Michael Hardner

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.

1. Support? What do you mean by it? It's a function of their policy, not sure what there is to support. I'm not up on the lastest on this issue, but there have been allegations of abuse. I'm not sure what you're looking for, but... I don't "support" the politicization of different security institutions, such as the FBI, RCMP, CIA etc. They should be allowed to operate without interference. 2. No, criminals who aren't citizens should be deported, generally...

1. Well what's to lose then? 2. That's the problem. We all decide for ourselves but officially... there's no way to do it satisfactorily. 3. No, I know what I saw. The Rebel video was cut off, and didn't show the full story. Keep defending them if you want. I prefer accountability.

1. I offered a truce on the other thread. 2. No I don't.

I don't think so. I'll tell you what, let's call a truce and I'll take you off ignore. No more insults from either one of us. Then we can continue... It's better for me than scrolling back and reopening this...

Here's a fun piece about the time Postmedia journalists voted to keep The Rebel out of the Alberta Press Gallery... The Rebel isn't serious media, it's more of that smug clickbait that needs to go away. Postmedia withdraws from the Alberta Legislature Press Gallery after conceding an embarrassing bunfight with The Rebel.

1. No, I ask people to not insult and give warning. 2. I remember discussing The Rebel, not me being dishonest but I likely stopped talking to you and put you on ignore if you called me a liar...

1. Once again, you can't discuss something without making it about me personally. 2. I don't know what you're referring to but nobody believes that The Rebel even tries to be objective. They're not respected in serious quarters.

Well it's pretty hard to argue cold statistics against a picture that's obvious, and a literal picture of brutal looking criminals, all immigrants. But it's possible. Immigration will never be zero. And criminals will always get in. You'd need more to establish want went wrong with these criminals and the system. I'm always interested in having a serious conversation, but last time I tried people insisted on making the discussion about me and my failings, and when I asked them to be more serious they told me that I didn't like people who disagree with me. I do think that you're a better poster than most in this regard for whatever it's worth.

Ha, I missed that...

I framed it in the sentence before.

Did you see the map I posted? Pretty much every government sponsors media... Because corporate media has its own biases just as government media does. Thinking people can hear both sides and make up their minds. But if you're only hearing corporate media, you're going to end up with a situation where corporations have too much power. And you won't even be aware of it.

It's not either/or. If you're a conservative who believes in law and order, you want them both in jail.