Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by socialist

  1. Another point of view (I think Limbaugh pointed it out in the Summer) is based on his approach to business, from his own (nearly 30 old) book......in a negotiation he would start from what most consider an insane position and then bargain down to what he actually wanted, versus making what he actually wanted known first, and bargaining down from that.

    In addition, much of his business "success" is attributed to grandiose hype surrounding all things "Trump"....people know who he is, good and bad. Likewise, because of said hype, Trump has little overhead associated with advertising, verses say what you or I would have to spend opening a new Hotel/resort/Casino. To put this in context of his current run for office, to date, he's spent little over $5 million dollars and hardly a cent on advertising......And why would he need to when everything he says is repeated over and over in the media.........

    Didn't Jimmy Carter ban Iranians from coming into the country for a period of time? Not all Iranians were revolution seeking madmen.

  2. You have to be more precise or the alarmists call you a denier. Climate Change is a reality - as anyone with half a brain knows. Global Warming - as in - humans are causing the earth's thermostat to run amok towards Armagheddon......is dubious at best.

    I agree. The climate has always changed. Much of North America was under a sheet of ice approximately 2 miles thick. It melted before you, I or Mike Hardner started smoking cigars.

    Maybe the atmosphere was overwhelmed by dinosaur flatulence that had been trapped for millions of years.

  3. No I disagree with you 100%. Scientists should never be muzzled. Global Warming is a reality. Trudeau needs to take action, only he should do it by stopping the tar sands and moving to renewable energy at home instead of filling bank accounts abroad and providing deals to Quebec and Montreal companies to do so.

    Global warming is not a reality. It's a money moving scheme.

    What kind of renewable energy do you feel could replace oil and natural gas?

  4. I'd argue that people going into fields that require math would benefit from not requiring memorization. Whereas most other people wouldn't

    It IS the poverty ... just not in the way those school boards mean it. The affluent parents simply send their kids to Kumon, Sylvan, or Kaplan, to overcome school foolishness. The poor parents are stuck trusting schools.

    The obvious irony is that schools do it because they think this is the way for greater equity -- not to demand much from anyone. They don't realize they actually contribute to making the gaps bigger, as the poor have few alternatives to public schooling.

  5. Yes, that's what I said earlier -a conspiracy theory. Hundreds of papers published by thousands of people and organizations with open data as a giant cover-up. Just think about that. It's a 9/11-conspiracy level fraud, in other words it's fantasy.

    Follow the money, Mikle, follow the money. It takes some effort though. Then and only then will you begin to understand the magnitude of the deception. Ic used to believe humans were causing climate change when I was a closed minded socialist. Follow the money, Mike.

  6. So it seems Trudeau is playing politics out of both sides of the mouth. His 2.5 billion or so dollars to help developing countries reduce climate emissions looks like a bad euphemism for serious graft. SNC Lavalin ring a bell? So while he fills the bank accounts of African dictators and simultaneously provides major commissions for Quebec and Montreal construction companies, he can use this to do nothing about the tar sands by saying that he has helped offset emissions in other countries and so doesn't need to do much within his own.

    The whole thing reaks.

    What does everyone else think?

    This shows you what happens when you "unmuzzle" the scientists. How embarrassing for the Trudeau government working to whip up support for their global warming fiasco. It has only been a couple of months and already they look very amateur.


  7. I think there is a different between rational positions (that I refer to as 'skeptical') and those that are unsupported by anything but fringe science, or even unsupported by science (that I refer to as 'denier'). The latter group can even drift into conspiracy theories, or worse.

    You should realize, Mike, that it's all a massive fraud. The goal is to put in place, permanent carbon tax revenue streams that will guarantee a cushy lifestyle for the public sector in western countries. The transfer of wealth to third world countries is what the UN bureaucracy hopes to get as their payoff but these elitists are no fools as they will get the revenues in place then demand verifiable proof of harm as a precondition for that transfer of wealth. They want the wealth to stay here in their pension funds.

    They do know the climate is almost locked in now, a mere glance at the HADCRUT-4 graph from 1990 to 2015 would tell even a person as stupid as a climate scientist that the trend is asymptotic rather than exponential. It is slowly but surely grinding to a halt and there's no chance that the increase will reach 1.5 C unless the Sun explodes.

    Around 2020 to 2025, guess what, the cabal will report from the lab that, hey believe it or not, the program worked, we saved the world, but let's keep those carbon taxes in place because the revenue stream is very helpful. Con job complete, time to retire.

    Now do you get it, Mike?

  8. If Conservatives and Liberals were polled on who best to be the NDP's next leader, do you not think it would differ from what an ardent socialist might select?

    As I said, I'd have no qualms with a Mackay bid.......I'm just not sure how much he wants to make a run. I wouldn't discount either Ambrose or Raitt, though I tend to agree they don't currently have the name recognition or backing from within the party to make a viable push, I'll withhold judgement for a few years and allow them to sink or swim with more prominent roles in Opposition..........as I've said in previous threads, I'd still give consideration to Rempel, Leitch and O'Toole.......though I wouldn't discount Kenney, I feel his stock has diminished (not an Alexander collapse though) and its clear he's the closest to Harper 2.0.

    There is no need to apologize for the Harper years; he will soon look good compared to the power at all costs driven LPC, who exist to further those with whom they're politically connected.
  9. The UCCB is taxable.

    Most of the current benefit, which is received by low and medium earning people (it's means tested, so it has a declining total with rising income) isn't taxable. If you're going to get that much under the Trudeau plan, you're already getting some non taxable benefit now.

    Let's talk about the middle class tax break that is coming into law. So, at 45k per year a person will receive an extra $56 per month. WHOA!!! Now, when the other shoe drops - increased EI, increased CPP, carbon tax on fuel, Cap n Trade, loss of income splitting with a stay at home wife - you'll be paying them an additional $112 per month.

    Typical Liberal largesse. Give with the right hand and shaft big time with the left.

  10. The UCCB is taxable.

    Most of the current benefit, which is received by low and medium earning people (it's means tested, so it has a declining total with rising income) isn't taxable. If you're going to get that much under the Trudeau plan, you're already getting some non taxable benefit now.

    Yes, I received under $200 tax free. $380 I received was taxable. Now it's over $600....and all of it will be tax free. So I am happy with JT about this. I guess if you don't have kids it doesn't benefit you.

  11. https://www.cihi.ca/en/health-system-performance/access-and-wait-times

    We don't have a free market to speed up competitive information in Canada, so it's up to a public of concerned citizens to monitor healthcare statistics and put pressure on providers to provide coverage, at quality, for a decent cost.

    And yet, I never hear people speak about CIHI - Canadian Institute for Health Information.

    I agree, Michael. You make another astute point. Why don't people speak about the CIHI? That question has bothered me and kept me up at night many nights. It's time people started speaking about the CIHI. Thanks for the excellent link, Michael. You bring to the forefront a very important topic that people are ignorant of.

  12. What we see in countries like UK and Germany which have got a terminal case of AGW dementia is a completely messed up power grid where no source of power can be built without subsidies - even fossil fuels. The main reason is the renewables are given priority so the fossil fuel planets are left under utilized. This makes it impossible for investors to get their money back from a new fossil fuel plant so they don't build them. The situation has gotten critical in the UK where they are facing massive blackouts if a cold snap hits the country this winter. Germany fairs a little better because it simply dumps its excess renewable power on its neighbors (whether they want it or not) and buys back baseload when it has a deficit.

    hey Tim, why are farmers in Alberta so angry with the NDP? What's going on there?

  13. I'm bringing it back to JT in that the TPP will be ratified as a way to balance out these new taxes.

    I like the Liberal plan for child cheques. I will receive over $600 a month tax free. That's pretty sweet. Harper only gave us monthly cheques that were taxable.

  14. Your opinion highlights how highly contentious this topic is. Many on here have complained about too much racism and bigotry, and others complain that the accusation is made against others too easily.

    Yet another outstanding post by you, Michael Hardner. I continue to be amazed at how astute you are on a variety of topics. This forum is lucky to have you as a regular contributor. I continue to be blown away by your outstanding cognitive abilities.
  15. I'd like to respond to the question of calling people 'bigots' and 'racists' directly. We've talked about it on here, and the way we address is this: it's an insult to call a person a name like that in almost all cases.

    If you are against bigotry and racism you should ask yourself the best way to express why that is. The answer is probably not just to tag somebody as racist or bigoted, but to explain very clearly your ideas on the topic.

    If you encounter another poster who admits to being racist or bigoted then go ahead and tag them and you won't be disciplined. For the others who express racist or bigoted opinions, but deny actually being racist - explain your thoughts on why their ideas (and not the person) reflect those kinds of biases.

    I don't see any racism or bigotry on this forum. People will make up whatever they want to make up. It's becoming to easy to cry racism every time one disagrees. It's simple laziness.

  • Create New...