Michael Hardner

Yes, the world existed. The Libya thing... wow I can barely remember... I think there was a civil war that they were helping to tip over but it was internationally based. So... might makes right maybe by committee on that one.

1. Uh... well there's no way to assess the truth of that statement. "Love" a war ? Trump and the entire Tea Party seemed to be pretty bullish on peace, by their statements so it's hard to reconcile that. 2. The most recent "debacle" I would say, militarily, was a withdrawal... from Afghanistan. 3. It's not like they're never in favour of war but what was the stated reason ? WMDs.

It doesn't matter who they're against, might makes right. The thing about that principle I find confusing, is if someone buys into it.... It can be used to define any action or relationship they take part in. It says that the entity decides for themselves without external directive. I'm just exploring this because it's kind of a new idea to me, for it to be openly adopted as a Principal of international relations. Then again, maybe this isn't open. I haven't made my mind up about a lot of aspects of this

It's been submitted that we're in a "might makes right" world now. That may be, but the superpowers won't be able to stay on top without a modicum of principles and goodwill. The American people themselves supported foreign adventures when they were either: -In support of American values -Self-defense

You're talking about wages though. GDP has grown by a lot.

1. I don't know if it's the incident I saw video for. I made my claim thinking that I would be able to find the supporting clip. 2. My mistake. 3. I'm being honest. Not playing games. Admitting to errors in a discussion is honest. Few here do that, so I'm sure it's baffling. 4. I'll keep looking. Would you also admit that I have some basis for my suspicions based on the fractious nature of this reporter conducting his business? You haven't commented on my answers in the last post regarding his arrest, violation of peace bond? I would say that you should be acknowledging my points instead of not saying anything. I admitted many posts ago that I submitted a claim evidence and that's all you're talking about. Are you just trying to win? Or have a discussion? From above: "Sure... but if I produce evidence, I would say you have to comment on that instead of just asking me another question. Now you asking me questions post after post and not responding to mine... that would be a game. I remember Menzies from arrests in 2024. Looks like He was arrested 3 times January to April but charges weren't laid in every case: https://www.barrietoday.com/police-beat/no-charge-laid-in-incident-that-sparked-freedom-of-the-press-debate-8091418 https://globalnews.ca/news/10365546/police-arrest-two-at-protest-that-delayed-trudeau-event-including-rebel-news-host/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/04/08/man-arrested-for-disrupting-pro-israel-demonstration/"

I'm going to leave the part about a high percentage of admissions based on applicants because I have no dispute to your points. 1. They brought in for humanitarian purposes so this isn't surprising 2. We can afford them at some level, likely a higher level than we could a generation ago. If we're just discussing levels of refugees, again, I don't think I have much to dispute with you.

I don't know if you missed it but I was saying just that.

1. No, I'm not. It's easy to phrase questions in such a way that they're ambiguous, and when I ask you to rephrase, it should be easy for you to do so. I don't "support" or "unsupport" ICE, is my answer. Move on. 2. Yes, I think I already said that I agree that illegal immigrants can and should be deported. You already asked that. Ok, I have no questions for you and I have answered your question, let's continue on the other thread about The Rebel. We're making progress, thanks for rewarding your question.

1. I think the previous video started later, so this at least shows there's more to it. 2. 3. From 1. 2. 3. of my previous post, I asserted that I don't have evidence to back up my claim. " I don't have video evidence" 4. Well, if I was playing games wouldn't I try to say that I have evidence, or that I made my point ? No. I failed to prove my claim. That's some game I'm playing, to admit failure... 5. I'm not retracting my claim that such an event exists, just saying I can't prove it so - no - I don't expect you to believe. I'm not retracting my claim about Menzies having dubious tactics in his journalism, nor that The Rebel is an unserious outfit. 6. Sure... but if I produce evidence, I would say you have to comment on that instead of just asking me another question. Now you asking me questions post after post and not responding to mine... that would be a game. I remember Menzies from arrests in 2024. Looks like He was arrested 3 times January to April but charges weren't laid in every case: https://www.barrietoday.com/police-beat/no-charge-laid-in-incident-that-sparked-freedom-of-the-press-debate-8091418 https://globalnews.ca/news/10365546/police-arrest-two-at-protest-that-delayed-trudeau-event-including-rebel-news-host/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/04/08/man-arrested-for-disrupting-pro-israel-demonstration/ 7. I think he was charged with violating a Peace Bond also. 8. Yeah, violating a peace bond is obviously a chargeable offense, no Police attempt to 'Silence Rebel News' would be necessary there, he was outside the law.

You're calling them out for not being true to their purpose of helping the "little guy", therefore...

1. I don't know, I just find it hard to respond to whether I support a security group. 2. How is asking questions "playing games"? What do I achieve by asking questions, other than getting back a better way to respond to YOUR question, which I assume that you still want an answer to? 3. Okay, but I think you liked one of the answers I provided above right? So we are getting somewhere.

There was a podcast I heard on this appr, maybe it was The Economist... and the costs to make an impact on fertility rates with the kinds of domestic subsidies you're describing are higher than just daycare funding. People would still choose 1 or 2 kids max because of the salary loss, so you'd have to subsidize the salary gap too. I think South Korea is doing something like that.

Yes, this is true also. But the population does go up. If we want to re-invent our thinking about economics, I would be very happy for that to happen. Unfortunately, though, I would say that a re-do on that level would require someone who understands the status quo well enough to understand what works today. And that gives us... guess who... I'm not sure that I trust Carney to lead a re-do given that he is marinated in Keynesian secret sauce from birth. You could go 1000% the other way and sign up for MMT and space-age whirlygigs like that... basically print money when you need it and stop printing when you don't. Easy right ? The thing that gives me heart is that populism is at the core a workers' movement and the easiest path to success would be for it to revitalize, not destroy, our institutions. Cutting taxes sounds great... but it's not going to bring good-paying jobs on its own. But ... interesting ideas.

This sounds basically reasonable. They DO interview applicants though not in every case. I can't comment on the refugee system, if you want to give a cite I'll read that. I agree with deporting criminals but I don't think it's reasonable to not give any welfare to refugees as they come here with nothing much at all, basically beggars.

I have been harping on this for awhile now. Thanks to a few analysts like Peter Zeihan it's getting some attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate According to the UN, 65 out of 237 countries have greater than 2.7 fertility rate.

I just don't know what you mean by "support"? I try to answer as best I can. Am I happy about it? Would I donate money to ICE? Do I approve of everything they do? It could be any of these questions or more. What do you think it means to support a government function or department? Asking honestly...

1. I don't have it. It was either a different camera shot of the same incident, or a different incident. 2. From that other video. 3. I'm not saying I was wrong, I just say that I don't have video evidence. Whatever video I saw, I can't find now. I would say that there is evidence that this reporter, or so-called reporter, gets arrested regularly for these kind of agitations, such as disturbing, the peace or violating peace Bond. And then he reports on it. I can't think of another legitimate press vehicle that does that.

1. Ok well then that's the discrepancy. That reporter has been involved in a few similar incidents, where he's been charged with breaking the piece, etc. Personally, I get suspicious of such things. 2. No evidence either way on that clip. 3. I saw a different perspective than what I just posted. But again, it might even be a different incident from the same guy. 4. No, I do not.

1. I am not balking. You expect me to answer yes to the question of whether I support madness? Am I allowed to disagree with anything and not have a characterized as madness? My problem is with people using specific incidents as a basis for broad generalizations. If you say that I can't do that, and have to admit to supporting madness then I don't know what to tell you. You would basically be calling me a liar for not supporting your framing of my beliefs and my methods as madness. 2. If I obfuscate, it means I'm trying to muddy the waters and stop the discussion. I'm not but I don't support the initial framing... It could be said that I'm avoiding a version of the discussion that starts with a premise I disagree with. 3. You accuse me of playing games when: -I answer -I respond to questions -I ask clarifying questions -I answer again -I give an answer you seem to agree with Anyway, what else do we have. 4. I support a country enforcing its laws however they do so according to laws. Of course, I'm a bleeding heart so I want them to be as humane as possible. But I don't think I have a right to tell them how to govern...

Full video of the incident, however it shot by The Rebel and the camera is pointed away from the reporter When the incident occurs ... 5:20.

1. I absolutely deny playing games. 2. I just would like people to be less angry and more rational, on all sides, when they look at issues. That's my preferred way for such things to decline out of existence, and that has happened in the past a few times. 3. Okay well maybe I did something wrong there. I watched the first bit of the video that you posted but not the whole thing. The one I saw looked a lot more like he ran out of vehicle that was holding the Prime Minister and the security people went after him. So I will admit I didn't give the rebel video a full viewing and that wasn't fair. 4. I deny acting in a dishonest way. I'll go back and see if there is something else on the video that I missed.

1. Yes, I fully admit I do that. Your question about ICE doesn't have anything to do with how I look at those things. I am much more about how things are discussed versus the conclusion. If you arrive at a conclusion different from mine, but you use principles and sound logic, there's nothing I can say. 2. My motives aren't as you state. I'm not trying to obfuscate or win an argument. 3. It still isn't clear. Support them in their enforcement? That can be read so many ways. I think they have the right to enforce immigration laws, so does that mean I support them? If they break the law in their duties and I object to that, is that wrong? I don't think it is. 4. Obviously the country has a right to deport people who haven't come here through legitimate channels. Now, I did answer your first question. And now I've answered the second question on this. Do you think I'm dodging still? Or are we making some progress here in the back and forth? I feel like the best I can hope for is for you to I'm not think I'm lying.

Implicit in this, is that you support the STATED goals of Western social democratic parties. 🤔

My thoughts also. Shouldn't happen.