2015-10-20

Quote Of The Day

From somewhere in the dark abyss called Facebook:

"The only capable way to stop a person with bad intentions with a gun is another person with good intentions with a gun. That is logical. "

Ah. 

More:







I. See. 

Brilliant. 

Mind. Blown.

via GIPHY



Progressives Just Rewrite Things Willy-Nilly

Nice article on how dumbasses conflate government and socialism by Charles C. Cooke AT NRO.

As a commenter points out and I repeatedly remind:

We're in a Dark Age.

Comment:

"And with this, they're armed with sufficient ignorance to make the claim that the Founding Fathers and what they wrote was socialism all along. Never mind that socialism as a political or social theory didn't show up until the mid 19th century. Remind me why we're not in a Dark Age again?"

And So The Shiny Toy Reign Of Derp Begins

That didn't take long.

On TSFA's:

"The TFSA has become a prominent tool in financial planning for many investors, offering up to $41,000 of contribution room to allow investment income to grow tax-free. The Conservative government increased the annual contribution limit of $5,500 to $10,000 for 2015.


Many investors topped up their TFSA accounts the very next day. But now the investment community is left wondering how – and when – the Liberal government will fulfill its campaign promise to roll back the limit.

“Most of our clients have already made the additional TFSA contribution and are maxed out. Taking it away from people who are trying to be financially responsible for their own future seems incredibly unfair to me,” said Darren Coleman, senior vice-president and portfolio manager with Raymond James Ltd., who manages 170 client households."

Mind you, we knew they were gonna do this. No real big deal but it's an indicator of how they view personal finances. That is, they don't want it in the hands of people. They want them believing in the state to take care of them.

In a previous post I worried about the liberals shallow anti-rich rhetoric and how it could actually impact everyday investors. Too many people dismiss this as just that; rhetoric and that the Liberals will govern from the center.

Taxes will go up for incomes over $200 000. Apparently, this is 'rich' in Canada. The 'savings' is said to go to a tax cut for the middle-class of about $500. 

TFSA's are indeed important investment tools for the average middle-class worker and here the Liberals want to lower its contributions. Not sure why except to assume they want that money to be used for other stuff.

Yet despite its obvious benefits particularly with the fact government funded pensions are under duress along with the demise defined benefits people insist on being ignorant:

"Exactly, the government needs to help the middle class to help try and reduce household debt. The few who have an extra $5K kicking around to put into a TFSA aren't at all reflective of the majority of the population. If reducing the annual TFSA allowance allows spending on programs to actually help average Canadians, that's what we voted for. "

Exactly, the government needs to help the middle class to help try and reduce household debt. The few who have an extra $5K kicking around to put into a TFSA aren't at all reflective of the majority of the population. If reducing the annual TFSA allowance allows spending on programs to actually help average Canadians, that's what we voted for.
There is literally no investment professional or person with a good head for investments who would agree with this left-wing nonsense. No wonder they need the hand of the government to take care of them.

So because someone can't do it someone who can has to pay the price? How in the world is this remotely fair? There they go with their 'the few ergo the rest of us have to pay' jargon. But notice how he misses the point. The point is YOU INVEST WHAT YOU CAN over the lifetime. You don't have to top it to benefit from it. Grow an independent sack of balls already.

On a socio-political level, how is this not 'divisive' legislation that isolates people? Is this not what the liberal media in the USA calls 'voting against your interests'?

Do pray tell and explain. T.C. would just love to hear it.

It's easy for you to do this given the gold plated pensions you will get and will never have cut.




Left-Wing Media Unsurprsingly Piling On Harper; Enthusiastically Ushers In Shiny Toy Governance

Lord, Lord, Lord. Lord Me.

And so begins Canada's love affair with its version of a Lightbringer. The narrative suggests Trudeau's victory was "real" while Harper's three time elections was an anomaly or worse manufactured campaigns.

Right. Nothing manufactured about Trudeau. Man of the people.

First in comes The Guardian. 

The Guardian harping on Harper's penchant for manipulation is comical. As if this is a exception rather than the rule for politicians and political strategists. They all try and manipulate. Liberal and progressives like to emotionally manipulate. Trudeau's angle is to present himself as compassionate and makes sure his persona gives this impression. He manipulates that. Obama in the United States does the same exact thing. 

Then the CBC - who probably held a private vigil praying to Gaia and celebrated like it was 1999 - couldn't resist poking Harper.

Both articles are what you would expect from the left. When I read stuff like that it only strengthens my resolve to defund the CBC and privatize its sorry ass. Not Rex Murphy though. Him he provides much happiness for me.

And there's this strange but typically predictable piece from the New York Times.

Apparently when Conservatives win, it somehow lacks legitimacy. To wit:

"...And gone, too, will be the Conservative habit of pushing policies at home that were popular with Mr. Harper’s right wing but divisive to the larger electorate..."

Eat shit you hams. What 'larger' electorate? The one that gave him three governments (two majorities) in a row? That one? The 66% who didn't vote for him? Them? Will they apply the same illogical nonsense to Trudeau when he enacts policy that divide the fucken 62% that didn't vote for him? The Liberals 'swept into power' using the exact same 'fractured vote'.

Honestly, the left is exhausting in their vapidness and deliberate disingenuous interpretation of, well, life.

"
Canadian law bans corporations and labor unions from making political donations, and imposes fairly low limits on personal donations. So the Conservatives used sophisticated software to develop and promote political issues that would draw large numbers of small donations from supporters, even if found little support in the rest of the population."

And this is bad why? Because the other parties can't match that kind of support?


Only in the mind of the envious left does small donations from supporters is evil. I think they know their own base can't ever rival conservatives on this front. Never mind the law didn't preclude the Liberals and NDP from doing the same. Thing is, they have a base that doesn't fork over coin when it matters. But the conservatives do, so naturally, NO FAIR!

Alas, only misogynist racists vote Conservative! Never mind that the Conservatives are filled with people in their ranks from diverse backgrounds. Morons.

They also keep talking about how Trudeau and his Liberals "swept into power"... with the same fractured vote totals that put the conservatives into power.


Fine. Your guy got in. Have fun manufacturing the narrative.

*****

I found a hole in the narrative.

Liberals and progressives are not fans of inheritances and families who live off the wealth built by their ancestors. It's been argued that families who build wealth and die need to put that wealth back into the 'social pot' and not to family members for posterity.

Yet.

What do you think the Trudeau's are?

Old money built by their ancestors.

Pierre didn't build it nor did his sons.







Cartoon Of The Day


More Thoughts On The Results

Well. Not really *thoughts* in as much it's a rant.

North America now has two faux-populist left-wing putzes endowed with a natural ability to pulverize us with empty platitudes in power to protect the parasite class.

One a community organizer and the other drama teacher.

Canada got its charismatic Obama Light.
And boy is the media happy they got their guy. Now watch the narrative spin into high drive.

***

Anyone notice something?

Yeah.

Conservative minded people are not flipping out.

You know, like how the emotional fan boys in the other parties did last time.


You forgot that embarrassing freak out which included the infamous (including from political operatives!) '66% of Canadians didn't vote for Harper', eh?

Something tells me, as I noted in a previous post, they don't give a shit that this time it's the reverse.

***

On a serious note, I worry about the Liberals on the following fronts:

-Taxes. Although something tells me they will reneg on a few promises made because Harper did in fact have things going in the right direction. The issue that will impact it...

-...May be climate change. This one worries me. The interests pushing this agenda and narrative have little interest in science at this point. There's no such thing as 'climate denier' or 'anti-science'. The policies that come with climate change can do serious damage to people's lives.

-Investments. It's no secret the new enemy for progressives is a block of citizens tagged as the '1%' who are said to be *rigging* the system preventing the rest of us from moving ahead. Aside from the fact this conspiratorial nonsense should be dismissed outright from a sensible mindset, it's an awful example of populist and divisive rhetoric. I don't see how demonizing the wealthy is healthy or has anything to do with improving the middle-class. Worse, there's a macabre thinking that if you tax everything in sight it will somehow 'equalize' things. No it won't. All it would do is hasten the race to the bottom while keeping everyone exactly where they are - or worse.

Example. You increase taxes on capital gains. This will not lead to any desired impact since the rich can easily move capital around - as in, anywhere in the world where they can protect it - as they ought to. If we lose that kind of liquidity it's not good for investment in the economy at large. Public spending is not a good alternative to this. Moreover, it will only make it that much harder for net savers who want to grow their investments thus preventing them from entering a higher class.

The thinking is if we tax the rich (who already pay the over whelming majority of the taxes so it's a blatant lie to begin with), there will be more money for the society at large. It makes no sense on any level except to confiscate wealth. They'd rather deny you the tools that help you become wealthy so long as it fits the neat little narrative.

It's not rocket science people. Connect the fricken dots.

-Liberty. This is a tough one as already the idea of liberty in Canada is a non-entity. However, the liberals have earned their mettle as a party that's moved from the center to the left. And when you pull left you enter the collectivist zone. This is not good for individual liberty. 'For all Canadians' is a catch-all phrase of nothingness and only means 'one size fits all'. There is no such thing as one law that benefits us all. Issues on gun control, marijuana use, private education and health will be key here.

-Foreign policy. This is where I think the Liberals may show their amateurism. Trudeau has displayed like on economic matters, he's not ready to tackle this area. If you think Obama badly misread and misplayed Putin and Russia, I wonder how Trudeau will face off against him. Agree or disagree with him, Harper was the first leader in the West to call Putin's bluff. Canada's foreign policy was clear and consistent. Pro-Israel, stand up to Russia, not bend to the UN and ignore Kyoto.

-The power of charisma. Harper was mechanically a sound politician. However, in hindsight, I think he knew he couldn't manage in his stoic manner forces that enjoy cults of the personality. Trudeau had the name and charisma to convince Canadians 10 years of stability under a dry leader was enough.










2015-10-19

61% Of Canadians Didn't Vote For Trudeau!!

My oh my, I thought the country would have at least given the guy who emotionally spews out empty populist platitudes with no resume a minority.

Even Harper, who was far more seasoned and experienced as a politician and policy wonk got a minority first time out. So much for the 'let's see what a drama teacher with no experience can do'!

Meh. I'm such an extremist who doesn't give people chances.

On another note.
Oh look here, 61% of the population didn't vote for the Liberals!

Does that mean Trudeau must govern accordingly?

I bring this up because remember when people yapped on about '2/3 of Canadians didn't vote for Harper' thus demanding he, you know, govern according to their needs? There were even online petitions from change.org.

So.

Will they accept their logic now?

Of course not. Aside from the fact they're were moronic for even thinking it, you really expect them to practice what they screamed?

In any event, the people have spoken.

Move on.





Selective Morality

A group of us visited the Baseball Hall of Fame in the picturesque town of Cooperstown this past Saturday. It was a long day but well worth the excursion as avid sports fans.

Among the varied topics of discussion was, inevitably, the fact Pete Rose hasn't been inducted because of his connections to gambling while he was in the Major Leagues. Rose lied sure but the Hall is not a place to judge morality or else a good bunch of those players would not be in starting with Ty Cobb.

As a baseball player, Rose (or Bonds or McGwire for that matter) belong in the Hall. You can but judge them on their play on the field. With Rose, I recognize he gambled and broke a basic trust covenant between him, the fans and the game. However, at some point the Crusade gives the sense of misplaced self-righteousness.

We seem unwilling to pass Rose a moment of forgiveness. It would help if he would, you know, admit to it though.

Regardless, I would love to see the standards we're stamping on Rose applied to politicians. Apparently, a politician's private or past record can't be used against them. It never seems to keep them from getting elected to public office.

Enough already. Point made.

Now reserve some of that selective morality for our politicians.

And another thing. Induct Tim Raines you boobs!

Trudeau's Divide

Pierre's son has often said Harper *divides* Canadianswithout much self-awareness about how his own rhetoric is divisive.

Apparently it's appropriate to attack a segment of the population based on populist bull shit.

Whenever I see the left jibber-jabber on like tiresome children about the "1%" all I see is the politics of envy. A tactic that seems to infest the progressive ranks in North America.

This is okay though according to that side.

Trudeau and his unimaginative, emotional driven shtick is not my bag. Who am I kidding? He bores me to tears.

Alas, looks like he may very well form the next government. We've already gotten glimpse of what a Trudeau PM would look like and it's amateurism all down. It's what Canadians seem to crave for some odd reason.

Obama Light has arrived.

***

Tell you what, demonize the rich enough and you'll get what you deserve.

Money is highly mobile.

Remember that.

***

About that middle-class thing.

People do realize the mere idea the Liberals actually (insanely I add) talked about doing away with income splitting is problematic, right?

Justin is trying so hard to be *different* he's attacking key parts of retirement and tax planning for middle-class income earners. 

Left-wing policies generally hurt the poor and middle-class.

This is the mind set Canadians may have to deal with for the next few years.



Go F**K Yourself John Oliver

God these liberal comedians are annoying nerds.

Go fuck yourself you ignorant moronic progressive.

And take Mike Myers with you.

These idiots would prefer an inexperienced, sophomoric, drama Queen with ridiculous vapid populist slogans and terrible economic policies that will whack (not save, whack) the middle class (which liberals excel at).

You vote Trudeau you're voting for Obama Light. And in case you haven't noticed, the United States under that administration has been marked by aimless leadership and divisive, cynical politics. A tone set by its leader. Not Congress. His leader and his team.

Expect the exact same thing under Trudeau. Amateur hour in Canada is coming.

You gang of emotionally driven  morons.


2015-10-18

Quote Of The Day

"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful, good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean: more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious." 

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Early Federal Elections Prediction

The Liberals are projected to form the next government.

And they can thank Ontario for that.

How Canadians can calculate Justin Trudeau and the left-leaning Liberals (party of centrism my ass) is ready to run a government is beyond me to contemplate. Most unfortunate.

Alberta is going the opposite with the conservatives - as they ought to.

Quebec for its part is leaning NDP while B.C. are a mixed bag.


Government Money Management: School Of Bernie Madoff

How crazy is the idea of personal retirement accounts like 401ks and RSSPs being confiscated by increasingly cash-strapped governments?

Not cray-cray at all. In fact, it's likely and they've already started making noises about it.

This is not a good development at all. For people like me who are good with their money, I don't need 'economic policy experts' or politicians or any other member of an elite telling me how I should manage my money.

Indeed, it may not even stop there. They may even force you to invest in certain types of 'safe' investments like money markets, GICs and T-bills 'for your own good'.

It's a slow hostile take over of your money.

And you will have let it happen because you believe in the dubious notion bureaucrats will take care of you 'cradle to crave' under a system of depressed mediocrity. All because you were too lazy, disinterested or fearful of doing it yourself.

You know, one of the key virtues we used to be taught was the idea of self-reliance. Know how to do basic stuff. Like change a tire, cook, handle a rifle or shot gun, fish and hunt, etc. It shouldn't be any different with money. People need to seize control of their finances.

Yet, it seems like while the concept of self-reliance is sometimes espoused the actions of government tell a different story. To me it comes off as 'yeah, you *should* know how to do it but in the meantime take some of this to *help* you' whenever I hear politicians speaks.

I personally don't think they have our best interest in mind and if they do they have a grotesque view on how to achieve ways to help people. This is why I don't accept politicians takes on finance. It's too intensely personal and all they know how to do is direct a one-size fits all scheme.

When will people understand that if they abdicate their responsibilit  and willingly hand off that task to bureaucrats they're in effect entering a situation not unlike the one we witnessed under Bernie Madoff? The government can't possibly ensure we save for retirement adequately on any level with any certainty. They are just too many variables and factors involved. They could provide some ways, sure, like an RRSP but the idea of going beyond voluntary action is fast becoming a reality.

The concept of 'social security' and 'pensions' is indeed an important one. However, the way they calculate future amounts has proven to be flawed because of something called human nature. That is, it's magnificent penchant for unpredictability.

In my older age, I've come to the conclusion trying to predict future values is an absurd guessing game not unlike sports gambling. Lotsa educated guessing and some may even be good at it but overall, it's a fool's game.

It's often based on figures and trends that assume too many factors when it comes to human activity (littered with virtues and vices) that threaten to destroy any structured scheme devised through something called entropy. For example, in the case of government security of any kind, they didn't foresee people living longer or the worker to retiree ratio dwindling.

Always remember, these values are based on actuarial premises that while sometimes accurate are just as vulnerable to mistakes.

Government managed pension plans, we now know, are in effect bankrupt and it's alarming how many people out there don't seem to grasp the basic math of this problem.

As far as I can see, the only real solution is to grandfather in a group of people (let the Baby Boomers finish their Anaconda-like digestion) offer a couple of options to another (e.g. Millennials and Gen X) and tell future generations 'You're on your own. Save your fucken money and stop asking for free shit.'

As for company pension plans, again, pension plans sink governments and it's no different with business. The sole function of a business is to give a job to people and pay them a salary/commission for their services based on their perceived/concrete market value. That's it. I know. Not part of the narrative but it's the truth. Business is not there to sooth your soul, make you chicken soup and ensure you get that vegan lunch item while you exercise your right pray to Gaia at 3pm because you're special.

I know. I'm being mean but let's get back down to the basics and understand what's expected of each other. Company A needs a worker. Worker shows up. They agree to terms. Company pays worker. Worker then uses money to live. End of the equation.

Nobody should be getting stuck in between this sacred voluntary activity. Ah. But they do and it's called the coercive action of government. And this is where we end up in all sorts of expensive, regulatory, and arbitrary messes.

A corporation or business is not a babysitter and forcing people to save their money is a form of nannyism or enabling. I can't stress this enough. If and only if a company feels it's justified to offer more all the more power to them and its employees. But to force one and all into social benefits schemes is in fact part of the problem.

The number one objective of a business is not to make the precious snow flake is not micro-aggressed or to sell a fucken cake to a client it chooses not to sell to.

It's priority is to grow and earn profits to ensure its survival. Everything flows from this and when government gets involved they get in the way of this objective making it harder and harder to achieve.

This is the key to everything.

And so it is with people's money. Money is yours.  Why in the world would you hand over part of it to a bureaucracy and technocracy of enablers? Because you will get that 'free' MRI nine months after you need it? Aren't you better off taking a small amount off each pay and sinking it into an account to pay for an MRI out of pocket within two weeks? Isn't this true respect for your health both physically and mentally?

But T.C. the system is rigged! The 1% are taking all the wealth because I can't make ends meet!

You're an idiot if you believe all that populist bull shit.

The reason why you feel *poorer* is because of all the fucken taxes you pay from high sales taxes, to taxes on goods and services, carbon taxes, gas taxes and so on. Add it all up on top of your income taxes. THAT'S WHY YOU FEEL POOR. Not because the fucken Koch brothers are magically stealing money from your pay check in some sort of undefined scheme to rape us.

Grow up.

Taxes kill. And when you have less in your pocket you dip into debt to pay for things. And now you enter the nether-regions of high interest - the cost of borrowing money.

Now you're in a death-spiral.

But again, this has nothing to do with 1% rich people.

Let me repeat. You're a retard if you believe this.

The truth is the concept of saving is all but dead in North America and in some cases I've read people (like Paul Krugman and other unsavory progressives) actually argue it's a 'bad' thing.

It's ludicrous to chastise someone for being responsible enough to save money for a rainy day. To dismiss, the power of saving as something as money 'just sitting there doing nothing' is typical of a one-dimensional mind set with a retarded understanding of finance and how you can make your income turn into wealth.

This takes a certain amount of abstract thinking to fully grasp how income becomes wealth. Not to mention how schemes like, for instance, minimum wage laws actually negatively impact the job market and the ability for businesses to manage money. Look at it this way, by imposing a government perception on business that operates ostensibly in a free market you're asking that business to make adjustments they otherwise would not engage in. It's an unnatural impact no matter how you convince yourself it's for 'the good of all'.

I have my reservations it's about that in any event. Government forcing a bakery to make a cake for a gay couple against its wishes and fining them for not doing so has nothing to do with justice or creating a "fair" economic system in my view. The second the government gets involved one side will benefit while the other will not. But I digress.

You need to build a savings nest for many reasons from getting credit, for paying for an unforeseen event to taking advantage of opportunities that may arise like buying rental income property.

Savings is freedom.

Getting free shit from the government, on the other hand, is slavery on two fronts. You're slaves to their kinky promises and you end up paying for it on the back-end through taxes. 

You don't realize it but in addition to the Visa or Mastercard, you're in perpetual debt - through taxes - to the government.

Hello.

Reclaim your liberty. And there's no better way to do that than seizing control of how you manage your money.

Which is why I advocate a basic financial course on money matters not in high school but starting in elementary schools.

Repeat after me: Saving is freedom. Debt is slavery.

2015-10-16

Canadian Election: The Parties By Spending Promises


From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

"For fiscal 2016-17, the cost of promises made by the Liberals is $10.1 billion, followed by the NDP at $5.7 billion and the Conservatives at $256 million. By fiscal 2019-20, the NDP promises to spend an additional $16 billion per year, followed by the Liberals at $10.8 billion and the Conservatives at $923 million.

“Recall that our $612 billion federal debt currently costs taxpayers $26 billion per year in interest payments alone,” added Wudrick. “Unfortunately, none of the parties have proposed to pay down debt, and one is promising more debt. We remain hopeful that whichever party forms government after October 19th will take concrete steps to address this elephant in the room.”
 
Notice the Liberals out 'free shit' the NDP by double the amount.  And no, that the fact the Liberals want to outspend everyone is not proof they're more compassionate. Just more willing to use other people's money to give things to people.

Not compassionate - or cool - to me.

Quote Of The Day

History Professor Alan E. Steinweis:

“Ben Carson’s statements about gun control are difficult to fathom….The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population.”

What's so preposterous? At least they'd have a fighting chance, no? At least some could save themselves while taking out some Nazis, no?

Honestly, I don't get this quote at all. Indeed, I find it somewhat unconscionable. He's basically saying they were doomed so why fight? It's insane as it is immoral.

Since when is it 'preposterous' for people to be armed? That they constituted only 1% of the population doesn't follow they shouldn't be armed because 'bigger force' in front of them. It's irrelevant to the principle and right to self-defense. So any minority should not be armed? Is this what he's saying?

If this be so, why should the American revolutionaries had been armed? What about Hungarians and Poles who protested communism?  Why bother because the Soviets had all the guns, right? Why should the Kurds be armed, right?

The only preposterous notion I see here comes from the professor.

The 2A is not about hunting or militias or anything like that. It's exactly what it's meant to be. The right for people to bear arms because the idea of government tyranny is the rule and not the exception in world history. 

Those who argue otherwise ignore or rewrite this tidbit about human history.

***

Another way to look at this is the hypothetical scenario where the houses on your street decide to come get your stuff, have you no right to defend yourself with arms?

History is but about attacks on villages, castles, kingdoms etc.

Has anyone learned anything from Lord of the Rings which is a good analogy of human warfare? Sheesh.

Humans have a right to bear an arm. It falls directly in line with laws of nature when it comes to human aggression.

End of the fucken discussion.





Upcoming Canadian Elections: Slim Pickings For Those Who Hold Classical Liberal/Libertarian Values And Principles

What is there, from a classical liberal point of view, to say about the upcoming election on October 19?

Not much.

None of the parties are particularly strong on classical liberal (libertarian) principles. Each party has some positions (the Liberals are looking to make access to information freer which can only help transparency while claiming they will legalize marijuana. The NDP, for its part, has taken the right stance against the abhorrent Bill C-51. And the conservatives actually have sane ideas on the personal finance side that are interesting from a libertarian perspective. For instance, expanding the TFSA scheme - which to a guy like me who doesn't contribute to an RRSP is a great option- and the possibility of voluntary pension plan contributions. This development in true thinking is great for people who have means because the government just claws it back down the road anyway thus fostering unnecessary ill-feeling towards the government. A person who is forced to contribute for all their working lives should never have it clawed back because they had the temerity to succeed. This is not right or even moral on any level. Last the Conservatives have actually been good on trade as the Trans-Pacific deal shows) but overall they remain as coercive and statist as ever.

The PC still spend too much and are vulnerable to wasteful 'bail out' options and may be a tad too ready to join wars abroad. Although I agree with their position on Kyoto and climate change.

The NDP, for example, want to introduce a national $15 a day daycare. Which is obscene and ludicrous if you ask me. Quebec's model has been a financial disaster laced with mediocrity, bureaucratic minutiae, strikes, corruption and unrealistic and arbitrary figures like "$15 a day". It costs waayyyy more than that to run a daycare and someone will have to pay the difference. In Quebec, $7.30 a day actually costs tax payers much more than that. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $90 because it costs about $100 a day to run a subsidized daycare.

Hello. McFly! The money is better when it's in your pockets!

No one should be surprised. Yet, someone in the NDP thought it be a swell idea to bring this monstrosity to the Federal level while promising to not increase income taxes.

Hello. McFly! Does anyone believe that?

Do people really need this? Haven't people figured out it's better to have no increase in income taxes ergo more disposable income to decide how to spend their money? Or have people become so lazy or have just come to accept the grotesque notion bureaucrats know better than them?

The Liberals flirted with the horrible idea of abolishing income splitting and are all too ready to cynically jump on the "1%" populism nonsense.

The options are slim for a classical liberal as you can see. None are outright winners on matters of individual sovereignty.

For me it comes down to which of three threaten the chance for more classical liberal principles to enter the national consciousness. While I don't think the conservatives are the party to foster this possibility despite potentially being most open to it, Canada doesn't need to pull left at this point in my view. Liberal, progressive, socialist policies and rhetoric stand opposite to the classical liberal/libertarian position.

'The government ought to' ideal should give way to 'I ought to...'




2015-10-15

Welcome To Enlightened Scandinavia

Where the gender gap rate is great!

But rape rates are sky high! For obvious reasons.

It's amazing how the people refuse to connect dots.

And rather than debate, Sweden is gripped by the censorship and banning disease. It's a bacteria that can ultimately send Sweden to the emergency room.

While countries, aside from those that make up Scandinavia, like the UK and Germany are not too far off.

As I've noted in the past, stop looking to Scandinavia and Europe for ideas. They're a disaster.

More on Sweden PCism run amok.


2015-10-14

Welcome To Our Bizarro Dark Age

Everyone has a problem now as we've discussed endlessly here. Everyone finds something to be outraged about.

While I've carefully culled a rather disturbing amount of articles that cover the malaise of perpetual anger that grips people these days, I think you might enjoy this site where it's all in one stop.

Read at your own peril.

I found this site after reading a ridiculous and absolutely retarded article in The Washington Post where some Wonker has a problem with people buying expensive sandwiches.

Yes, you idiot. The *rich* get better food, cars, watches, houses, education - you name it. Stop acting like a whiny, envious bitch pretending to be some sort of social justice warrior buffoon and accept this reality. I'm not *rich* although morons on the left may claim I am (meh. I do well for myself) but I'm able to, through simple money management, to buy the occasional luxury item.

I shut up and aim to get something. Complaining incessantly and using '1%' lingo is for losers.

Sorry. But this is the cold hard truth. We don't need envious parasitical people. We need doers with their heads screwed on right.

There's nothing controversial in what I'm saying. It's in our DNA to want this.

I don't know where to begin with this aside from the fact it's utterly pointless and rooted in the usual envious projections progressives have come to excel at.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything they don't want to buy. And if people with disposable income choose to sink $12 in a sandwich all the friggin power to them.

How is railing against this pass off as rigorous social commentary? It's vapidity for its own vapid sake.

Is the choice by some to purchase expensive sandwiches coming at the expense of removing choice by those with less income? No. Quite frankly, this is where a sane and sober mind will conclude it's not worth making an issue of it because there really isn't one.

There still remains a vast array of sandwiches on the market to please every pallet and wallet. It has no value except, I think, to remove choice at the top because someone at the bottom can't get it.

But if this asshole had his way, he'd even ban the choice. 

Which, of course, is a sad way to think and the race to the bottom progressives seem to want. Except they call it 'social justice' or something.

And then came this from England.

"...Third year Oxford student Annie Teriba is best know for her driving role in the iconoclastic #Rhodesmustfall campaign to remove “racist” historical statues of Cecil Rhodes from campus, and for forcing the Oxford Union to declare themselves “institutionally racist” and mandate racial awareness workshops for committee members, because they organised a cocktail party called “The Colonial Comeback.”

Oxford. Fucken Oxford allows for minds like this to rot their halls? What kind of intellectually limp and weak people run that fucken school? Therein lies the problem. Universities and Colleges don't have the balls to toss these trouble-making clowns out. They don't add to the intellectual process. They diminish it; ridicule it. They're sinister in their bankrupted minds.

Jolly old England has lost its mind and Germany is not too far behind.

Notice the neat trick here. She basically made herself a victim of her own delusional constructs of what constitutes rape and other crimes. It's all about finding your 'victim niche'. The story isn't about rape. It's about her.

Comic books have been playing this psychopath tendency for decades. You know, the criminal genius who concocts a plan to make himself look like the hero in order to get the population on his side so he can go on plotting to ruthlessly kill and take over whatever it is they want.

The excellent show Gotham just did it.

Is Trump crazy? Maybe. Carson? Perhaps.

Sanders and Hillary are equal to the task. Though I think Sanders banal and vapid notions on economics are possibly the craziest.

But Social Justice Retards take crazy to a whole new level.

It's a Dark Age. And that's that.

Wait.

A Bizarro Dark Age.





http://www.returnofkings.com/68909/sara-parker-toulson-also-publicly-supported-a-sjw-who-desires-that-rooshs-daughter-be-raped

2015-10-13

History Clip: The Great War

I'm always working on a Daily Derp but in the meantime enjoy this video.


2015-10-12

Happy Thanksgiving

Ah. The days when Fatman had his place:

Try and pull this today with all the perpetually outraged SJW retards out there.