Bonam

But should proudly associate with Iran.... because Big Guy says so.

Except that both sides of the spectrum made immigration/refugees a big part of the debate regarding leave/remain. Again, you can't spend a year calling people ignorant racists and then expect them to vote for you.

I think Europe is clearly showing that Westerners no longer need to be resigned to the planned destruction of their own cultures. The voting majorities to prevent it seem to be materializing. It's still not too late, EU countries just need to reduce immigration rates to about 0.2% of population/year rather than 1% of population/year and equilibrium could still be restored.

Something does not need to be a "clear and present" danger to be planned for and analyzed by the Pentagon. The Pentagon has plans for almost every imaginable scenario under the Sun. Specifically disallowing planning for scenarios arising from climate change seems foolish and against the philosophy of being ready for anything.

I think in the wake of the UK's exit vote, you'll see more of the "far right" parties in Europe make further gains in elections (they've been steadily advancing from the fringe to mainstream over the last decade). Those countries who remain in the EU will face an even bigger backlash against mass immigration and refugee flows. With the UK leaving, voters there will think why should they shoulder the burden when one of Europe's largest and richest economies left over the issue? Far right parties are anathema to the ruling parties of Germany and France, and their election to power in other EU countries will result in deep ideological division within the EU. This will be especially true in Eastern Europe which has a long history of *actual* racism and xenophobia (not the made up kind that lefties accuse people of in the UK). With a growing division between East and West in the EU, you'll likely see eastern European EU members falling back more and more into Russia's sphere of influence. Will Germany be able to throw around enough largesse to hold the house of cards together?

I didn't say it redeems their argument. What I did say was that if the "mainstream" politicians and options would at least pretend to hear and address the concerns of those who aren't sold on mass immigration, rather than insulting them, then they might not be losing elections and referendums to fringe parties/candidates/options who are the only ones addressing those concerns. If the "remain" campaign had stuck to explaining the economic benefit of staying in the EU, while admitting that immigration issues exist and promising to address them in some way, then they likely would have gotten the extra 2% of the vote they needed to win. Instead, they spent the campaign alienating millions of people by calling them bigots and racists, and those people voted against them (what a surprise!), and now the UK will leave the EU. You don't win votes by insulting the people you want to vote for you. I think the UK would have been better off in the EU, and I think leaving is a mistake. And I certainly think that Europe would be MUCH better off with the UK staying a member of the EU. The UK was perhaps the single strongest voice for freer markets and freer speech in the EU, and without its influence at the table, the rest of the EU will descend deeper into statism, a terrible outcome. But I am also excited to see the insult-hurling social justice types who seemed responsible for so much of the messaging behind the Remain campaign put in their place. Gotta find a bright side somewhere!

Yeah and if there's ever a vote related to the issue, they'll be just as stunned and indignant when they realize just how many people aren't on board with the mass immigration agenda. Sad thing is, as much of an idiot as Trump is, he very likely might win the presidency because there are simply so many people who have been marginalized by mainstream politics and politicians for so long, that they will vote for a complete moron just because he is talking about a concern they have rather than calling them racists for having it.

It only really caught dumb people by surprise. Everyone else realized that the vote was very close, within the margin of error of all the polls, and could go either way. But there's enough dumb people in the markets so they make plenty of impact

Indeed. My facebook feed is full of people stunned and indignant that all the "ignorant racists and bigots" (i.e. people who dare question unlimited immigration / refugee flows) dared to vote for leave. Yeah... no shit they did, the remain camp has spent the entire campaign doing nothing but insulting them and ignoring their concerns.

Is that at least after inflation? If not, that's really sad. I ran my own numbers for what I'll put in and get back out under Social Security here in the US and it is actually a negative IRR.

Everyone should be protected from violence... except white males who say things with which SJWs disagree.

CPP hasn't been cut because Canada's economy is doing well and its government finances are doing well and it hasn't needed to be cut. Other Western governments haven't all done as well, and some of those countries have cut their equivalent of CPP. It is not impossible that Canada will see similar austerity in the future. The risk most certainly exists that CPP would be cut. And yes, I am investing on my own, and my investments have done approximately the same as the S&P500 because that's mostly what I invest in, and the S&P500 consistently outperforms the returns of CPP by a wide margin.

You can challenge them all you want, and should. Challenging them does not consist of proclaiming "you're a racist!" That is not an intelligent or meaningful challenge. Instead, challenge the statements they are making with your own reasoned arguments or, if appropriate, references. Unfortunately, too few of the posters here like to simply hurl insults (calling someone a racist/bigot) rather than challenging their statements.

Without risk? Hardly. Retirement programs and their associated benefits can change. Governments cut benefits all the time, just look at how many governments had to cut benefits in the wake of the 2008 crisis. I'd much rather manage my market risk myself, or if I am risk averse stick the money in a savings account and accept that it will be eaten away at by inflation, rather than accept unknowable political risk and have my retirement benefits be changeable at the whim of any political party between now and 40 years from now? There is almost nothing HIGHER risk than that!

Would be nice. But the nature of any entity that holds power is to try to grow its power. The moment the government has any ability to regulate the internet (which it already does), it will only continue to expand that ability ever more. The only question is how much and how quickly.

Yes, so because most people are too stupid to bother saving for retirement, those of us who might make smarter decisions instead have to have a considerable portion of our funds funneled into a program that barely keeps pace with inflation. Oh if only one could opt out...

Thanks for posting that. I saw the question and started typing a similar answer too but then gave up before I finished.

The court's judgements are largely along partisan lines. There is always plausible-sounding legal reasoning to be made for both sides of almost any case that makes it before the SC. If Hillary wins the election and manages to get a liberal judge appointed to the SC, I think it is quite probable you'll see a different outcome next time a gun case comes before the SC.

Doubtful. Many animals possess wings and yet are unable to fly. A pig's body is ill suited for flight and the size of wing that would be necessary would be too unwieldy for the pig to be able to lift or actuate. Some kind of glide if starting from a high point might be possible for a pig with wings, but not flight. True, but they could become significantly more limited than they are now. Gun rights survive in Canada, too, they are just more restricted than they are in the US. Significant societal changes have happened in the US before as a result of Supreme Court decisions, and will again.

Even if that were true (it isn't) Yes it is, everything is up to the interpretation of the Supreme Court judges. For example, here is Ginsburg's viewpoint: All it would take is 5 of 9 judges on the Supreme Court having a similar viewpoint.

Yay, more taxes to pay for a substandard return.

The North is cold. Vale knights can't hold it without the cooperation of the natives. It'd be like the French trying to invade and occupy Russia. Interestingly, this might have been the only battle so far that showed any real kind of "tactics" being used by the soldiers... phalanx formation. Pretty much every battle up to this point has been a chaotic mess of guys running around chopping at each other, which is not representative of how these kinds of battles were actually fought most of the time.

I'm sad Wun Wun died The last of the giants.

And?