Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Check your email for a verification code and enter it below.Don't close this box or you must fill out this form again.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
David Cross: Why America Sucks at Everything
I know you're joking, but you aren't wrong.
As a Canadian I am pretty sick of hearing some of the very snide attitudes up here about look at us and how we afford public healthcare at similar taxation to the US. How dumb are you guys to be spending so much money on evil killing machines. snicker snicker
The thing of it is though, we spend as good as nothing on military spending by comparison, and yeah, by saving that money we get to cheap out on taxes and still afford the public health program we have. However, we 100% are earning that luxury on the backs of US taxpayers funding a military that protects BOTH our country and theirs.
We are getting a free ride and mocking the driver for spending so much on their car that we absolutely rely upon because our car is missing two wheels and the engine needs to be rebuilt and we're too cheap to be bothered.
Sure, but we got TANKS! We got so many tanks some never get used and go directly into mothballed fleets parked in the desert. What kind of excessive tank force does Canada have? *mic drop
David Cross: Why America Sucks at Everything
@eric3579 had it right, because the first link looks like the source:
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-are-highly-taxed-when-you-count-health-premiums/
But when that source lists the graph that Cross used as "labor tax", it is listed as coming from OECD NTCP, with NTCP standing for "Non-Tax Compulsary Payments" and has the same 11% for Canada and other numbers. So, the OECD 'original' source of the data is 100% excluding Federal and State/Provincial income taxes, and potentially sales taxes as well.
So with that knowledge, yeah, gross misrepresentation.
And it gets worse in that peoplespolicyproject is showing 2017 numbers, so maybe that is the only difference... But they list Belgium at 38.3% while the OECD current 2019 data shows 44.5, so maybe some year-year change, but the US data from OECD for 2019 comes in at 24.1%, and at the least in the middle of EU countries while whatever source ppp used pegged Us at 43%.
So not only is it deceptive in describing it as 'tax' when the numbers are expressly sourced from NonTax data(named as such), it's also at BEST number that can double or drop by half within 2 years as well and so maybe not a great policy benchmark either unless you average out multiple years at minimum
I thought the same thing. If average Canadians only paid 11% total in taxes Canada would have been forced to build a wall to stop all the republicans trying to move there.
Ahhh.....Thanks @eric3579 . He's taking what they called "labor tax" which apparently is some nonsense number they produced that, while it includes employee income and payroll tax as well as employer contributions, is somehow far less than employee income and payroll taxes alone in Canada, labor tax is listed at 11.5% with the next lowest being the UK at 26.1%. Somebody screwed up here, their numbers don't add up.
David Cross: Why America Sucks at Everything
Canadian here with my jaw on the floor. At 2:25 I learned that the average Canadian has 11% of their wages consumed by taxes and other listed costs...
The lowest Canadian federal tax bracket is 15%, and most provincial taxes add another 15% as well, so 99% of Canadians have a floor of 30% just to income taxes...
Where in the heck are these numbers in the video from???
On Today's Episode Of "Ouch, My Balls"
I want a mashup:
https://videosift.com/video/Rocket-Sled-Impact-Test-In-Slow-Motion
New Zealand deputy prime minister to COVID denier
Bobknight: almost anything he's posted
New normal response: "Sorry sunshine"
"Sorry Sunshine." LOL
Let's talk about Trump going to the hospital....
And no, none of that Warrants Trump as an answer.
None the less, it is creating a growing number of unhappy people voting R instead of D because of it.
Let's talk about Trump going to the hospital....
@newtboy
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score
as a 'liberal' ideal
This IS happening broadly, link to how and arguments for why it is 'good'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/03/harvard-beat-an-effort-end-its-use-race-factor-admissions-what-will-supreme-court-do/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/
-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
Specifically the day of absence was at evergreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Similarly reverse racist attitudes though are common enough, like chasing out a student journalist here for simply covering an event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw
-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
Jordan Peterson is the biggest example, but my local uni has also banned pro-life student clubs too, so maybe I'm a little Canada biased on this?
-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
Here's the Standford course on it if you or your parents wanna enrol:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=CSRE+32SI%3A+Whiteness&collapse=
---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
Likewise offered at Stanford, unless this is the lone critical race theory course that doesn't champion the above prejudice+power definition.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/critical-race-theory/
---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in
And I'm out of time,
but seriously I'm a little baffled this was remotely controversial? Identity politics is a game the left has been playing at HARD for at minimum the decades since Affirmative Action was launched. The notion that the idea would eventually get national level push back should have been easy to see coming.
Let's talk about Trump going to the hospital....
I think it's super important people recognize that Bob's point here is actually very correct.
A huge part of Trump's support IS reactionary against runaway liberal ideals.
The most blatant was on University campuses:
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score as a 'liberal' ideal
-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in
All of that filth was and still is almost universally wide spread through Academia as 'liberal' good ideas.
People need to very seriously wake up and recognize how many of the quiet folks who openly detest Trump, are also going to silently still vote Republican because of their disgust and push back at the above ideals.
65,844,610 votes compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. That was the mandate by the people to stop bat shit crazy conspiracy theorists from power. The electoral college overrode the people.
Trump got a mandate from 306 people, not the American people.
🤦♂️
Presidential Debate "Will you shut up man.."
You realize Bob that the question included 'militia' groups.
You know, like guys coming in from out of state with assault rifles to "defend" people. Like Kyle Rittenhouse killing two people trying to play 'militia', and then Trump Jr praising him by name as a hero on twitter.
There is actually very, very good reason Trump keeps getting asked these questions. It's because he keeps calling for actions from these milita style groups and praising their often racially motivated violence.
c
Radicalize
Well, the young shooter(Kyle Rittenhouse) WAS at that Trump rally and was hailed as a hero on Fox News(and twitter by Trump Jr.).
Which facts are you in denial about? The above ones, or simply the 'party line' that he really is a hero and was acting in self defense?
Wow What Bull shit.
Truth is 180 degree opposite.
Ku Klux Klan Member interview-Chris
Thanks to BSR for having this posted. This is the sort of stuff that needs to get more airtime and eyeballs.
I think that pairs to the worst crime the left has been involved in related to the dumpster fire that is today. The entire notion of de-platforming or silencing 'offensive' speech, and that Universities have if anything been leading the way. Universities need to instead be having guys like the one here getting their views known more broadly, and then point out loudly what is considered bad and dangerous about them. More importantly, to also point out how closely it aligns with Trump and his rallying cries.
When the left could have been discrediting this filth, they have instead been accomplishing the opposite by actively rallying moderates to 'defend' the freedom of speech of these guys.
The passive majority has been watching for a long time as advocates on the left have used force and violence to disrupt speech they don't like. Now, cities are burning and despite it being for entirely other reasons, you have a lot of middle america only seeing the same angry mob of leftists at the same stuff again as before. Demand everyone do things their way or violence will be used. The worst/scariest thing to me is the Dems still seem confused by how people aren't flocking to them in the face of Trumps malice. They somehow can not fathom that there are an awful lot of right leaning people honestly worried that their only choice is between a Trump they loath in most everyway, but on the other side and angry mob of leftists willing to use violence on anyone that doesn't conform. If Trump wins the next election I'll be sickened, but also entirely unsurprised.
Assembly of the worlds largest fusion reactor (ITER) begins
Good news and bad news then. ITER isn't really a 'test', science wise it's pretty much assured that it is gonna work. So that's good news. The bad news, this thing is also as small as current known science allows us to make it while still producing usable power. Economically, it's already completely and totally unusable. Thus the hope is to make more new discoveries running this to find ways to make it economically viable.
As has been the case for my entire lifetime, we are 20-40 years from having a fusion plant.
Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism
@newtboy,
Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA.
Do you apply that with equal opportunity?
The guilt of association for the gallery with Stevens and whatever his name was from Amerika.org, should be similar to association with say the Nation of Islam and Farakhan?
What about Canada’s branch of BLM in Toronto who blocked the Toronto Pride parade and one of whose founders(Yusra Khogali) have said things like “white people are recessive genetic defects, this is factual”
https://archive.is/7R2LV/c2fbdb212391ecd395c3c89372819e2bd8d772bc.png
And
“ Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz”
Thats as much ‘evidence’ as you’ve given for convicting Brett Stevens of white supremacy, and then to convict anyone associated with him there after.
I say we dont get so extreme as you and deny all those people and anyone associated a right to speak their piece on that basis alone. I say the stupid and wrong things being said need to be allowed to be spoken, and confront them with corrections and revelation rather than force and violence to quiet them.
Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism
Why are you on about me for the title/description? This isnt my video
It sure didn't sound like she publicly posted the personal info of any right wing artists.
She's a liar, one who bitches and moans when her lies are exposed. I don't trust a self serving word she says, she's a proven liar.
Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA.
Sorry, but I've seen far too much alt-right lies and misdirection to buy it, and plenty of evidence that the gallery is abusing support for free speech to support and spread racist, racist alt-right ideologies, and blatantly lying about it. Their actions prove it to me. Pro-racist mass murderer speakers at events open only to alt-right listeners and kept secret from the public = rally, not roundtable.
Alt-right IS code for Nazi or white power, their own code. I'll just call them nazis, KKK, and random white power fans.
I'm still waiting for an admission that the title and description are bullshit, lies, and right wing propaganda. Can you be that honest please?
Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism
I did read about 'doxxing' those artists but the owner of the Gallery is also quoted as saying she did NOT send it to Amerika, but published the list for everyone, and sounded like it was what she always did.
I am a skeptic, and I've too often seen people just lumping others into camps of either friend/foe, and then accelerating the process by identifying anyone that associates with a foe is obviously now a foe too.
I'm sorry, but evidence against the gallery and the guy in the video here looks pretty limited. Might be right, but also might be wrong and I've seen too much witch hunting in Canada where anyone not on board is automatically alt-right, and alt-right is really just code for nazi, and if you've called them alt-right long enough then you can just start calling them a nazi.
It's dishonest, divisive and dangerous.
Reading comprehension, not a strong suit?
They didn't just reference Amerika, and didn't just host it's editor/creator, they actively supplied it with the personal information of artists that had discovered the secret agenda and publicized it.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
I'm not interested enough in the Canada thing to investigate, I've spent hours on this extensive discussion, I have no need to spark another discussion on another politicized topic today just to fight over every statement and act, but I'm fairly convinced the video clip she showed included the actual promotion of violence and hatred, not just a person who is well known in certain circles for promoting them. If that's against the rules, it's against the rules. Even in the unlikely event it did just include her innocuously, if she is a well known alt-right extremist provocateur and it's against the rules to discuss extremists and their views, then it's against the rules. I find that silly and unproductive, but institutions have a right to be silly.