I'll go more into details and impart my wisdom soon. I'm quite backed up at the moment.
But first:
Oh, how I wish this continent could have such speakers!
***
I find it interesting how the left is so angry by the result they have taken to blaming the poor, uneducated and Donald Trump for the vote. This permits them to angle for another referendum. In other words, they don't like the result so, as committed democrats, they want a re-vote. Sorta like how when they don't like certain kinds of speeches they still claim to be *for free speech*. They remind me of Quebec nationalists who will keep having referendums until the *right* result transpires. And once that happens, suddenly 'democracy will have spoken and all is in stone' and if you challenge it you're a sore loser and extremist.
I'd like to add, and it's worth noting. the EU is a place where they've made it a criminal act to criticize the EU.
Yup, you heard right.
Why in the world, then, would you consent to be a part of such a technocratic construct that runs contrary to liberty?
It's an age old axiom if you can't complain, find something to complain about.
And so it is with banking fees. Dating back to my days in financial services nothing riled the base up more than a hike in banking fees.
The usual, 'they're greedy' and 'they have too many profits' gurble-gibble-gabble would ensue.
But these same clients love to brag about the performance of Canadian banks in downturns though, right?
Here's my take on banking fees. Who gives a shit? Yeah, I *suppose* they can lower them but these are operating costs the bank doesn't need to eat. Energy is wasted railing against this. Not to mention telephone costs with people calling in talk shows to spew their 'anti-bank' rhetoric.
This is where the larger picture comes into play.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting banks deserve criticism - they do - but this is not one of them.
Let me tackle the 'too many profits' line. Would people prefer the government cap profits? Laugh, but I've heard (progressives naturally) call for CEO salary caps and even caps on profits. The left loves 'Caps' because it makes them feel secure and possibly warm and fuzzy.
Caps are for losers and they reward losers. It takes from the successful to give to the perpetually incompetent. Then we wonder why things seem so mediocre these days.
So I won't waste anymore time on that Marxist mumbo-jumbo.
Believe yo me, once those people open their own businesses they'll change their tune quickly. 'But Mable, you supported a cap on profits but a few years ago!" 'But that was before my pickled pearled turnips took off and made me some money!'
"Canadian banks typically pay a higher dividend than their U.S.
counterparts and have done so for a considerable period. For example,
the Bank of Montreal (NYSE:BMO)
has an uninterrupted record of dividend payments extending back to
1829. The Bank of Nova Scotia is not far behind, with continual dividend
payments since 1832, followed by TD Bank, which has paid dividends
continually since 1857, and the Royal Bank, which has paid an
uninterrupted dividend to investors for 144 years, extending back to
1870. Canadian banks give almost half their earnings back to investors
in payouts, resulting in an average dividend yield of 4.32%, about
double that of U.S. lenders. There is no sure thing in investing, but in
my experience, companies like Royal Bank - with its strong franchise,
resulting in its strong market position, and paying a safe and growing
dividend - best reward investors over the long haul. Canadian
banks have been ranked the world's soundest for eight straight years by
the World Economic Forum. The country's banking system, which is
dominated by the Big Five banks, ranked No. 1 in the Global
Competitiveness Report released by the organization. Finland's banking
system ranked second of 140 countries surveyed and Australia's third.
The U.S. banking system was in 39th place, compared with 49th a year
earlier."
See? I put it in bold and in electric blue so that you can't miss it. Half their earnings go back to investors through a 4.32% dividend yield. That's something you don't hear on the radio mostly because of the pounding of the fists on the table blocks it. Look again. This time in purple.
Not only is a steady dividend gold, the key characteristic where Canadian banks are concerned is its security and stability.
Granted, ours is basically a banking monopoly with little competition (this is for another debate) but at least they give us something in return - to a certain extent.
My advice? Shut up and quit sweating the small stuff using anti-capitalist empty platitudes.
Invest in banks if you hate fees. You'll more than make it up. It reminds me of when we'd sell and buy a stock for clients. They'd complain about the commissions (at the time $85 both ways for a $170 total) completely overlooking they made money on the stock that more than covered the cost.
What a tired, unimaginative and counter-productive thing to do.
But hey. They're Liberals, right? The natural governing party of bull shit.
Canadians need to quit living vicariously through the state - who feed off small business - to fund their retirement. Stand up, save your money and invest it wisely. Why the heck would you give more to bureaucrats to put it away for you? It's literally irrational.
Worse, the government will claw back, for example your OAS if they deem you earned too much money. Think of it. You pay into these crummy and dated schemes all your life only to be told, 'hey, yeah about that OAS we forced you to pay into. Yeh, um, you have to give it back because rich.'
It's despicable and my advice to anyone reading this blog: SAVE YOUR MONEY AND MAKE YOUR OWN WAY. Stop asking for free shit. It only drives the price of those services up (which you don't see) while reducing the quality.
The Liberals are NOT FOR SMALL BUSINESS so I wish they'd cut it out with that bull shit.
***
Update:
Just pulled this quote off a CBC article:
As the C.D. Howe pension panel adviser Tammy Schirle commented in the Report on Business, among
many advantages of the plan, when employers and employees contribute to
the CPP they effectively save the future taxpayer the cost of paying
the way of people who failed to save."
That's all you need to know. You have to work for those idiots.
The
bottom line is the middle to upper middle classes plus small business are going to fund this incredibly expensive
expansion and will not see a dime of it.
Morneau and the Liberals know this. But what do they care, right?
They'll be long gone and comfortable by the time people realize they were gamed. The Liberals can give people the most generous pensions ever and it still wouldn't guard against one thing: Choice. As in people make their own choices that sometimes put them in a bad position.
Progressives like to paint themselves as under dogs facing a gigantic monolithic block of blockheads; specifically conservatives. That they somehow hold little power and are merely trying to make right the obscene offenses wrought by capitalism and the horrifying notion of individual liberty.
I often, also, here to be called a liberal is a pejorative. This I can but concur. Except, it's not liberalism. Liberalism was murdered by progressivism. Progressivism believes in a society of experts diligently making decisions for the rest of us under the mistaken belief it's for the 'greater good'.
A more foul intellectual scourge courtesy of German intellectualism there has not been.
Progresssives are the ones who have rewritten history - and continue to do so. They so loathe the British form of The Enlightenment to the point of madness.
All what you see on a daily basis on self-described liberal websites - Huffington, Daily Kos, Vox, Salon, The "new" New Republic, The Nation and so on - is not liberalism; it's progressive talk with its constant attacks on anything with an individualist ideal.
This is why they so dearly want to rewrite or scrap The Constitution. It being a product of The Enlightenment, it doesn't possess a single idea or concept that coincides with the natural authoritarianism of progressive thought.
Don't be fooled into their 'woe is us' nonsense. Progressives have been forming minds for over 120 years now. Any type of interventionism proposed and backed by 'experts' is the result of the progressive's idea of 'doing things for our own good' with an added arrogant extra layer of 'the price for civilization'.
My overall concern with all this is the progressive is not interested in the sovereign individual. It's only interested in the collective. In other words, you live for your neighbor.
Look. Salt bans, soda taxes, anti-tobacco campaign, carbon taxes, calls to imprison climate change skeptics, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions, political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity as a means to an through affirmative action, censoring speakers, gun control, and a whole litany of outrageous assaults on civil liberties all stem from the progressive left.
Each of these come with its own hideous unintended consequences and one-size fits all stupidity.
It is true political conservatism has also jumped on board to use the state to push their own agenda, but conservatives have held less power in 20th and 21st century Western politics than liberals and later progressive-liberals. The entire structure is progressive.
Again. Once you understand this, it's not surprising to see their positions on, say, the 1A and 2A. They know damn well those amendments don't back up their claims. This is why they bend its meanings and where they falter, simply demand 'it's time to amend or scrap' them.
I mean, these are different times, right?
Progressives are not the minority.
The base root of Western enlightenment is liberalism in its classical form. Those who adhere to it are the true minority.
They're called classical conservatives - and libertarians.
And when progressives eat their own or come after YOU for your opinions, who you gonna call?
Since the 1960s death by guns has been on the decline. This in a population of 320 million where it's estimated there are 300 million guns.
Yet, the progressive left, those sane and upstanding greater-gooders, want to amend if not outright remove the Second Amendment for what amounts to a statistical anomaly where gun rampages are concerned. In other words, they advocate for the remove civil liberties from the vast majority of law-abiding citizens for a tiny, if not insignificant, portion of the population that goes Travis Bickle.
About that mental illness thing and 'no guns list'. How much do you want to bet the database would swell to hysterical numbers in a heartbeat.
Remember, if you support gun control you're on this side of the equation:
The trick is, if you abolish private property rights, it's much easier to solve the gun issue.
Unlike most left-wingers who hide like little dinks behind 'for the greater good' line, at least this guy admits what we all suspect is the end game.
Now that's rational and logical thinking right there ladies and gentlemen.
Bottom line: There is little rational or statistical reason to beat this drum to the point of eroding civil rights.
My concern is if they get their way with the 2A, the First Amendment is next because we're already seeing an increased call for censorship.
Look at it this way.
Would you advocate wiping out alligators after what happened at Disney? Of course not because death by alligators are rare. I believe this was the first in the 45 years Disney has operated the park and the first death in Florida since 2010.
How bizarre are things where guns are concerned? The AMA has declared guns a public health hazard even though death by medical malpractice dwarfs those by guns.
More troubling, as noted in past posts, is the idea of taking the irrational war on guns to gun sellers. More people die in bicycles, car and household accidents than they do guns. Are we to start looking at those sellers?
My point is - snaps fingers - keep focus and stop reacting hysterically.
“...Intersections are probably one of the most critical areas when it comes
to accidents obviously, and our high-volume intersections are ones that
we tend to target,” said Insp. Evan Bray. “So we will run random
intersection projects throughout the city."
So this "project" - and let's call this for what it is; a cash grab and has nothing to do with public safety - is to lure people who were not breaking the law into committing an infraction by preying on their good intentions and humanity?
I think we just need to let all this madness slide by and simply wait for a 'rediscovering' of American classical values. Much like how the Renaissance ushered in one of the most explosive periods in human history where intellectualism and philosophy, music, engineering, art and architecture were concerned via the uncovering of Ancient Greek and Roman texts, there may be a time where Americans will come to appreciate it once more as it ought to be and as it was intended.
Wise, rational and genius minds will simply conclude it's not worth or too dangerous to speak up or out and with it will be a further devolving of achievement and ideas. Once it's safe to come out, we will see another Englightenment.
Until then, just look at what's going on campuses to see where we sit and stand.
It's one way to rationalize the blinding levels of stupidity I'm reading these days.
What I'm seeing and hearing is not good and very much in line with the blanket that covered Europe during the Dark Ages.
The assault on the Constitution is the single most disturbing trend in U.S. politics at the moment.
American intellectual discourse is also under going a massive transformation. Article after article after article (and hilarious response to Kuntzman here) after article dictates the Constitution needs to give way to a strong man to make decisions for the greater good. It's foolish as it is cunning as it is troubling.
The core position of progressives is to remove individual liberty in order to submit to the collective. A murder takes place? Remove guns. Speech offends? Embrace censorship. Dare to challenge a narrative like climate change and its nutty positions? Face calls to imprison you.
Guess which side is on the path to destruction?
In my view, the Constitution is a brilliant document that will stand the test of time and overcome the assault against it.
We can but hope Americans will be vigilant and defend it and let this middling mob of tyrants - who gnaw at its content like dying jackals - pass.
And let a reinvigorated age of liberty be ushered in.
Ah, but that 'great Canadian compromise' Bill 101, you know, that piece of crap rag we call a law actually violates freedom of choice, speech and expression, is just dandy in Canada.
Canada is not free.
Lord how I loathe the Liberal party of Canada in all their defunct misery.
Heard on the news the MUHC has state of the art equipment it can't use because they don't have the money to operate and maintain them as a result of budget cuts.
Think about that for a second.
Stew on it.
I''m going to let you reflect.
In your quiet space.
Wherever that may be.
Just ponder.
***
This is classic technocratic and bureaucratic inefficiency at its inglorious height.
The cold hard truth is our bureaucracy is cost-centric; not patient-centric.
And until this shifts, we will always have a mediocre, if not, inferior health care system.
I fear we're entering the really stupid and dangerous part of our irrationality.
How many things - including malpractice resulting in death - cause more deaths than guns (which, I hope people realize is just an inanimate object) again?
There you go. Let all your emotions dictate your reactions. Let it be the basis of policy. Let it control your rational mind.
'God dammit! I have no idea what the difference is between a semi-automatic and a multi-automatic but all I know God dammit is you're an asshole if you own one because murders! And while we're at it, if we can't pass sensible, common sense gun control then go after the sellers. I mean, come on! I know this is very police state but COMMON SENSE! And when we're done with the smokers wait until you see what's in store for gun sellers!'
This is what I decode whenever I hear their absurd inanities.
Not a shred of interesting thought behind the formulaic and forced humor.
Samantha Bee, your run of the mill Canadian sufficiently ignorant of American history, is pretty much the Queen B of insufferable comedic-pundits who more than anything display a depth of shallowness that can only be described of disappointing if not shocking. I have enough of Neil MacDonald sprouting off progderp on my dime.
Think of what they're saying. Basically, because of the action of one idiot (and this guy was no different than Lanza or Roof or any other nut), the law-abiding citizen has to turn their guns in?
And don't be a fucking fool. The end game IS complete confiscation. The day Americans turn their guns in is the day the tides of liberty will recede for good. Americans must stand up to it.
There is only ONE moral solution. Leave people alone. You have NO RIGHT to disarm them if they feel they should be. Moreover, blaming only guns is wrongheaded.
Are people this insipid and disconnected?
Of course.
They don't read books. They have no use or interest in history and if they do, they manage to miss the entire point or apply contemporary sensibilities to it. 'Why should I read something so outdated? Life is soooo much more complex now and I can make sense of it through my whimsical comedy. Yay!'
We truly are an ignorant wretched bunch for our arrogance towards our collective heritage and past.
Then people wonder why we have scholars who want to sanitize literature.
It's not surprising gun-control activists went into overdrive within hours of the tragedy in Orlando.
We're always told civil decorum dictates we keep our mouths shut by not politicizing a tragic event after a tragedy.
Unless you're a progressive with an agenda of course.
Then all bets are off. Progressives hold the answers and policies to what ails nature and humanity you see.
But I'm here to tell you don't buy the bull shit.
Don't.
If you notice, all they propose is the removal of freedom from one group through force.
An equally disturbing trend is going after gun sellers. This is a lynch mob (cultural warriors if you will) going after people. They're no different than ancient people who looked to the skies and idols to explain away mysteries. Somewhere, somehow the lynch mob egged on by progressives need to find their scapegoat to explain the irrational.
Why stop at sellers of guns? Bartenders are all already put in an impossibly position of gauging if patrons had enough to drink. What's next? Going after auto makers whenever someone plows into cyclists? Or how about alcohol companies for DUI's?
"...Against this backdrop, the World Bank Group’s Networked Carbon Markets
initiative is working with civil society, governments and the private
sector to explore alternative visions for how a future international
carbon market could accommodate a "patchwork" of different domestic
climate actions. The Networked Carbon Markets initiative’s focus is not
to "harmonize" climate actions so that units can be traded on a 1:1
basis, but rather to facilitate cross-border trade based on a shared
understanding of the relative value of different actions. "
That's a creative way of saying 'ka-ching!'.
None of these initiatives-schemes-scams will work. But it will make a whole bunch of cronies rich.
What I'm reading in the news regarding online and the move to censor our right to free speech is disturbing and an abomination. I also find it disgusting that they will not challenge the violent rhetoric of Muslims online (because they're politically correct cowards) but they *bravely* go after its own citizens. This coming from a continent that consistently turns a blind eye to crimes committed as examples like Rotherdam revealed
How is this not a war against the people?
And I lay it all at the feet of the European Union as well as the cowards at Google, youtube, Facebook (in my opinion the most over rated and useless entity on human progress) and Microsoft who are cynically looking to enhance their own power under the guise of 'protecting civil discourse'.
How's this for civil talk:
Each and every one of you - in addition to respectfully fucking off - you will have played your part in the coming tyranny.
Google in particular is a major disappointment.
People seriously need to think about this coming tyranny and fight it.
That means supporting one another as free peoples and minds. That means not looking to close down speech you disagree with but defending it because the option proposed by the EU - that is, criminalizing it, is immoral and pure abject stupidity.
Based on this development alone, I hope for the dissolution of that union. A union that is not free is not worth keeping or respecting.
What's next? A trigger warning for pansy Europeans who take offense to what people say? Is Scotland Yard gonna push their weight around investigating insignificant blogs?
Pretty soon we'll all be one gigantic micro aggression armed with little words against the Europeans.
What the heck is going on in Europe and why are major U.S. companies bending to the EU'S worst tyrannical impulses?
***
The EU is doubling down on their ball busting as this note from Blogger reveals:
"European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors
information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws
also require you to obtain consent.
As a courtesy, we have
added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger
and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense
cookies.
You are responsible for confirming this notice
actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other
cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not
work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities."
My responsibilities to the EU? Who are these assholes and why are they bothering us? Now I have to fricken figure out what this gibberish means.
I make no money off my blog and use it for my own personal vanity project. How it becomes a target by a tyrannical technocratic monstrosity like the EU is absurd.
Welcome to another installment of Helen David's Corner where we talk language.
'What's the deal with The Keg? I mean, don't they know they operate in Quebec? It's only right and respectful to call it Le Keg, is it not? What if French speakers think they're going for a keg of beer and not a piece of steak? Make it clear for us! It's good for business!'
'What's the deal with Dairy Queen? If not La Cremerie Dairy Queen dammit then go for La Reine Laiterie! It's good for business!'
If companies did not have the protection of trademark laws, this is pretty much what would happen here.
Awful as a politician, awful as a person from what I've read and an awful intellectual.
To wit:
If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.
From where I sit, this is every bit as dangerous anything Grandpa Gulag says about the economy or Trump has asserted about walls and immigrants.
Moreover, this 'so and so doesn't believe such and such has rights to'
line is dubious in its application I reckon. It's (or should be) irrelevant or inconsequential
what a politician thinks about which rights they select to be
legitimate.
What matters is what is enumerated in the Constitution.
Politicians come and go; with it their whims and whimsical ideas of what
society ought to be. But the Constitution stays exactly where it is,
comfortable (for now) in its content and message.
It cuts right to the heart of her and her party's thinking on rights.
How can a right be 'regulated'? It's also intriguing to note progressives only demand 'reasonable' restrictions on rights they object to. That's what ignorant-enlightened authoritarians do after all, no?
She's a tyrant. And she will lead Americans deeper onto the path of tyranny.
"We cannot let a minority of people, and that's what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people" said the former Secretary of State."
Of course, it's perfectly alright to impose legislation on the majority
law abiding gun owners on the false premise of a minority of people who
commit violent crime.
In fact, most government legislation is driven by a tyranny of the minority. Often, it's the majority that has to pay (figuratively and otherwise) for the actions of the few. It's the essence of how government grabs and maintains power.
Hitchens was correct. Why in the world would Americans even consider her? And this was before her brazen disregard for the law regarding her private email server.
***
To me, and it could be an erroneous bit of logic I confess, gun control is very much like the anti-tobacco crusade.
They assured us back when it hit its stride in the 1980s it was never
going to apply to the private sphere. Yet, slowly, bit by bit, they
hammered away and we find ourselves at war with smokers in their homes
and cars.
They knew all along chisel away slowly is the best way to achieve
their ultimate goal of complete ban (without ever moving to make it
illegal because the government is too addicted (excuse the pun) to the
tax revenues).
There are no winners here. Just nannies, tyrants and hypocrites.
It's the same with gun control. 'Stop being paranoid. No one is coming for your guns.'
In liar bureaucrat, progressive speak, it means this is EXACTLY what they want.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent
that will reach to himself."
I find it interesting that while progressives claim there's an 'uptick' of violence with no evidence to back the claim up, go out and justify the use of force to push their agenda nonetheless.
No one should be surprised given this is very much in line with the progressive ethos. They feel they're in the right and hold the moral and righteous high ground (their t-shirts and flags say so!) ergo violence against others not in their camp is justified.
And they have increasingly brazenly have said as much from the Vox clown who Tweeted he's for it to Huffington Post writers.
And as usual, they lie and lie and lie to push their fetish for violence. For example, in the article linked to Huffington, the author (some Jessie Benn), claims there's been an uptick in anti-Muslim violence because of Trump without a shred of evidence.
Perhaps Mr. Benn is in line for his own beating? We'll see if he writes such nonsense after getting one. Beta-male, leftist, pseudo-intellectuals like Benn who advocate for violence are the first to run or get lined-up at the wall. They're the last people capable of defending themselves. Of course, they do so presuming they will have the backing of the state.
The mask slips every day with these people.
They're neither for justice nor freedom.
As history of the progressive movement has clearly shown, they crave violence to be heard; mostly because they can't articulate their arguments in any clear manner except to froth at the mouth like starved jackals.
If this article is correct, then shale production in North America can but be a boon for our economies; never mind reconfiguring foreign policy. We always talk about being less dependent on other countries but refuse to develop the techniques (like fracking and nuclear power) to get us there.
OPEC's greatest ally at this point are environmentalists looking to send us back to the stone age with their nonsense.
If U.S. (along with Canada; where environmentalists have too much weight at this point. Killing pipeline projects in a country as dependent on resources like Canada is pure insanity where jobs and growth are concerned; yes, I do consider politicians who cynically engage in this sort of behavior to be supremely irresponsible) can be energy independent I can't see how this is not a great thing for us.
It would probably mean we're less involved in that powder keg of a mess in the Middle-East. We'd save so much money and lives getting out of there while Saudi Arabia would return to its Wahhabi teachings and revert back into the backward sunset from whence they came.
I keep telling my daughter this but even as I utter the phrase it feels empty.
What does that mean these days?
For example, liberals and progressives are fond of it as well (question authority!) but their entire philosophical outlook has little to do with an individual's freedom to think. They've built up a system of thought that's almost exclusively built on other people doing the think for them.
This is the part where I may help to navigate her around.
If, for instance, a bureaucrat says 'salt is bad for you' I have to deconstruct and deprogram this input to remind her 'one size does not fit all' and the assertion may be completely irrelevant to her lifestyle.
Another way for her to learn is to completely ignore the media; which feeds us so much nonsense it's probably worse than salt and sugar combined!
Media and bureaucratspeak should come with its own warning labels.
I hear my calling Bernie Sanders 'Grandpa Gulag' a while ago - when he first started campaigning - is popular.
Blogs win awards for shit like this. Alas, no one reads this blog so it's very easy to steal it and not attribute back to me. Of course, there have been many like those in the 11 or 12 years of blogging. I've read the content of winning blogs. And if I may for once toot my own tits, I for one feel have been far more original and creative with my twist of logic and takes on things.
"Max Corbett-Gardener was only 4 years old when he died from
complications related to severe epilepsy. His mother, Jo Corbett-Weeks,
scraped and saved for nearly three years to get an almost $5,000
specially-made headstone of a teddy bear holding a star inscribed with a
heart touching tribute to her son. On what would have been Max’s seventh birthday, Jo had the headstone installed as a special present to him.
But just three days later, Jo returned to find the headstone removed from Max’s grave..." "...It turns out the council acted after a single member of another family with relatives buried in the cemetery. “We have a conformity of shapes in our lawn cemetery. We were
contacted by people who objected to the shape,” a Malvern Town Council
spokesman explained to BBC. “The longer it stayed up, the harder the
process would have been. “It was a very difficult decision to remove it but one we had to make straight away,” the spokesman said. The council is arranging a meeting with Corbett-Weeks to discuss a new design for her son’s headstone."
A place in hell for all those involved - the person who complained and the shitty and gutless council - in this story. Tell Peter T.C. sent you, you indecent hacks.
"The bloc's executive body is planning a sanction of €250,000 (£200,000; $290,000) per person. The Commission wants changes made to an asylum system which has buckled amid an influx of migrants.
The plans would require support from most member states as well as MEPs.
EU
officials hope that, twinned with a deal with Turkey that has already
reduced migrant numbers, tensions over migration within the bloc can be
reduced."
I think it's time we stop looking to Europe for pointers on, like, anything.
***
Speaking of the EU, I'm not crazy about the track they're on. Particularly where Germany is concerned. Not only are they demanding other countries accept more refugees/migrants, their banks are increasingly aggressive demanding payments by bullying small and poorer countries like Greece. When banks start to demand their money war is sometimes not too far off.
As for the insanity ofletting in millions into their country, sounds like Germany wants other more sober countries to embark on their 'we're super compassionate' merry-go-round. This too has the stench of German arrogance as it imposes its views on the matter on other nations.
Personally, I think Hungary is more right than Germany.
Add to the mix Britain's upcoming 'Brexit' referendum on June 23 and it could potentially get messy.
*** "Last year British Public Health recognized
the harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes, and today the Royal
College of Physicians followed suit. I summarize the 500-year-old
medical society's conclusions in my latest Forbes column:
This should surprise no sound mind.
Instead, what we get is jack-booted hyper bull shit by banning smoking in cars where children are present here in Quebec. All based on rubbish and 'for the children' crap. Needless to say, I think based on what we've come to learn over decades of progressive policies that presumes to help us, will disproportionately hurt the...poor. But what do assholes like us who are better off and don't smoke care, right? Out of sight, our of mind and someone has to watch over other people's kids, amirite? Remember when they (the nannies) assured us that they would never ever never enter the private sphere on their over zealous anti-smoking campaign dismissing people who thought as much as 'paranoid'?
"We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it
as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It
is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious. If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It
is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the
peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets
of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very
obvious."
***
To those not endeared with a romantic view of socialism are able to call it for what it is: A ruse; never mind evil. I can't stand educated Western liberals constantly trying to find "good" in this depraved ideology that runs contrary to human nature.
So it is with Venezuela and its pieces of shits that run it; including the dead guy. Whasshisname? Chavez was it?
"Human rights watchdogs have expressed alarm that his anti-crime drive may lead to widespread rights violations."
Commonly
known as thug huggers and killer colliding cowards. He is speaking the
only language drug traffickers and their lucrative cash machine fear. If
we lined our own drug traffickers up in front of a firing squad drug
use would drop precipitously and drugs would become so expensive due to
shortages usage would diminish. Unfortunately, some of our illustrious
Congressmen and their Big Pharma CEO owners, being the countries most
prolific drug traffickers, would also feel the burn of a Rifle Sonata.
The AP comments are absolutely astounding.
Yikes! Who said conservatives can't math progressives on stupidity?
This is another example of why I'm - and you should be too - for free speech under all circumstances.
"A former Maryland judge Thursday was sentenced to a year’s probation
for ordering a Charles County sheriff’s deputy to administer an
electrical shock to a defendant in his courtroom. Robert C.
Nalley, a former Circuit Court judge in Charles County, had pleaded
guilty to a misdemeanor charge of violating the civil rights of the
defendant, Delvon L. King, as King was about to be tried on a gun charge
in 2014."
"The nation's courts continue to ensure that the less you know as a law
enforcement officer, the more leeway you'll be granted. USA Today's Brad
Heath tweeted out a screenshot from a Medicare fraud case that shows ignorance of the law is no excuse… unless you're in law enforcement."
And they want us to treat cops as professionals?
Tell you what. Have them adhere to a basic principle all professionals follow - essentially to be EXPERTS in their fields - and then I'll take them seriously.
I can but agree with this. The interesting thing is Obama (and his
supporters) will point to the markets as *proof* the economy is doing
fine and he can safely take credit for it. The problem is the markets
are indeed acting strangely because the underlying fundamentals in the
economy just don't support a strong stock market. One has to figure this
bizarro scenario has to correct itself. In this way, Obama is fortunate
as he can still say, 'what me worry? Why should you?' Had the markets
behaved in accordance to what's really happening, I reckon if this would
have served damage to progressive policies and Obama's Presidency where
the economy is concerned.
***
Recommendation time!Maker's Mark Kentucky's Straight bourbon.
Now is a good time to comment on alleged violence by Trump supporters. If one is observing properly once they get past the lies, it's anti-Trump protestors who are provoking, causing trouble and engaging in violent activities at his rallies. What the media reports is Trump supporters reacting to it or defending themselves.
Violence is the piece de resistance for left-wing ideology. It's just as basic to their politics as water is to life.
Never change Massachusetts you highly intelligent people you:
"..Former drug lab chemist convicted of faking test results and
tampering with evidence, leading to a review of tens of thousands of
criminal cases, is out of prison.
Annie Doohkan has been paroled, a spokesman for the Massachusetts prisons system confirmed to the Boston Herald (http://bit.ly/1SvNIah ). Nicolas Gordon, the attorney who represented Dookhan during her criminal case, said she was released about a month ago. Dookhan tampered with evidence while working as a testing chemist at a
Boston lab operated by the Department of Public Health. She was
sentenced to three to five years in prison in November 2013."
/face palm.
Remember, you can't spell Massachusetts without ass! Sorry Steve from Boston!
"Jan Böhmermann could face three years in prison for insulting
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
on the weekly satirical variety show "Neo Magazin Royale." Before
reciting his satirical poem on March 31, Böhmermann called it an example
of speech that Germany would not permit. He was perhaps more right than
he expected."
I stand by Bohmermann.
Fuck Merkel and fuck Erdogan. They can rot in hell for all I care.
The FDA's sugar labeling will do nothing. It won't educate people nor will it lower obesity.
Heck, I actually think obesity will probably recede on its own without much reason just like how death by homicide have been falling for years and years.
I have no idea how to verify this. I know someone who is a lawyer for Goldman Sachs but I wonder if he'd even know.
If this is true, then yes, you should do the same. Ride their coat tails dammit!
Personally, I have been known to purchase the odd 1oz Sunshine Mint or Johnson Matthey silver bars.
I keep it to a percentage of my income while the shipping costs also help to keep purchases at a minimum. $19.95 per shipment can add up and needs to be calculated in your cost to return scenarios.
Yeah. About Powell having a private server. Yeah. There were a few dozens and none had classified information on them; not to mention he wasn't on the take as she was as Secretary of State.
Imagine if she's President what she'd do!
***
"...Setting a higher minimum wage seems like a naturalway to help lift families out of poverty. However, minimum wages
target individual workers with low wages, rather than families with low
incomes. As a result, a large share of the higher income from minimum
wages flows to higher-income families. Other policies that directly
address low family income, such as the earned income tax credit, are
moreeffective at reducing poverty."
"Bottom Line: The public’s complete overestimation of
how much companies earn in profits as a share of sales explains a lot.
If $36 of every $100 in sales at a company like Walmart, McDonald’s,
Home Depot, Ford Motor Company or a local dry cleaner or restaurant
really did turn into profits, then of course those companies could
afford to pay unrealistic living wages of $15 per hour, accept
unreasonable demands from labor unions, provide all sorts of generous
fringe benefits including weeks of paid holidays, long paid maternity
leaves, and gold-plated pension programs, etc. The public that believes
in the fantasy-world of sky-high 36% profit margins would naturally
think companies are just being greedy and stingy when they don’t pay
higher “living wages” and have to be forced to do so through minimum
wage, or living wage, legislation".
I wish!
As anyone whoever ran a business or took a business course or follows the markers knows, margins on average are anywhere between 2% and 8% for businesses depending on what industry. Sure, some may be able to go as high as 25% or more but the average is much more muted.
Still.
'Sont tous riches' as the leftists here in Quebec squawk.
I always find it fascinating when tax agencies crack down on small business how no one ever seems to connect or understand this is detrimental to an economy; especially a society that's invested in a welfare apparatus. How can we pay for the ever expanding demands for more 'free stuff' if we bludgeon the very entities that generate the wealth and income?
No one talks about that, eh?
Of course, this ties into what the AEI is arguing. The average person thinks all businesses are awash in cash and can afford to 'pay more' or my personal favorite, 'fair share'.
It all points to the general ignorance of what it is to run a business and fiNance as a whole.
"Instead of eating the kale she grew in her backyard garden in Portland, Oregon, this spring, Jessica Applegate will submit the leafy green plants for toxic metal testing. Recent revelations that heavy metals – specifically arsenic, cadmium
and chromium – are hovering above the city in toxic hotspots have
stunned the eco-conscious city. Along with the news came an unlikely
culprit: artisan glass manufacturers."
"Many find the popularity of socialism among young people alarming
because a major lesson of the twentieth century has been that government
economic planning (a.k.a. socialism) not only does not work, it hurts people. Another legitimate concern: socialism leads to cultural atrophy, government as an abusive caretaker, and less economic and social opportunities, not more. While millennials’ support for socialism may reflect their youth,
there is reason to believe that our increasingly gutted civic and
economic instruction has failed to prepare them to see the potential
pitfalls of socialistic policies."
Of course, it's more about government corruption and not tax evasion per se.
Of course, again, the solution will be to add more government agencies!
***
"CalPERS is learning that social responsibility can be a drag. The $290
billion California pension manager may reinvest in tobacco stocks after a
report found that exiting the sector cost it $3 billion of potential
investment gains over 15 years. There’s more to the idea than higher
returns, though. Engaging financially with controversial firms can be a
better way to effect change."
"...Our modest proposal, then, is that the
University of Chicago and similarly well-endowed private institutions
should share their assets with Chicago State, Northeastern Illinois and
other struggling public schools. Our students are incredible. They can
also conduct exemplary research and can offer the best solutions and
policies for the communities in which they live. Or,
better yet, why not nationalize the private universities so that all
students in Chicago, from all communities, can benefit from their
excellent resources?
Research isn't necessary to understand that sharing, not hoarding, is central to solving the “urban problems” of the day."
"The statistics speak for themselves. Government subsidies are
essentially supporting obesity and diabetes in adults AND children.
Shouldn’t these funds be distributed among farmers who are growing
vegetables, fruits and whole grains rather than those who are harvesting
Twinkies and Little Debbie Snack Cakes? Maybe then, a bag of carrots
will cost less than a tank of gas."
***
"He is not alone. Shortages of essential drugs,
mostly generic medicines whose patents have long expired, are becoming
increasingly frequent globally, prompting the World Health Organization
(WHO) to suggest minimum prices may be needed to keep some products on
the market."
But because I stand firmly on the side of freedom of speech and expression. Hate speech laws are a misguided black mark on our existence. An absolute disfigurement of liberty; an affront to what liberalism has fought both philosophically and militarily for. Suppress it and you'll just drive open a black market for free speech; speakeasies for free speech if you will.
Weak and meek is the civilization that ignores and betrays our heritage.
Human Rights Commissions, free speech czars, and whatever other bull shit title squeamish little twits come up with are not examples of progress.
They're designed to keep us in check according to the state's vision of what constitutes speech in 'the marketplace of ideas'.
Nor, as said often here, do I believe there's such a thing as 'balanced' free speech.
All they're doing is regulating free speech to the extent these jerk offs (and I deliberately name call to illustrate a point) don't like what's being said of them.
Well guess what? People are gonna say and think whatever they want and this is the cornerstone of who we are. If we don't defend it, we betray who we are.
We are our own enemies.
And the day I see countries like Britain, Canada, Holland and other countries in the West actually take to task Muslim leaders who spew their own hatred - and let's face it, the shit they say is far worse than anything Maclean's or Mark Steyn could ever say - is the day I'll accept we're not being politically correct. CAIR and CIC (who are really starting to get on my nerves) can squawk all they want to the contrary but we see what's being said. Maybe instead of going after our freedoms they should focus on the real hatred spoken in their name.
Where free speech is concerned, the United States is superior to any country on earth bar none. For now, the First Amendment remains in tact and not under duress like the Second Amendment. As long as that holds up, the West has its last refuge of liberty still living with a pulse.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same for my home country of Canada.
"Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists,
which support Maclean’s in the case, told the NYT: “Canadians do not
have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a
telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas.
Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal
combat.”
Exactly.
It's more than that. In the absence of said marketplace, we've deluded ourselves into believing it's because we're more 'progressive' or "civil'.
It's nothing of the sort. It's because we have no impulse for liberty as a cherished cornerstone of what makes us Canadian.
Canadians talk of 'values'. To me, if freedom is not absolute, all other 'values' are just mirages.And here, our values usually run through the bosom of the state.
Which is to say, they're not borne from us believing we are sovereign and free.
Don't ever be swayed into being made to feel guilty for being free nor should you ever, never, ever, qualify your position with a 'yeah but'.
Recall, Charlie Hebdo is liberty.
***
We've arrived at a time in our existence where people (shitheads like Bill Nye for example) are actually calling for climate change skeptics to be arrested. Why stop there? Why not go after people for questioning minimum wage? Or organic food? Or the viability of electric cars? Or whatever? In Europe, it's against the law to question the government!
Hello!
And to think the buffoons in that amateur club house they call a party, were angling to tighten hate speech laws. The Liberal party of Canada are no friend to free speech.
Eva Colen
