Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Content Count

    1,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Scott Mayers last won the day on June 18 2018

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,897 profile views
  1. Ohh, what a clever piece of advice!! ?? This is about the politics that permit fraud for the wealthy with ease and with the inability to have sincere accountability to the very public that permits these Lotto Corporations. I'll be keeping your response here in mind if I should find you complaining here regarding politics. Example absurdity of response: "You think taxes are unfair?" ..."You do realize that you don't have to live here, right?"
  2. It is instinctive for any animal to protect THEIR OWN if vulnerable, not merely any vulnerable person. The rhetoric though falsely grants predator-victimhood to whole genetic classes in either racist, sexist, or age-biased terms without recognizing them as such nor the actual causes with respect to the logical independent factors of the individuals involved. My points are about the stupidity and hypocrisy of HOW the protectionist rhetoric appeals to emotional triggers that themselves hint at where the real problems lie: irrational judgements based upon stereotypes, whether positive or not.
  3. What 'authority'? It is "interprovincial" and not bound to neither federal nor provincial oversight or controls. There is no means to assure society that the lotteries are merely frauds here in Canada. While there will be certain 'wins' that are fair, this is only rational of any minimally intelligent orgnaization used to hide the unfair ones. (I should know. I won once but had my ticket stolen from me for being too young and powerless to do anything about it...and this was by family! The lack of means to get the details of the lottery prevented me from discovering information that could ha
  4. No, I am not. I opened this to question if anyone notices how this occured: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/mega-millions-1-point-5-billion-winner-stays-anonymous-why-thats-smart.html#:~:text=Luckily for this Mega Millions,lottery winners to remain anonymous.&text=If you live in a,entity to receive your winnings. But you and some others are responding to this as though it should be normal for all when I was questioning whether even one case like this exception and the States that permit it should be permitted given the risks of fraud. Here's one from here in Canada: https://
  5. 'stardom' is a winfall as is a lottery winner. What makes you think winners are not elible to be the 'crooks'??
  6. I don't get why people trivialize 'trust' issues here. We are in an era where hacking is easily being done because of odd faith people place in shit like this. If you buy a lottery ticket, you give up your right to privacy precisely because hacks can, are, or will be used by such 'faith' being expected as a standard of behavior by those who uniquely CAPITALIZE on such weaknesses. Do not trivialize this issue. This is not overcomplicating the issue. If you GAIN a severe benefit through such permitted forms of gambling, AND 'anonymity' is assured, that is a perfect way for criminals
  7. When one becomes a famous star, they too 'suffer' from the loss of anonymity. But when one selects the BENEFITS gained by such an interest, you have to accept the loss and the burden of having to deal with the schemers who might attempt to use them. And they DO get the same problem and worse than a mere lottery winner. As such, when you buy a lottery ticket, the loss of anonymity is necessary and relatively smaller 'debt' the the 'profit' of winning. I doubt our lottery systems are secure. They also set up ours in Canada as "Interprovincial", a technical way of preventing either provinc
  8. I posted this a long time ago and so don't remember all of what I said. But basically I question the trust of the lotteries if they should keep the winner anonymous because we cannot determine publicly whether it is fraudulent or not, whether the statistics of the winners are actually relatively poor people (who invest in such things more per their income) or due to wealthy people exploiting the way you CAN cheat using the math and having the capital to purchase them. For instance, if you are an accounting firm, say, with lots of money you might have available even for a short time, you
  9. I cringe everytime I hear even the most unintentional biased conventions in the way we speak about reported events that alert us to suffering of "women and children' as though women are naturally linked with adolescent innocence. This is done by most people regardless of politics. I agree to most of what you guys asserted above. What troubles me is how most cannot recognize that ALL OF US created the differences. By the way, on the 'children' part, I also think we place too much emphasis on assuming them more valuable as though being naive and relatively stupid is itself a virtue! Should
  10. The present uprising is not of the Martin Luther King thinking. It is Malcolm-X thinking. The difference is about whether one believes in mere equality of people as a goal versus VENGEANCE. Don't play into the fear yourself because the movement WANTS you to react as you are. Try REFLECTING them minus the anger or society will only see the anger. People are able to interpret the flaws if you permit them to without bias. Floyd was just a symbol and a pent up anger by many who are normally 'social' being forced into temporary isolation during this Covid-19 are partly expressing this indirectly. T
  11. Infidel Dog and Taxme, Everytime I make a good logical argument about something that is shared across all political interests, why do you guys come along and poison the issue by your own propaganda sounding posts? You may be sincere (I can't tell for sure). But if you keep up the stupid references to generic conspiracies that is just as likely to have been created by the same enemy, you prevent others from taking even the logical efforts to defeat the same problems that I'm trying to help with. If you want to appeal to people broadly and NOT merely of your own political persuasion,
  12. That's NOT the way it is being presented nor what Betty would likely be implying. It is not good to have just ANY policing ideology. Today's movement against the police would simply reassign select people as being beyond reproach or exempt based upon intentionally flawed justification. The movement is intended to treat the present abuses within the IDEA of policing itself to be criminal should they use even normal means to act upon suspicion of anyone UNLESS they are not of the protected races. As such, it will force a counter-bias against those left UNPROTECTED. It is an attempt to foster law
  13. Another factor to this issue that relates: Note that the Toronto's BLACK chief of police has stepped down ....without requiring to explain why? Now imagine the possibility of him possibly being known to support the same behaviors that the mob is accusing the police of being 'systemically racist'. This would not look good for the anti-police proponents wanting to PROVE that ALL police are systemically discriminatory against race, right? Solution: Get him to step down to hide any NEGATIVE evidence that might add force to the [against the] movement's cause! This may not be
  14. No. I agree with what you've said here. My point was to show HOW the problem is escalating. I was supporting the police as NOT acting with intentional systemic ideologies from the top. YET, the act of our own RCMP here to create a SYSTEMIC rule of incrimination with unlateral power CANCELS proves the mob 'correct'. This is like how you stand up FOR some neighbor who calls 'rape' against some ex by calling the police only to notice that she's still not cancelled her invitation for him to her birthday party, then makes complaints against the same neighbors who acts concerned as though they are u
  15. I noticed that no one here (that I could see yet) has discussed how our RCMP unilaterally made a top-down decision to formally treat the "INCELS" as "terrorists." The timing of this during the chaos demonstrates the tactics that get used like this actually counter-demonstrates how the police here in Canada are justifying the abusive 'culture' of intoleration within the police. Now, though I am not INCEL, my point here is that this formal decision is an act of the police CREATING law rather than merely ENFORCING it. This behavior is intentionally overlooked because the way the subject mat
×
×
  • Create New...