Michael Hardner

Muslims are humans and they assimilate fine. Saying that they're unlike every other culture is saying that they're not human.

1. It would be illegal, and not supported. We already have had atrocities against Muslims in Canada that no one seems to remember. 2. Is like you to try to explain why... One ideology explicitly executed a plan to exterminate a religion,, the other is an Abrahamic religion with followers that assimilate, are capable of liberal views...

Should we strip citizenship of anyone who has shown sympathy with Nazi beliefs too? Why isn't anyone suggesting that?

We don't ban religions. It's not going to stop anything.

No.

You set up NATO, back when your leaders were wise and actually led the world ?

Indeed we do. Unlike the US, we weren't born in division... We were born in deferent unity.

Your pessimism has merit. But if the inputs to the system were as the designers assumed - with each stakeholder, knowing that God was watching, acting with a modicum of virtue - the system would work exactly as it did during the olden "good old days". As for the public, if they were getting the benefits of good government and watching with a critical eye, fed by information. Rich media, that would also help.

Not WOODY 😭

It's kind of titfortat though right? The US has made statements and taken actions that elicit an understandable response. How about that? Been there, done it. Camped, saw hockey games, shopped.... All good but we're all done for now.

This daft idea is paywalled...

A lot of attention paid to Coal Mining but it contributes less ($50B in 2021) to the US GDP than foreign Tourism at $180B https://wttc.org/news/us-economy-set-to-lose-12-5bn-in-international-traveler-spend-this-year The US doesn't seem to be thinking these things through. If they want to be isolationist, that's their decision, but what is the value of turning people away ? Is it political ? Doesn't seem that you would win independents with that strategy. Of course, it could just be that the leadership is an empty suit.... COULD be...

Awwww.... don't ask them to CITE from objective reporting ! The President himself doesn't do that. Don't you understand that Executive Orders can apply to facts also...

This is just a coffee shop lament really. State some principles. Also you're on. Ignore here for some reason so posted the other place if you want to chat. Thanks, shady

This is a discussion board. Do you have any thoughts of your own, or just some memes you want to toss out ? Thanks for not trying... I see a lot of value in a collective dispelling of the "bad guys" myth at all levels. This is something that the left and right seize on to manipulate people, and it's pretty uncommon to meet a through-and-through BAD or GOOD person.

I'm flattered that you think you know me. I don't remember you, though. 1. I didn't say that at all. 2. 3. Getting riled up over your assumption of my opinion on something...

Does it matter to you who is taking the land or for what reasons ? The Government also takes land for its own purposes, and sometimes gives it to people it favours... This happens in many countries (in the USA governments have seized land to sell to WalMart - 2 links) although some countries (like China) guarantee the homeowner rights.... see photo. Seems that ideology is susceptible to lower-level politics in such things. https://www.vice.com/en/article/photos-of-chinese-homes-owned-by-people-who-refuse-to-sell/

Ok, how do you determine whether something is trending towards extinction ? Is it the whole culture or essential pillars of it ? I would say 'Western Civilization' is based on Western Philosophies, and basic values of individual freedom set against the values of Abrahamic religions all governed through a forum a well-mediated public sphere. I don't see any of those things pushing towards extinction, exactly, although all of them are being viewed through a new media lens, ie. global internet and social platforms. So, yes, things will change on the surface... how do you decide what needs to stay pristine, if anything does ? How do you decide if things are even going well or not ? I tried to take your POV in a discussion on another thread with User and they made the very arguable case that things are better than ever. ( i recently listened to Steven Pinker's ENLIGHTENMENT NOW which makes a very good case in line with User)

First of all, I thank you for providing a fact-heavy post, even though it's not exactly a 'cite' but your own analysis. I will endeavour to carefully provide my response, in expectation that we are already likely at an 'agree to disagree' point. 1. Yes, exactly. 2. Yes. 3. I don't think that 3. follows from 2. What we do know is that the less wealthy you are, the less you have for 'disposable' income, savings etc. but let me continue to read this.... 4. I did a 5-min calculation and my property tax is about 8.3% of my overall mortgage+city fees costs. (I live in The City of Toronto). That number would go down when you factor in electricity and insurance but there's a benchmark. The thing you have introduced, though, is the question of "high" taxes. Even if you eliminate property taxes, the overall financial burden of maintaining the city remains the same - all other things constant. So now, the question is where does the tax burden fall ? If it's based on a city sales tax, then that presumably taxes goods and services obtained from within the city cachement. That's a big change, and aside from the question of "high" taxes, the question is "Where do the revenues come from under this new system ?" It's not a simple question. 5. Yes, except those funds now have to come from somewhere else now. Who pays more of their income to day-to-day local goods and services ? Someone who has no money at the end of the month, or someone who has a lot ? The former group would have to come from somewhere else. 1-minute Google search says $17B Toronto operating budget comes from taxes in 2025. Our GDP is $430B but I suspect that amounts to everything we produce. Still, that comes out to "Toronto needs 4% of GDP to get by". Can the lowest income people afford a 4% hike and what would be the impact on local economy that way ? 6. Very true and in fact I worked with Olivia Chow as a local/building representative in the 1990s (as a renter) so I know a little about this. Here's the bone I can throw you to actually help your argument: renters pay a HIGHER property tax than home owners in many cases. The formula is a little complicated as I recall, but it could mean that you're right, ie. the setup could be better for renters, ie. many low earners. 7. Well, let me dust off my 'conservative' certificate for a second and say I absolutely agree. But as someone who has worked in large organizations also, I will add: Canadian organizations on the whole are TERRIBLE at budgeting, ie. designing and making a budget. My mantra has always been that more public involvement in the details, such as harnessing the oversight powers of nerds like ourselves, would do wonders to keeping expenses down and deliveing value for $$$. Good chat.

1. Yes, I admit this. But perception rules The day. I will even admit that most of the time I'm on the other side of the line, arguing reality over perception. And your points against me on this are 100% valid. But I also see what somebody like.. @Moonlight Graham means when he talks about everything falling apart in the last hundred years or so.

1. It has a very clear meaning in economics: it means that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy. It's pretty disingenuous for you to claim that it's meaningless, or that it's an opinion. 2. 3. Even though I disagree with the first paragraph that I quoted above, I will ask you politely for a cite for points 2 and 3. You are right about bureaucracy and building taxes though. Government needs to be run more quickly with less bureaucracy, but the politics of that itself is pretty tricky. The person who solves it will be a hero for all.

Wow. No. There's nowhere in my city, the largest in Canada, where I wouldn't walk. If you think America is the same you're lying or delusional.

Not in all respects. And the trend then was people saw things getting better.

This would inevitably result in a regressive taxation system though. 1/2 of the city spends all of the money they earn, so they'd now be underwater by the sales tax amount. The top earners would get a giant tax cut.

Well one of them was a butcher...