Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by cannuck

  1. The numbers that diverge from the GDP defined "average" were the 1% of 0.01% - who seldom have significant amount of their income derived from wages.  When it comes to those two portions, the speculative/finance world in Canada/US sees no borders.   I can agree with NYT that the 10% line follows GDP, but to defend that group against tax increases in a country that has $24 Trillion federal and another $5 or so state and muni accumulated debt and counting very rapidly is insane.  The US government debt now far eclipses the value of the economy.  Canada is quite different in this matter - but hardly "better".   Our federal debt around $1.2T (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1010000201) according to how Statscan is reporting, but others estimate the combined fed/prov/muni debt load to be about $3.2 Cdn =$2.4 US, given the usual 10:1 ratio about the same as the US but our GDP is something like $2T, so we are WAY beyond the sad state of affairs in the USA.

    Meanwhile, both countries simply watch all of the investment capital shift over to the Casino Capitalist courtyard of Wall Street and Bay Street, fleecing the real economy of the investment capital needed to create wealth.   Worse yet: we let them (the 1% but far more to the point the 0.01%) do so with a free ride on the real taxpayers' backs. 

  2. Came across this at NYT today:



    Since 1980, the incomes of the very rich have grown faster than the economy. The upper middle class has kept pace with the economy, while the middle class and poor have fallen behind.

    sorry the graph doesn't scale, but this is not the actual values, but the amount of INCREASE.  The top lie is the 0.01%, the second the 1% the dark line in the middle with a second line following is the top 10% of after tax earners and the GDP of the USA.   Those below are the "middle class" income and the bottom line is "lower class" income.

    not sure if you can read this link without subscription:    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/24/opinion/income-inequality-upper-middle-class.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20200710&instance_id=20197&nl=the-morning&regi_id=100982531&segment_id=33074&te=1&user_id=2a3e757b2285568cc6aee5465e9acea4

    What would be far more interesting to me is not this comparative rate of growth, but a clear depection of the ACTUAL dollars involved.   By some logic, the top line would be something like three orders of magnitude greater in difference - clearly pointing out just how poorly the North American (assume safely that Canada would look very much like the US in this respect) economy distributes wealth.

    What never fails to amaze me is that everyone can clearly see these values, but NOBODY seems to understand what drives it:   speculative gain.   This is what crashed the economy of the world in 1929 and SHOULD have corrected once more in 2008, but those with the power to steer the economic ship simply declared themselves "too big to fail" and went right along wildly disproportionally redistributing wealth without the bother of having to create any wealth in the process.


  3. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/we-charity-boss-said-pmo-called-to-award-900m-student-grant-program-day-after-it-was-announced

    What can I say.  The Little Tur....er...uh...TRUdeau continues to be a global embarrassment to Canada.   I blame this 100% on the ignorance and greed of the 905 and maritimes.  Nobody with a half a clue could have voted for this person in the first place, and you REALLY had to be out to lunch to do it a second time...but they did.

  4. 8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

    It’s notable now that Harvard failed to consider Epstein’s history of outlandishly fraudulent financial deals, never mind the rumours of ‘girlfriends’ on the younger side, before pocketing millions and, even more preposterously, appointing him as a Visiting Fellow. Worse than that, he was allowed to continue an official association with the institution long after his conviction. I know I shouldn’t be naive about these things but I remain surprised by what a mega-rich psychopath could get away with at America’s, and the world’s, leading university. After considering this case, one might conclude that all the warehouses of worthy SOPs on appropriate behaviour are applied in a fashion inversely proportional to one’s wealth. But that is not the case. Right? 

    Since the vast majority of US "universities" are actually athletic teams with a handful of academics fronting for them to appear to be in the "learning" business, I am afraid I don't really take anything they do or say very seriously.  SInce outside of a few MDs Harvard pumps out the petitfogging ambulance chasers and MBAs who CAUSE 99% of our economic problems, I take anything they say with a HUGE grain (make that a large sack) of salt. 

  5. On 6/29/2020 at 9:32 AM, Moonbox said:

    Where are you?  Fort Mac?  Sadly it's not coming back anytime soon over there.  

    Almost all of them go to the big cities - Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.  

    I am near Saskatoon, and we have a small but strong Chinese community in SK.  My best friend from my time in China came over three years ago so his son can be raised here instead of Beijing...leaving the top post in a very large state-owned engineering firm to be able to live in a place where kids can be kids, he can do as he pleases and where he is comfortable and feels welcome.

    He hooked me up with a Chinese firm that advertises Canadian real estate, and our condo will soon be listed in both HKSAR and mainland.  Yes, most go to Vancouver and Toronto, but not everyone wants to be there and not everyone in China can afford the million + bill for sanctuary in those cities, vs. a million RMB in SK.

    Trump declaring war on China could be one of the best opportunities for Canadians to do business with Chinese companies, since if one plays their cards right, we can afford them entry into the US market through the "back door".

  6. On 1/17/2004 at 6:07 PM, udawg said:

    Just a comment about abortion.

    Many people DO believe this. But is it fair to a child, to be born into an environment where they are a) not wanted, or b)unable to be taken care of properly.

    Those are the two main reasons for abortion, I would think. Child not wanted, or parent/s unable to care for child.

    There are tens of thousands of new immigrants in Canada in an environment where they are not wanted and can't be taken care of properly.  So, by your standards, it is just fine to murder them?

    Ahhh, wait a minute:  I forgot how the double standards of the looney left works: you only want to murder those who can't speak or fight for themselves.  The right to life is only reserved for those who will likely vote left.

  7. I've got my popcorn buttered and watching.  The best is yet to come.  The Looney Left Liberal Media depends upon commercial sponsors for most of their revenue, and a significant amount of that comes from...wait for it...COP SHOWS.   Yea, there's dozens of 'em and the boob tube is just playing them over and over all day every day.  Shit, they even want to ban Paw Patrol because there is a puppy cop character now in it.

    In a typical classless and midless knee jerk reaction, Christia Freeland was on my television telling me that police need to be defunded.    I will invite her to live right next to a couple of reserves near North Battleford SK with all of her possessions and family and see how she likes it when 911 gets you a BLM feel good message instead of a cop.

  8. 7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. Uhh... right.  Someone asked if Chinese investors buying up distressed assets was unusual and I said " I think all wealthy people will be doing the same thing." and now your response is "as they have in the rest of the world..." which seems like you have answered the original question, ie. "no"
    2. Predators with cash in hand.  Ok.  If a Chinese person is the highest bidder on your asset will you sell to someone else ?  
    3. Your statement is pretty extreme, but I don't care to argue it.  "Not a hope in hell" ?  Well if it's that obvious we would be scuttling the application already.
    4. Yeah, so your anal sex metaphor is - as usual - extreme.  Unless you think 'taking it' means paying top dollar for something.  In any case, we are CANADA.  We have to dodge between superpowers like a dog dodges cars on the freeway, or maybe how an ant does.
    5. We need money.  Would you rather have balls or be flat broke ?  Poor choice but I would pick the former.  And tough talk is really a distraction... Harper, McKay, Trudeau they all have the same problem facing them.


    1.  The difference is: in many cases, it is a distress sale BECAUSE Chinese players had put the industry in that jam in the first place.   Sometimes, that means buying up compeitiors, dropping the price and waiting to snag control - and in others it is simply because circumstances made it a good opportunity to do so.  Had a friend in RSA who built coffins from Canadian hardwoods.  He suffered exactly the former circumstance - as did many other industries in sub-Saharan Africa.

    2.   Of course, you or I will take whatever is available in crisis.  No choice.

    3.   Again, I speak from personal experience, you seem to be arguing from an arms length perspective based on ideology, not reality.

    4.   Lack of standards for imports from day 1, and no enforcement of what little consumer protection exists. You are quite right that we are not strong enough (mostly due to lack of anatomical equipment) to stand up to China, so we need to count on BC and his buddies to do it for us.   BTW: how do you think all of this fentanyl gets here?

    5.   We actually HAVE the money, but we let Bay Street speculate with it instead of putting into productive use.   Doesn't really matter, because we don't seem to be prepared to actually DO any work with it anyhow.  Our entrepreneurial culture is miniscule and far too risk averse.   

    • Like 1

  9. 1 hour ago, Rue said:

    China's idea of investment is not to work with but buy out. True investors share profit. The Chinese model of investment does not share profit, it buys out something to create a monopoly on the production of the product to prevent free competition.

    The Chinese model of "investment" is cancerous and parasitical. It was best typified in Star Trek as the Borg.

    Chinese investment does not help build a country. Look at Angola Sudan, Mozambique, Iran...all giving 95% of their oil to China. What do those countries have to show for it?

    What many tell me in Africa is that the Chinese send people from prisons over to work on infrastructure and other projects, then abandon them in country when they have what they want.

    Again: I am not anti-Chinese.  I have spent a lot of time and money there and my best friend from China is now my Canadian business partner, and we WILL use Chinese investment, but NOT government money.  It is not true that private FDI is not allowed.   We have many first hand examples of that.  What IS true is that if you want to be a big player within China, you will do exactly what government tells you to do, when, where, how and without question.   BTW: there is a heck of an interesting story how China scooped so much of the R&D and production from GM when they went bankrupt by SAIC advancing GM China enough money to become controlling interest and scooped a lot of everything else from the rest of Asia.

    There is a lot to be done WITH China, but you need to go in with eyes wide open and hand firmly on your wallet.

  10. 1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

    I have to call you on that. You are slandering a large number of fine people. It is the citizen's responsibility to participate in the democratic process. I don't know how many MP's or candidates you know but in my experience, most MP's that I have met are there to serve. I've worked for six Progressive Conservative candidates including cabinet ministers. I worked on two leadership campaigns for former Prime Minister Joe Clark, the only guy to ever beat a Trudeau. I know cabinet ministers from the Liberal Party and the NDP, including a former Premier. They all had the best interest of the Nation in mind.

    To borrow a page from my friend Taxme's book, how many MP's do you know and what leads you to believe they do not have the interests of the nation in mind?

    PS.: Globalism is trade. Without trade, your standard of living will drop precipitously.

    I have a similar political background to yourself, but with a bit of international involvement thrown in.   I can agree on the intent of most candidates and elected officials, but I can also tell you that once they get welcomed into the back rooms, the harsh reality of WHO actually runs things comes forward.  Since many were something else before being Minster of something or another, few actually know diddly squat about much of anything, and their bureaucrats know that and snow them endlessly.  "Yes Minister" is a lot closer to the truth than we would like to believe.  I watched on of my closest friends (who's campaigns I managed) get his first cabinet appointment, sit down the the senior staff who told him "We will now show you how the department runs" - to which he replied: it has been a long campaign and I think I will send a month or so with my friends and families to recover before we have this meeting".   After we left, they bureaucrats were ecstatic, proclaiming how easy it was going to be to keep the new Minister where they want him.   A month later, same meeting.  When they gave the same line, he said: " No, I am going to tell YOU how this department is going to run.  While you have been busy scheming and plotting your next move, I have been to every office of this department in the province, and NOW we will go forward with the facts".  That was a very rare Minister indeed, and when the back room guys figured out he couldn't be bought or coerced, his influence on the overall direction of that government wained - but his department ran like a well oiled machine and made national headlines for its innovative approach to problems.   I have also enjoyed time with Sir Roger Douglas - one of the few living persons who managed to take an entire national economy back from the brink of collapse by using his own discipline (economist - but a recognized rogue one).  From him, I learned that you can't reason a political system into reform in good times, but when things go sideways (as they are now) THAT is the time you can have everyone's ear IF you know WTF you are doing.  He did (and I believe to this day does moreso than any other economist).  Sadly, Ottawa has no such people in its confines today.

    • Thanks 1

  11. 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    The country China has many wealthy people and companies that will invest in Canada.

    As they have in the rest of the world.  What many of those companies have come to understand is that they are predatory investors - not competitors happy to work within the marketplace but driven and heavily capitalized to conquer and dominate - by ANY means needed.  Now, not ever Chinese incursion is successful.  We have watched AVIC and now KOMAC (Chinese state owned aviation industry giants) take over virtually ALL aircraft diesel engine development and production in North America - and most of the world.  There are other players who now own the largest genav engine OEM replacement parts business and others who have had a run a Beechcraft, took over Mooney, own Diamond, own Cirrus (largest manufacturer in the world of certificated general aviation piston singles)   https://china-aerospace.blog/2018/10/17/overview-of-chinese-investments-in-the-western-aviation-industry/.  Of those, Mooney recently suspended production because the smaller Chinese player just didn't understand the genav market well enough.

    This is one of the LEAST affected economic segments of Chinese interest.  Think of Huawei dong all of our G5 network and consider that there is not a hope in HELL that it will not be used to mine every bit of data on that network for Chinese interests - commercial, economic, political, diplomatic and military.

    Don;t missunderstand me: to survive (never mind prosper) in the future, we NEED to be engaged with China in both economic and diplomatic relations, but to simply bend over and pass them a jar of vaseline is irresponsible and idiotic.  Canada will be the last to stand up to them as our national character is marked by a distinct lack of balls (take a quick look at what passes for political leadership these days and you can see what I mean).

    • Like 1

  12. 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Your summary of how trade works sounds like a zero sum game.  It's not as simple as saying that we 'gave' them the work.  If there's an easier way to get something of course we will do it.  It also happens that our economy benefits from goods being cheaper, as well as having a trade partner with money to buy our exports and invest in Canada.

    Canadian and American companies are taking advantage of the situation also.

    I have been involved with and promoted the idea of using trade instead of diplomacy or military alliances to dismantle communism and socialism for many decades.  I also had offices in China throughout the '90s and into this millennium.  I can assure readers that China has not had "slave labour" since the ascendance of Deng and the Four Pillars of Modern Reform.  What I have learned, though, is exactly what the Chinese version of business and culture is, and going back 25 years, cautioned by complacent and greedy American friends that China would steam roller them dead flat if they weren't cautious about setting controllable barriers to market entry.  I was laughed at - a LOT.  Nobody's laughing now.

    It is only true that cheap Chinese (or any other imported goods) are good for SOME within our economy, and only for a short period of time.  While China is quite capable of producing top quality products (if you have ridden in a big bizjet lately, much of it might well have been made near Shanghai) not understanding the Chinese belief that NOTHING should stand in the way of reaching whatever personal, familial, corporate or national goal - thus if as an importer if you don't have your own QA/QC (and even engineering) DIRECTLY on hand and in control, product specifications are going to drift...and that can be a LOT.   The ultimate control SHOULD have been at the border and ports where if a product can not be demonstrated and INDEPENDENTLY certified to meet our health, safety and contracted quality standards, they simply should not get in.

    The garbage that we get now at the consumer and industrial level can cost far, far more to our economy than the immediate rush of profit the original importers made.  Remember about 20 years ago when airplanes started falling out of the sky because of counterfeit parts?   Even the FAA and AF1 were found to have some installed on their own planes.  That was because a LOT of Chinese figured out in a hurry they could make a "X" size bolt for hardware stores for $0.01, or they could make it look and measure exactly like an AN fastener, and provide all of the correct (but forged) documentation and get $1.00 for the same thing.  In a country with a contextual language what I say or write today can mean something very different tomorrow if I (or you, etc. who are bound by much more definitive language rules and contract enforcement) am not there to stop the drift.\

    It is exactly the bullshit that "our economy benefits" from cheap imports that puts us in the mess we have today.   If we sold on the product to another country, or if the cheap crap had a lifespan longer than a flashbulb, it would set the stage to BE ABLE to benefit, but instead of shifting our capital and skills to higher value added production, we got drunk on the "information age" koolaid and simply stopped working and gave our economy over to Wall Street to speculate with.  Those are not zero sum strategies, they are "end-of-the-era-of-productivity" and wealth creation guarantees.  Now that Wuhan Virus is exposing the weaknesses in our supply chains, we MIGHT learn to fix the f-ups, but experience has shown that won't happen.  BTW: one of the FEW voices (albeit not a very articulate one) that speaks up to check Chinese bahaviour is one DJT .

  13. On 5/9/2020 at 7:11 AM, Michael Hardner said:

    No.  I think all wealthy people will be doing the same thing.  

    Gee, who would have thought that if we give ALL of our productive work to China and one day something goes sideways when we are running massive government, personal and corporate debt that the people smart and ambitious enough to do the work that we are too important to do would come in with OUR (former) cash and buy up distress sales?

    And we are trying to blame CHINA!?!?!?!

  14. On 4/25/2020 at 6:22 PM, Right To Left said:

    Another bullshit deflection! New York is headquarters of global capitalism and its failures and misery reflect the failure of reliance on capitalism as a guiding principle. 

    And capitalism has nothing to do with democracy! When capitalism is in ascendency/ democracy either falls or becomes a pointless exercise....like the propaganda exercise the presidential sweepstakes have turned in to!

    I have to make some very clear distinctions about both the left and right political and ideological alignments of capitalist and socialist dogma.  Neither system of beliefs is perfect and neither is totally bad.   And neither is fully encompassing of the simple right/capitalist - left/socialist division.  In my mind, there are five stages from left to right of economic ideology: absolute socialism, social democracy, pragmatic democracy, capitalist democracy and absolute laissez faire capitalist.   The left extreme must by example be an absolute dictatorship - such as USSR and Mao's China where the state owns virtually ALL of the means of production and as history shows, it is not sustainable nor a very nice place for most of its citizens to live.  It fails because human greed allows a tiny ruling elite to distribute wealth based on their absolute control. The second, social democracy happens when for the sake of being able to inspire people to actually work for common good, they must have some freedom, sense of choice, purpose and most of all self-determination. .  This is where China is today.   The state still owns and controls much of the means of production, but the people have freedoms INCLUDING the right to personal property and some form of self determination at the polls.   Where Mao's China was a hell hole that could not even get the people to feed themselves (starving about 100,000,000 - compare THAT with Wuhan Virus death rate) Deng's China went from zero to hero to clobber the largest economy in the world (and become that) in 30 odd very short years.  The middle ground, that I have labelled pragmatic democracy will freely take from the left and right whatever suits its needs.  Canada fits somewhere within that spectrum and has the potential to exploit that if it ever realizes the perils of the extremes on either side of it (both ideologically and geographically).  Category #4 is a capitalist philosophy that ignores the fact that social policies and systems are essential to a functioning and sustainable society.  The US started off somewhere in that category and has been drifting further to the "right" over time (note: neither political faction of the US Uniparty is any different at all...read on). It also ignores (and is ignorant of) what exists at the right extreme where wealth redistribution is once again controlled by a tiny number of people who have absolute control over virtually everything to satiate their incredible greed.  That is NOT capitalism - as capitalism implies that the means of production are privately owned for the purposes of CREATING wealth, whereas this category amends that to mean MAKING PROFIT.  Once you use the rules to redistribute wealth without adding any value (exactly what the extreme left category does) you have a cadre of people you can label "globalists", "corporatists" or whatever, but in the end they are simply greedy bastards who can take money from your pocket without doing any work and taking little risk and put it in theirs WITHOUT employing capital - just as I said, re-distributing it.  This is what Wall Street and Bay Street do and where it will take us - essentially back to enslavement.  I call this category "Casino Capitalists" because 99% of what it does - trading equities, creating completely artificial instruments (derivatives), M&A activities and most of all BUYING CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT BY OWNING THE OFFICERS AND THE CENTRAL BANK is already in place and moving the US and other parts of the world firmly away from where the democratic process gives the people control of their lives.  The "1%" protests could sense this, but did not seem to understand what was actually happening and form a cohesive and coherent response.  Yes, I am clearly stating that a Wall Street mavern or dot.com hero is no different from an African dictator - just may not use as many bullets on their opponents whom they exploit.

    You will note that the common denominator throughout the three sustainable categories is democracy, and the definition of what is not sustainable is the lack of control over their lives and livelihoods by the people.  As is often said: not the perfect system of government, but by far the best one we have ever found.

  15. On 5/3/2020 at 7:16 PM, WestCanMan said:

    Agreed, but the worst thing that can ever happen to you is for another human being to have absolute power over you. You'd be better off vs a shark or a bear because you just die quickly.

    I live in a two storey house. We have an alarm. If someone breaks in and stays on the main floor, steals some TVs while the alarm is going off, the police can try to track them down, and I'll have an insurance claim to get a new TV. I'm not even going to get involved. If someone came to the top of the stairs, after they were warned, I would assume that they were there to attack my family.

    One of my offices is in WY, and we have assets scattered all over the place in remote areas.  They simply don't get bothered by criminals.  When someone first gets there, they are given the instruction to call out to an invader - so they will look at you.  You are advised to put a round right between their eyes.   You can legally kill someone in self defense, but there needs to be evidence that they are coming towards you rather than away.  The placement of the shot is so you don't have to waste any time with cops and lawyers.  Since nearly every adult male is carrying (and a significant number of females), seldom does anyone provoke a response by trying a criminal act.   The remote areas?  I assume even the bad guys know that if you do a nasty, someone, somewhere in the state is going to catch up with you and the consequences will be severe.

    Here is SK, we have an area around the Battlefords that is the highest crime rate in Canada.  A few years back, someone  people came into the farm yard of the Stanley farm, armed and inebriated and began stealing vehicles and accosting family members.  The driver (who had a loaded rifle) was approached by Mr. Stanley with a handgun and in the ensuing scuffle, the gun accidentally discharged and killed the driver.   After an armed conflict, it took the police well over a quarter hour to respond.   SO, what was he to do?   Watch his property and family suffer at the hands of the armed, drunken criminals or try to do SOMETHING to stop the attacks and theft.  The law is AT LEAST 15 minutes away.   Ask the criminals to wait???????  (BTW: spare me the violins from the Liberal talking sheets - you weren't in the interview room or courtroom to hear the whole story). In a rare instance of judicial clarity, he was found not guilty of second degree murder.  

    I don't like the idea of a bunch of weapons in every household, but I like even less the idea that the virtue signalling politicians will take away the rights and privileges of millions of law-abiding Canadians to buy the votes of the politically correct set while doing NOTHING to protect the citizens from actual criminals.   When the consequences of getting caught are essentially nothing at worst and getting sent to a rest home to get a good education in how to commit more and better crimes while furthering your criminal network we are going in the wrong direction.

    BTW:  I caught a guy who had broken into one of my trucks a few years ago, and held him physically (until his accomplice arrived and helped him get free, grabbed him again and once more he managed to slip out of his jacket and with help of second guy got away.  I was sorely, sorely tempted to pound the living crap out of him when he was alone and even more when his backup arrived, but a little voice in my head said: "you are in Canada and can NOT afford a charge of any kind that would screw up passport, etc.".  We are in a small city, I live three blocks from the cop shop and it was almost a half hour before they got here.  The only thing that saved the day was that when I was holding the thief down against the seat of my truck, his wallet slipped out of his back pocket and the RCMP found it burried in the snow.  The little bastard snowed the courts and some kind of feel-good group who seemed to think that all he had to do was apologize to me and I would show up at his sentencing and put in a good word.  When I pointed out that the little bastard was a career criminal in an organized crime spree who did NOT give up his accomplice, her response was that "there was no accomplice".   She was so frigging stupid as not to realize she was speaking to the one of two people who knew with absolute certainty there was a second and critically important person (his handler - kid was a juvie, other was not).  RCMP told me in no uncertain terms they would have charged me with a crime if I had tuned up either one of the pricks.  We will move out to our farm in the future, and you can believe I will keep a really mean dog or two and any threat will be met with canine violence that the perpetrator will NEVER forget.

    • Like 3

  16. It IS true that vaccines CAN be harmful.   Of course, it is also true that water can be toxic.   ANYTHING you put into your body presents some kind of risk, and given the billions of users of water and vaccine, there is going to be thousands of bad reactions.   It has to be weighed against the BILLIONS of extremely good outcomes that are the norm.  While Big Pharma is not on my Christmas list, to state that they are conspiring with dozens of other major players to make us ill to be able to sell vaccine is letting the tinfoil hat get a little bit too tight.  Those kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories miss the one thing that is obvious to anyone experienced in investigations:  you can't keep that many mouths shut for more than a very, very short time.  Of course, the conspiracy theory nutjobs think they all just get murdered to keep them quiet.   Problem with that is if you call all of your members, there is no one left to carry out the conspiracy.

  17. 8 hours ago, Argus said:

    How many die of the flu each year in the US is debatable.

    Webmd gives it as between 8500, 20,000

    Business insider says that in a bad flu season 60,000 can die

    The CDC says between 12,000 and 61,000 a year since 2010.

    Note that the corona19 has already surpassed 68,000 and is likely to at least double. And given so many states are opening up again even though none have met white house guidelines of falling infection rates the number of dead could be many times higher than the present number by year's end.


    But the press doesn't blow that up blame it on China.

  18. 10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    The "poll" that you linked to was irrelevant. No country sends their soldiers to war with semi-auto .556s with 7-round magazines. Not even one. Those aren't "military-grade assault rifles" any more than my Nissan is a military-grade assault vehicle.

    Please note that these are not ".556" - those would be HUGE weapons, cartridges and projectiles - not something you would want to hand carry at all - they are 5.56 MILLIMETERS - same bore as your 22 caliber but with 223 sized brass (chamber).

    Your truck problem would be solved if you dumped the Datsun and drove a Hilux.

  • Create New...