LonJowett
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LonJowett
-
-
I got my facts wrong.
Hopefully this time you didn't send out the mail to five U.S. senators yet.
-
And who doesn't drink on Christmas Eve? I sure was.
Exactly. And who doesn't regularly call 911 (or have people call it on them) when they've been drinking? We've all been there.
-
On the other hand, there's the one about the public swimming pool in BC that hired a lifeguard. On the opening day, Victoria Day, a swimmer drowned. Someone questioned how good a job the lifeguard did.
Management answered: "He speaks French. That's his qualification".
Too bad you can't cite your imagination when you make up stuff.
-
That's fine. But don't pretend that they're just getting money they've paid in. That isn't the case.
I'm not pretending that. You're the one who brought it up. The point is they are entitled to it, just as someone whose house burns down is entitled to insurance.
-
31 > 28.
I didn't say the "lowest ever in historically". Just so you know, "historically low" would mean that, on average, comparing rates through history, they are low---it doesn't mean they are "the lowest". Economists use the same terminology for interest rates, etc.
Glad to help you out so you don't make such a foolish mistake again.
-
I'm not saying that isn't fair, or unfair. But it's a fact.
They're also entitled to it because that was the deal when they paid in.
-
How about looking prior to the 1920s as well? Anyways, the fact that rates were at 28% by definition proves your claim of 31% being historically low as completely false. It's fact. There's no arguing it. Math doesn't lie. Only you do.
So interest rates are not historically low right now because last year they were lower?
Yes, you could leave the modern era entirely and look at tax rates in the stone age too. But that might not be a logical or fair comparison.
But you shouldn't call people liars when you've been proven a fool. It's unbecoming and against forum rules.
-
Again, are you saying it's meant to only pay back what you put in?
-
More nonsense. It wasn't historically low. That's just not true.
Look at the link. See what the rates were in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Don't just cherry-pick one figure that lasted for two years.
Then apologize profusely for not knowing what you're talking about.
-
Employment insurance doesn't work the same way as car or house insurance. Sounds like you're unclear.
You're saying you're only supposed to get money back that you pay in?
-
Ok... Seems to be corroborated by Dre's post too...
Not really. The link said it was 50% in '86, 38.5% in '87, and 28% in '88 when Reagan was no longer in office. Bush found that irresponsible and unsustainable, and despite his "read my lips" promise, raised it to a more moderate (but still historically very low) level.
-
It's only your money for so long. After a number of months, you're no longer collecting your money back. You're collecting money that you haven't paid in.
Sounds like you're unclear on the concept of "insurance." If your house burns down, is any extra money you collect beyond the premiums you've paid not really "your" money?
-
views with religious fervor, so I try avoid posters like that. But champion your causes, there is no harm in that.
So you're saying there's no point in listing for you all the people in and associated with Obama's administration who have lobbied or worked for Goldman Sachs (and the like) because you've decided he is a far-left socialist and nothing will change your mind?
-
I have a question for you. Do you ever, like, log off this forum and kick back or something?
So the only rebuttal you have for people is they post too little or they post too much? Wow. Talk about having nothing to add.
-
Oh come on. At least make the attempt. Obama's complete history, supporters, appointees, legislation and pronouncements against 'big business' all run counter to your claim.
You mean like the people from Goldman Sachs in his administration?
I can see why you consistently try to avoid providing sources and verifiable facts in your posts. That would just make it more obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Geez Waldo, it's pretty obvious that you blindly accept stories/data that supports whatever position you're taking on an issue.
It's pretty obvious that you blindly dismiss people who disagree with whatever position you're taking on an issue as Al Gore-loving nazis.
-
And critics will always spread misinformation.
Yes, you have proven that again.
-
This thread was funny.
-
I agree with August. It's Mark Steyn or nothing. He is the only acceptable rightist.
-
Actually, a more accurate barometer of state control over individuals' lives is the government's willingness to interfere in private citizens' daily habits and concerns.
Arguing for the continued prohibition of mariguana would make someone a "statist" on an almost fascist level, I would think.
-
I have defended HRCs in the past, but this is the kind of Orwellian decision that shouldn't happen ever. It's thought control of the stupidest kind, and it's things like this that really shake my confidence in them.
Are you opposed to them bleeping out the N-word in rap songs too? Personally I think commercial radio should bleep whatever words you don't want a five year old repeating in Kindergarten. It's not Orwellian mind control. It's basic manners and etiquette.
-
Why do they even need to spend money to advertise at all? All they have to do is just ignore all religions. To fund-raise and to advertise as a collective group clearly indicate that an atheist is now no longer just a description of someone who don't believe in the existence of God.....but clearlyt is a group believing in the non-existence of God. It is another "religion."
Atheists always believed god doesn't exist. That's why they call them atheists.
And they promote their cause because they believe religion is the source of a cancerous irrational mindset that has led to bloodshed and exploitation more than it has led to good works and civility.
-
The movie Death of a President, which portrays the assassination of George W. Bush should have caused someone to follow through by now if this convoluted logic is to be true.
Give me a break. If there were an assassination attempt on Bush after that stupid movie came out, you'd have your diapers in a knot and you know it.
-
RTC states passed the laws regardless of "the debate".
And, obviously, regardless of the effectiveness.
Mayor Ford calls 911 on CBC comedians
in Local Politics in Canada
Posted
I just read it for the first time. I can see why you would want it to go away.