>> ^Skeeve:

I don't think Doublespeak means what you think it means.
As for what the tax is called, I'm not sure, but I think most of it is just plain old GST.
With regards to the disclosure, most of that information is protected by Section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, so without FOI request you aren't going to find out. You can find audit reports of various raffles and lotteries at the Ministry of Public Safety's website but they will be redacted to adhere to the freedom of info laws.
Anyway, it's not a scam or fraud - they are audited regularly to ensure compliance with the rather strict gaming laws.

How would you know what Doublespeak means when you're actively engaging in it?

So the BC Children's Hospital Foundation doesn't have to disclose where any of the money went, only pay out 25% and this is "strict gaming laws"? LOL ok pal.

Yeah, screw him! And also screw those previously "marginalized" citizens that are not fighting the TSA!

Does anyone else see how asinine this position is?

Anderson Cooper apologizes for media complicity in the Tillman cover-up. His apology comes a week before the Tillman documentary is released which exposes how the government and mainstream media used Pat Tillman’s death to promote the war.

Pat Tillman's father to Army investigator: Fuck you... and yours.

Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away. Friendly fire? Yeah, right.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ventura-decries-fascist-america-after-judge-tosses-tsa-case.html

>> ^Skeeve:

@marbles I imagine a significant portion of it went to the BC government as tax (with a small percentage of that going to the federal government). Lottery winnings are not taxable in Canada, so the government takes a hefty sum off the top.
Thankfully a significant portion of the government's gaming revenue goes back into the community.


Thanks for the lesson in Doublespeak. So what is this tax called?

Even if so, there's no disclosure about where the other money went. And really there's more than 3.3 mil missing since I just subtracted the retail value of the prizes. There's a long list of "suppliers and sponsors" that donated prizes or sold prizes at cost.

Geoff Parkin (BC Children's Hospital Foundation Board Member): "This year's dream lottery made a profit of about 2.2 Million, that's going to go straight toward BC Children Hospital's foundation."

"100% of the proceeds from the lottery are going directly to childhood research"

Total revenue from ticket sales (8.9 mil) - Retail value of all prizes (3.4 mil) = 2.2 mil profit?

Somebody made a killing, there's a missing 3.3 Million.
Does the lottery vendor (ie government contractor) get 37%? And the charity gets 25%?

*scam *fraud

What kind of low rent operation is this? First they don't spin the barrel and then when "Jay" reaches in to draw he could've easily been palming the winning ticket.

>> ^enoch:

@marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?


Contradictory like: "[strawmen arguments] is all i have seen you post ... you make some salient points"?

But evidently I'm the one that's oblivious. So please do tell.

>> ^enoch:
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?


Wrong thread pal. But again, please do tell.
>> ^enoch:

i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.


I don't know what a "conflation smashed with contradictions" is, but I would suspect your post is a lot closer than anything I've posted here.

Seriously I appreciate the concern and the Bible reference about suffering fools, but I hope that's not a swipe my intellect or sanity. For that would subvert your whole neutral status, now wouldn't it?

Go back to mindless cheerleading and let DFT fight his own battles. Or rather, babble ad hominem static in-between championing Wall Street agendas.

>> ^hpqp:

Aww, you edited out the "Please provide me with an example of what you're talking about." part. You knew I was going to refer you to almost any of your posts, didn't you?
By all means, have your opinions (after all, there are stupider ones even more widely held, e.g. the invisible skydaddy one), just don't try to pretend they come anywhere near the facts of reality.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
@marbles
Being skeptical of what one sees/hears/reads is a good thing indeed. There is a difference, however, between critically assessing information with regards to evidence, and trying to fit it into a narrative of paranoid delusion.
It's amusing (in a sad, pathetic kind of way) how conspiracy theorists will berate their opponents for not being skeptical/questioning of media/information, while turning to sources of information TRUTH that cannot hold up against the slightest skeptical inquiry and critical assessment.

You got it backwards pal. "Conspiracy theorists" are the ones berated for their opinions, and yes it is sad and pathetic.



No, I edited it out because it's a baseless claim. So refer away. And keep pretending you base your bias against conspiracy theories on anything resembling the "facts of reality".

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Being skeptical of what one sees/hears/reads is a good thing indeed. There is a difference, however, between critically assessing information with regards to evidence, and trying to fit it into a narrative of paranoid delusion.
It's amusing (in a sad, pathetic kind of way) how conspiracy theorists will berate their opponents for not being skeptical/questioning of media/information, while turning to sources of information TRUTH that cannot hold up against the slightest skeptical inquiry and critical assessment.


You got it backwards pal. "Conspiracy theorists" are the ones berated for their opinions, and yes it is sad and pathetic.

>> ^hpqp:

Do you ever see something in the news and NOT see a conspiracy? (rhetorical question btw)
>> ^marbles:
>> ^cosmovitelli:
@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.

allowed to exist? facepalm
You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.
You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.



Considering "the news" is a mass propaganda machine, one should be skeptical of anything it says. (concise answer btw)

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Crosswords:
Yes I did paraphrase and generalize what Mr. Schiff said ...
= I made a douchey argument.

Paraphrasing is a perfectly acceptable method for restating the expressed idea presented, specially in a situation such as the interview in the video where there are many abrupt interruptions and changes of subject.
Further more, you suggested arguments I attributed in my original post weren't presented by Mr. Schiff in the video, and I made sure to give you time marks where the argument occurred in the video and direct quotations of the material I was paraphrasing. I went on to explain where and why I generalized, specifically on the 2nd point, in an attempt to clarify why I was making my original argument.
If you have another view of what was said please enlighten me. Or maybe you're just mad I used a pejorative to describe Mr. Schiff's argument. Well guilty as charged, but at least I gave a lengthy explanation of why I thought it was bad argument.


You didn't paraphrase Schiff. You revised what he said into easily argued strawman, or what you call "common arguments made by proponents of unregulated markets and low/no taxation on the rich".

You accused him of making "douchey arguments" by misrepresenting what he said. So who is the real douche here?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.
(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)
"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.
"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.
"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.
"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.


Keep the personal attacks coming, it shows how pathetic your position really is. Debate jones, is that what this is? More like your satisfying your flaming jones, which makes me really question your psychological health.

Fraud and corruption caused the last depression, this depression, and future depressions if left to you. Instead of trying to fight and prevent the fraud, you try to present the problem as a partisan one. And offer solutions sponsored by Wall Street politicians.

>> ^Crosswords:
Yes I did paraphrase and generalize what Mr. Schiff said ...
= I made a douchey argument.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Keep sucking that corporate cock. Keep sucking with all your heart and all your mind. Close your eyes and keep sucking it until you are filled up with the warm and sticky spurt of freedom. You are not a whore. You are not a dupe. You are a self made rugged individualist. Breathe in. You are not blindly following a fantastical doctrine. You have come to these conclusions on your own. Breathe out. You are not a sucker. You are a hero. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe out. You are the living embodiment of liberty. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded for your loyalty. Breathe out. One day you will be rewarded. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded. Breath in. One day you will be rewarded with spurt. Breathe out. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are an champion. Breathe out. You are ayn champion. Breathe in. Champion. Breathe... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and... spurt.
I'm spent.
>> ^marbles:
"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"
I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.
The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.



LOL nice. That's the best you got?

You should focus more on making rational arguments instead of trying to attack those you disagree with.