cwericb

Now I didn't say this but From Wiki: George Louis Costanza ... is a short, stocky, balding man who struggles with numerous insecurities ...

I live in an area that has had very few immigrants until about 10 years ago. However, we have recently had a lot of immigrants, primarily from China (most wealthy), The Philippines (hard workers,friendly & well liked), India, then Middle East and a few from Eastern Europe and Africa. We have also received a substantial amount of immigration from other parts of our own Country. While this has caused substantial changes to the social makeup of the area, immigrants have caused little or no problems. In general, they are very hard working, honest and friendly people. But then again, most of the local population are friendly and welcoming, so perhaps you get what you give. While there is a certain amount of ... "Those f..ing immigrants are taking our jobs". In actuality many immigrants are working at jobs locals wouldn't take because they would prefer to exist on employment insurance or welfare since they feel they are too good to take the jobs many immigrants are only too glad to have.

Really?

"Speak of the devil and he is sure to appear."

I did not say that you said that nor am I "messing up any timelines". But your memory is either short or convenient.

Yup. A lot of hindsight going on here by people who maintained that Covid was nothing to be concerned about and was "just another flu".

Are you familiar with the saying... "Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"

Was that South Africa a few decades ago?

Didn't the United States fancy itself one time as a "classless society"? Seems the country has certainly achieved that. But just not in the way that was intended with the Pres hawking everything from Bibles to Teslas.

No. But the gun lobby/Right stands by and lets it happen and fights to keep it that way.

"Also the founding fathers couldn’t have foreseen some distant world of high powered rifles, recurrent mass shooting, social media radicalization, etc. " Correct. And that is why changes must be made to gun ownership rights.

Of course you are correct. But it will be interesting to see how the second amendment guys here justify not making changes to reflect the modern world in which we live today. Or do they simply stick there heads in the sand and ignore difficult questions? Does the US have a substantially higher rate of mental illness in the population than most other developed countries and is that the reason for for the exceptionally higher rate of mass shootings and gun murders?

Yes, but it is not just Chicago. The overall rate in the US is still 7 times that of Canada. Does that suggest that there is that much more mental illness in the US than in Canada and other developed countries? Or, is the root of the problem the easy access to guns?

Your posts raise some interesting questions............... Strict gun laws seem to work right next door in Canada as well as in many other countries around the world. Why is that? Chicago is nearly as large as Toronto and only 500 miles away. Yet the smaller city, Chicago, has 18.3 murders per 100.000 residents while Toronto has only 2.3 murders per 100,000 population. Why is that? Further, the gun violence death rate in the US is SEVEN times that of Canada. Why is that? We keep hearing the excuse: "It's not a gun problem, it is a mental illness problem." Are you therefore suggesting that there is a very much higher higher percentage of the US population that are mentally ill than most other developed countries? Why would that be? PS If there is such a high level of mentally ill people running around the United States, is it wise to make guns so easily available to them? After all, even marijuana is illegal in most US states, yet guns are not. Could you explain that?

But. As you know, Fairfax is more than just an insurance company. On the insurance side Fairfax owns insurance companies around the world. That certainly spreads the risk. Then there all the non-insurance businesses owned by Fairfax that again spreads the risk. There is risk in anything, but Fairfax mitigates the insurance risk by being so diversified. May we both do well.

Well now, earlier you suggested that I was imprudent because of my concentrated portfolio presently 60% in Fairfax Financial. I'm not so sure about that. And yes, my stock portfolio is a significant portion of my net worth and I have held Fairfax Financial getting close to 20 years. Since 2007 @ about $215/share, Fairfax Financial (FFH.TO) has represented approximately 50% of my portfolio. While the chart below (June 2007- present} shows some slow periods, there were several times when the markets were seriously down (GFC etc) and yet Fairfax shares would retain their price or actually gain during those periods balancing my holdings against losses. And, like some, if I had jumped in and out of Fairfax, there is no question in my mind that I I would missed much of the spectacular performance over the past few years. So, 18 years is a pretty long time to hold one stock, especially when it represents half or more of one's total portfolio, but it tends to question your position that concentration is imprudent. Am I just lucky? If so, I have been lucky for the past 18 years (GFC included). And. I don't think there was ever a date during all those years that, had I sold, I would have lost money on my original investment. Could I have been wiped out at some point, perhaps, but coulda, woulda, shoulda. Bottom line is that I am as comfortable (probably more so) with Fairfax today as I have ever been. If it takes a serious dive tomorrow, well most of my losses would be house money anyway and it would reduce all those latent capital gains taxes. If you can find a good company where management is aligned with shareholders interests, then don't knock concentration. My biggest mistake? Not buying Fairfax at $95 per share when I first started to follow it.

Says he who regularly posts on the Politics Board a million times.

Oh? Just stick one's head in the sand and everything will be okay. How about some people on this thread (not necessarily you) tone down the name calling and instead of attacking other posters stick to the issues.

What? He is not supposed to mention or criticize Trump on the Political Thread?

WTF can't you understand. Out of the many threads on this site, this is POLITICAL POSTS. Why do you persist in criticize someone for mentioning Trump??

Those who cannot take criticism - even when it is delivered in a humerous manner - is a sign of weakness.

Have you guys never heard of "Political Satire"? Political satire has been a legitimate form of politically based humour that dates back hundreds of years and posters here are talking like it was just invented to embarrass the right. "Political satire is a type of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics. Political satire can also act as a tool for advancing political arguments in conditions where political speech and dissent are banned." All this boohooing is pretty rich coming from followers of an elderly spoiled brat who constantly calls people childish names and spouts despicable insults numerous times a day. The really sad part of this is when many of his followers here and elsewhere attempt to emulate him.

You have been a member of this group for about a year. Cubs has been on this board for over a dozen years and I have been here for for close to twenty. So I think I know Cubs and his history in the board pretty well. Now, I know he has drunk the Koolaid, and there is little I can do to rescue him, but I think that he is smart enough that he will come around eventually. If we ever ran into each other I think we would have a great time. Or perhaps strangle each other if the subject of politics came up.

Little lack of objectivity here? "Sorry, I've never seen anything he's posted that is personally offensive." Really? Of course you don't. You support and agree with most or all of what Cubs posts. "And yet again, you just can't leave Trump out of any post." Why are you surprised at the frequent mention Trump on a thread titled "Political Posts"? Some of Cub's posts are as outrageous as are those of his great leader. It's all about that Koolaid thing.

Gets my vote for post of the week!