive to get where you are and that you live in a society where your hard work does result in reward and sucess beyond what most of the world's people can even fathom. Perhaps recognize that your success is due to many factors beyond your control, as well as those that are. Appreciate what you have and what you were given, instead of crying that its not enough and not "fair". Remind yourself that life isn't fair, but that you are doing pretty fucking good anyway. And if you ever complain about some Millenial's entitled attitude, maybe look in the mirror to see where they've learned that.

So I did. There is both income inequality and wealth inequality in Canada, though the disparity is not as great as it is in the States. According to statiatics collected by OECD, Canada's income inequality is a little better than the States, ranking .322 on the Gini coefficient, compared to .391 for the States. Ontario and BC are the worst provinces, ranking only above the States and Austrailia. Income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s in Canada, but the trend slowed in the 2000s. In Canada, the top 10% make 9 times what the bottom 10% make, while in the States the top 10% make 19 times what the bottom 10% make.

I like the idea of eliminating special tax credits and the simplicity of your suggested tax structure. I have no issue with everyone paying taxes; what I have issue with is the notion that paying more taxes entitles someone to more "power". Our current system already rewards people who have more money with more power and I see no reason that they should have even more power. It's already not really working out well for those on the bottom of the economic ladder and we need burger flippers, retail sales clerks and janitors just as much as we need accountants, stock brokers or politicians, so why should one group be entitled to more votes than the other? "Spitting insults" made me laugh.

Orphans, the infirm, seniors? "Get a job". If I were a too poor to vote working folk, serving you your burgers, cleaning your home and office, selling you your clothing, selling you your gas, watching your kids while you make your "enough to vote" wage, let me spit in your food when I serve it, and destroy your property when I'm not working my shit job that you don't want and don't want to pay a decent wage for someone else to do. You don't give a fuck about me, why should I give a fuck about you? Poor little rich man, taking home 3 or 4 times what the average working person does, crying the blues. Do you have any idea how greedy and callous you sound?

How would such a system protect the people that don't pay taxes and have no say in how the country was run?

Oh, did I keep you waiting while I pursued my real life, which includes work, outside of this forum? EXcuuuuse me for keeping your royal self waiting. \s Regardless of the rationalizations hypocritical Christians attempt to make, it is still hypocritocal to disaprove of Biblically-forbidden activities, use that to condemn some people (ie: Bill Clinton) and then ignore the same behavior in someone else while singing their praises (ie: Donald Trump). Your long list of reasons/excuses don't change that basic hypocrisy.

Didn't see a link. Not making an argument, making a comment. Not all Christians are hypocritical; most who disapprove of adultery/homosexuality/fornication and who believe it's important to follow Biblical principles also disapprove of Trump.

And so you support and admire adulterers? I can understand praying for them, given your beliefs, but not so actively supporting and admiring them.

This bizarre thread against homosexuality started by the same person who enthusiastically supports and admires an adulterer, also forbidden by God and the Bible. How do you reconcile such glaring hypocrisy?

These are not at all like voting. There is no danger to life and limb, even if you don't think NDP should be allowed to govern.

Plenty of adults also vote NDP. I think someone voting as you "wouldn't because you are older now and know better" doesn't equal a mistake, only a difference of opinion.

Ooops post

How does that translate into a mistake, though? Should people never change their ideology, or vote differently then they have in the past?

How would you know if it's a mistake? At any given time, somewhere between 30% and 50% think the current government (whoever it is) got voted in by mistake.

If there's one thing you can count on a junkie to do, its getting to a polling station. /s

I support initiatives that encourage young people of all colors to vote, and I am one of those "old, white" people she's talking about. Of course, if young and/or brown people vote en-mass for DoFo, she'll probably regret that particular suggestion.

No one has said physical conditioning and strength aren't important. Why would you think that?

I've never removed my clothes when washing or massaging someone's feet. When I went to a Mosque in Cairo, there was lots of foot washing going on, but nobody removed any clothing except their shoes. Anyway, Jesus recognized and accepted homosexuals as evidenced by his reference to "Eunuchs who were born that way" in Matthew 19. That is how gay people were referenced in that time period. In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.

Those who think feats of strength are the only or main criteria by which soldiers should be qualified.

For soldiering and policing, weapons make physical prowess less of a factor. Hand-to-hand combat and wielding a sword are much less fashionable than they used to be. Female police officers bring certain social and negotiating skills that that reduce the incidence of deadly force. http://m.policemag.com/blogpost/724/how-to-recruit-female-officers https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/more-female-cops-will-benefit-american-policing/ Those same skills can be useful in a soldier, and women are not automatically less physically able than males for combat. https://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/ The Army War College has published a paper "What Women Bring to the Fight" which also talks about the better social skills of women being a benefit, and also adresses the concern of female's lack of physical ability and gives the following examples out of many: The paper also points out the military doesn't have a single standard that applies across the board, gender-normed standards follow the tradition of age-normed standards, which allows older men to qualify for service despite an age-related reduction in physical ability compared to young men.

Merely pointing out that women can be effective soldiers.

YPJ - All female army in Syria fights ISIS. Canadian woman joins YPJ to fight ISIS.

Didn't we already agree that the court made the right decision? Clearly, you aren't one of those who would support laws limiting free speech (criticism of Isreal, boycott of businesses) while at the same time condemning students for preventing others from speaking. I have said before, and will repeat, that I don't agree with students making it impossible for someone to speak through violence or interrupting a speaker with noise, or yelling etc. But I fully support their right to object through peaceful means - letters, petitions, standing around outside a venue with signs, things like that. Perhaps we actually agree here?

That isn't how I see them. However you go right on with your assumptions about everyone, especially those you know SFA about. Its just too damn scary for you to look at people as individuals; what if they didn't actually fall into your little stereotyped boxes? Your tiny little mind would blow apart, I suppose.

I guess they'd have that right, eh? We can boycott whomever we wish for whatever reason. And we can argue with people about their reasons, too, if we want to.