kimmy

You asked where Jesus insisted his followers should give their money to the Romans. Well, there it is. He literally says his followers should give their money to the Romans. It's Biblical support for the notion that you should pay your frickin taxes, whether you like what "the Romans" (or in your case, "da gubbermint") do with it or not. And I think that if you revisit your New Testament you'll find that Jesus wasn't big on the "my stuff" narrative, and was extremely fond of redistributing wealth to the poor and sick. I certainly don't have to tell you how I feel about the idea that the Catholic Church is a "moral authority" or that its opinions should be given special weight by our secular governments. However, I can't help being tremendously entertained at seeing many conservatives who justify their politics using their religious beliefs going into apoplexy when confronted by a religious leader who isn't a conservative. -k

Yeah yeah that's super. After 7 years of being accused of turning a blind eye to rich corporate tax cheats, they put up some windowshades. Yay, look at the money pouring in. And Jim Flaherty set up a snitch line to report tax evaders, but he didn't bother calling it to report his buddy Jim Love, a tax fraud artiste who helped rich clients bamboozle millions of dollars out of Canada. -k

I do think a woman ought to be allowed to wear a bag on her head if she thinks she must. But honestly, I think that if I ranked rights in order of those that I'd be willing to fight and die for to those that I couldn't possibly care less about, this would be right at the bottom of the list. A woman's right to wear a stupid bag on her head in accordance with stupid cultural norms brought from some stupid third-world outhouse are right on the borderline between "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less, but just barely" for me. -k

Rather vague, I'd like to see the meat and potatoes, but in spirit another form of populism........ These jackholes have been in office for 10 years and the only action they've taken on "tax loopholes" and "tax avoidance" is laying off auditors and investigators at CRA. -k

"Render unto Caesar" doesn't ring any bells for you? -k

The "consequences" of being a jerk is that people will think you're a jerk, people might even tell you you're a jerk, and if enough people decide you're a jerk you'll probably get uninvited from events. Informing people about "microaggressions" is intended to help people understand how things they say might unintentionally cause offense. -k

You've used an almost incalculable number of words to demonstrate that you completely missed the point. Your complaint that there's no objective standard for what's allowed and what isn't demonstrates it. Everything is allowed. Continues to be. Nothing has changed on that front. Despite the sky-is-falling rhetoric, none of this discussion of microaggressions actually relates to the banning or censoring of anything. People are allowed to speak. Despite the best wishes of e^pi*i, Bonam, TimG, and others, nobody has demonstrated anywhere that anything has been banned. Sorry you bought the hype. -k

Yeah, I read that article and many others like it some time ago when TimG and I were having a lengthy discussion on the topic of corporate tax avoidance/evasion. KPMG Canada might be a seperate entity from KPMG US or KPMG International in a legal sense, but their customers all want the same thing. I completely agree that the corporations that buy into these scams bear some responsibility, but ultimately they are paying KPMG (or their competitors) for expertise that includes an understanding that these schemes are actually legal. The idea that the economy will sink if these highly profitable firms are forced to pay Canada's extremely competitive corporate tax rates is highly suspect (to put it as politely as possible). Cybercoma has started a thread specific to the topic of whether less corporate tax means more jobs. (short answer: probably not.) -k

There are a lot of people who now own cars that will not pass emission standards. How do you anticipate these owners are going to feel next time they get their cars re-certified? "I paid $25000 for a vehicle that I can't drive... but at least I got good gas mileage for a few years..." -k

Well, *theoretically* the rules in place should eliminate the ability of wealthy corporations to coax favors from political parties using donations, right? In theory, we've taken away the motive for politicians to get cozy with these guys. But how does it actually work in the real world? KPMG may not have been proven guilty in this current scam, yet. But they've been proven guilty in prior scams. This is, after all, the company that invented the "Son of B.O.S.S." scam that a number of companies used (including Marriott when Mitt Romney was on the board of directors there). And when they do get caught, they'll just move on and invent a new scam. So again, why would politicians want to hang out with scum like this? -k

Well, from the article I linked above: Now, if I recall, that's how McCain won in 2008. Not by having a massive war-chest to start, but by winning some early caucuses. He didn't have the money to start, he had victories to start, and the money followed. Huckabee did the same, bringing in funding after his early success attracted attention. In 2012, Rick Santorum managed to have a long campaign just by winning enough votes to keep donations coming. But from the sound of things, that might not work anymore. It sounds as if you can't even win these early caucuses without having a substantial bankroll behind you. -k

Why would politicians want to be cozy with a company this slimy? -k

One of the things that surprised me in reading this article is this bit: ...and I'm sure the same issue exists for Democrats as well (or it would, if anybody else was planning on entering the race.) It's starting to look like you can only run if you're either very wealthy in your own right, or very cozy with the most powerful interests. -k

Thanks for sharing your vast bomb-building expertise, Unibomber! So, are you saying that if somebody sees you with a wristwatch they should call the bomb-squad? Yes, many bombs apparently have timers. They also often have screws, wires, and batteries, based on what I've learned from watching spy movies. Cell phones can apparently be used to make detonators. I think that if we get into the habit of arresting people for having possession of stuff that could be used in a bomb, everybody's going to be in jail. I think maybe we should consider possessing stuff that COULD ACTUALLY EXPLODE a key part of what constitutes a bomb. So, aside from using a big clunky alarm clock instead of a wristwatch, building a box with no explosives in it, showing it to everybody instead of stashing it someplace secret, are there any other clues that your finely honed detectives skills have picked up? -k

Most of them are scrambling for donations right now, but one might assume that Trump is in a completely different boat because he could finance his own campaign without donors. -k

Several polls out recently all showing that Fiorina has indeed jumped since the debate. This one from CNN places her in 2nd at 15%, behind Trump at 24%, with Ben Carson right behind at 14%. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/20/politics/carly-fiorina-donald-trump-republican-2016-poll/index.html I saw other polls showing Carson ahead of Fiorina and with Trump as high as 29%, but there seems to be general agreement that Trump is by a good margin, with Carson and Fiorina being his closest competitors. One other interesting news item: Scott Walker has joined luminaries like Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Lyndsey Graham, and "Jim Gilmore" (whoever that is) in the Zero Percent club! http://www.wkow.com/story/30072499/2015/09/20/walker-at-0-in-new-national-poll Congratulations, Scott! You're less popular than Bernie Madoff, the flu, paper-cuts, and Milli Vanilli. -k

Maybe it looks like what somebody who watches crappy TV shows thinks a bomb would look like. "Bombs have circuit boards!" "Bombs have giant clock displays so that the good-guys know how many seconds they have left to disarm them!" "Bombs are built in suitcases to hold all of the C4 that ... isn't actually there in Ahmed's clock!" Clearly the real threat posed by Ahmed's clock is that the electrical transformer is just bouncing around loose. Don't electrocute yourself, Ahmed! -k

Well, as we all know, that's exactly what happened every time some regressive wingnut with ties to the Reform party spoke up. "See? See? These people are still part of the Conservative base! Harper won't be able to ignore them if he gets elected!" Which makes it quite funny that the people who griped loudest about "the hidden agenda" attacks on the Conservatives... people like Ezra Levant and his buddies at Rebel Media, as well as Conservative supporters like Shady and others here at the forum, are the ones trying to put "the Leap Manifesto" on Tom Mulcair. "The Tommunist Manifesto!" -k

So here is what Harper actually said, in response to medical care for refugees: "we do not offer them a better health-care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive. I think that's something that new and old stock Canadians can agree with." ...and in context I don't see how it's anything sinister. He clearly wasn't trying to drive a wedge between "old stock" Canadians and more recent arrivals. He was suggesting that both "old stock" and "new" Canadians would agree that refugees shouldn't get better care than what Canadian citizens receive. I think trying to suggest his statement is based on some kind of covert racial agenda is just a bunch of spin. Similar in nature but quite different in context is the "pure laine" concept in Quebec, where the separatists have griped after their referendum defeats that the "pure laine" have had their aspirations crushed by the Jews and the immigrants. -k

I think the NDP are the party most likely to balance environmental concerns with practical considerations, as well as the party with the best chance to defeat the Conservatives. That might not be what Naomi would like to happen in her dream world, but in the real world it's the best she's going to get. Naomi Klein has just handed the NDP's opponents a bucket-load of ammunition to help get the Conservatives into power again. I don't know how you feel about that, but I think most people who care about the environment probably won't be happy. -k

Another Republican debate last night. I didn't watch it myself, but Carly Fiorina is once again getting strong reviews. She received a jump in the polls after the first debate where she was in the "happy hour" underdog debate. Will her performance last night continue to boost her popularity? -k

If Naomi Klein really thought that launching this during the election campaign was going to help her cause, she's seriously detached from reality. This does nothing more than stab the NDP in the back, and the NDP are the party most likely to promote progress on the issues she's writing about. She's sabotaged her own agenda. This will only help the Conservatives, which is probably the last thing she wants. She's completely out of touch with political reality. She thinks this is a "non partisan document." The political reality is that this group's prominent members have long-standing ties to the NDP and this undermines the NDP effort to be seen as a moderate option and leave behind the public perception of them as ivory tower left-wing utopians. She thinks this will spark a grass-roots movement to put political pressure on politicians of all stripes to adopt environmentally-minded policies. The political reality is that the environmental cause doesn't have a fraction of the political clout she thinks it does. The last time a Canadian leader tried to wrap himself in green-- Stephane "Moon Unit" Dion and "De Green Shit" platform-- it was a pure unmitigated disaster that handed Stephen Harper a majority government. She's a twit. She should smack herself upside the head for thinking this was a smart idea. I think she's just too disconnected from the real world to even recognize what a bad idea this was. -k

This is the stupidest thing to come out of Texas since Louie Gohmert. If you can't tell the difference between a printed circuit board and a bomb, you should go back to the 1970s where you belong. That applies to not just members of the forum here, but also these idiot teachers. "We're preparing our students for the challenges of tomorrow... but we're too stupid to recognize the technology of yesterday!" We have all these US politicians talking about promoting STEM courses so that America can lead the world in technological innovation. What better way to promote STEM to young people than by throwing them in jail for bringing their electronics project to school! -k

What gave it away? -k

This is the craziest thing to hit the ol' MLW since that guy ranting about Nostradamus and Depeche Mode. -k