Seth diving deep into those conspiracy theories. lol

No. No I absolutely don't.

I cannot admire being faithful to the unfaithful, loyal to the disloyal, or offering up your devotion to the devotion-less, just as I can't admire trusting the untrustworthy, believing the unbelievable, and excusing the inexcuseable. Putting on blinders and accepting anything your guy/side tells you and NEVER fact checking those people you admit are professional consummate liars while with zero contradictory evidence, zealously contradicting those who dare to display professional levels of honesty and care in their words is not something to admire.

Water seeks it's own level, eh? Is that why Republicans are still diving deep into the swamp with the creature from the orange lagoon even as they watch him eat all those who went before them?

When you learn how to make arguments without loaded terms like "heavy taxation", "excessive burdens" and "genocide", then maybe I'll decide to reply to one of them. Given the way you wrote, for me to make an intelligent reply would take 80% refuting things I didn't say. Which is too bad, because you do make some interesting points in there.

I have found this sort of response to be commonly employed when debaters would rather stay on the surface instead of diving deep to the root of an issue. If you really want to address the substance, then it isn't difficult. Pick whatever adjectives you didn't like and toss them. Instead of 'heavy taxation' just say 'taxation' in your brain. It isn't a tough exercise, and should alleviate your overtly stated concern which you claim prevents you from continuing to substance.

However, I disagree with your opinion that the terminology was 'loaded'. That implies that the words were inaccurate or misleading. But they were not. The US taxes ARE heavy - 2nd highest on the planet in fact. Industry IS saddled with excessive burdens, which is why they shelter overseas to reduce costs. Socialist governments DO commit genocide when they are at thier worst (which is how I qualfied it). Stalin, Lenin, Khamir Rouge, China - there is no shortage of examples. Now, you may not personally LIKE the words I chose if they do not hew to your bias, but that does not mean that I have inaccurately applied them.

Regardless of that - Lord knows people (such as the kid in the vid) who espouse personal responsibility and small government have had to put up with more than their share of 'loaded terminology' when discussing issues. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You - for example - used loaded terms when you said 'benefits the country as a whole more than it benefits the individuals who used to have that money'. That's loaded. Who are you to say that the person who has the money isn't benefiting the country? Why is it assumed that a person who has earned wealth is somehow an unworthy custodian of it?

Starting every paragraph with "I would suggest..." and "I would posit..." doesn't make your style appropriate, and putting smiley faces after put-downs doesn't work either.

It is as I feared. You have no sense of humor. But in jest I made a good point. You claimed Canada has the best universities on the planet. Even the kindest evaluation wouldn't define Canada's colleges in that kind of lofty 'loaded' language. The QS poll lists the top 100 Universities, and Canada has grand total of four entries... #20, #34, #74, and #91. By comparison, the USA has 1, 2, 5, and 8-14, 17, and 18 of the top 20. I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just grounding you in reality.

The last line of this describes the universal aspect of time...we don't even really know what that is. All we have when we talk about time is our phenomenological understanding of it, time, in fact, could just be a perception of our mind and nothing else...but it could also be some real force or energy out there. We don't really know, and may never. This could be one of those mysteries veiled in the cloak of the meta rules of the universe. This was a REALLY well done video and recommended for all. It doesn't get bogged down in terminology, but still manages dives deep into the issue.