Political Posts

[Gregmal]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

No wonder people role the dice on Mamdani with candidates like this.

Adams is already out - this guy was totally corrupt.

Or maybe it just represents what New York City is at this point. 

[dwy000]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Statistics are not the point.  But your post clearly illustrates the distinction between the left's desire for more govt. mandates/control and the opposition's policy of more individual freedom of thought and less govt. intrusion. Personally, I'd never choose to live in a place where your polices rule the day.  

Its a question of when individual freedoms impact societal freedoms. If a person wants to do things that risk their life and health nobody really cares - Darwin theory.  But if doing so risks the life and health of broader society then people react. And nobody will ever agree where that line is.  Whether its vaccines where we can eliminate disease entirely if everyone plays along or guns.  

 

Generally, people living in more populated and dense societies (cities) understand that the rules that provide a greater good sometimes limits individual freedoms. Rural populations generally feel the opposite. 

[Sweet]

15 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Worked fine for my family who immigrated here...as well as millions of others.  We've paid a ton of taxes, charitable work, community work and have certainly given back more than taken.  And that was after my grandfather passed away two years after coming to Canada and my father was left working three jobs to support his non-English speaking mother, 12 year old sister and 4 year old brother.  The assumption (lie) that immigrants are a lazy burden to society is an anecdote that has been disproven time and time again both statistically and in truth!  Cheers!

I’m not even referring to economics.  Indians are some of the hardest working for sure.  

[John Hjorth]

16 hours ago, Parsad said:

My family since coming to Canada in 1964 has never used any of those services other than schools and government services like the DMV.  And we also paid all of our taxes to use those two services.

 

This notion of immigrants being a burden has been around forever!  In the U.S. it was the Irish and Italians who were despised and vilified in the mid-1800's...then the Chinese and Japanese...after that South Americans and Mexicans...then of all various Indian descent.  Criminals, liars, rapists, murderers, tax cheats, underground economies, etc...same shit we hear today has been around for nearly 200 years in the U.S...and even longer in Europe for that matter!  Cheers!

 

Yeah, Sanjeev [ @Parsad ],

 

It has been around just about everywhere for ages, and it's totally nonsense and *BS*! It's one those ignorant and baseless generalizations circulating around in certain environments, like 'Europe is uninvestable'.

Edited October 4, 2025 by John Hjorth

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Statistics are not the point.  But your post clearly illustrates the distinction between the left's desire for more govt. mandates/control and the opposition's policy of more individual freedom of thought and less govt. intrusion. Personally, I'd never choose to live in a place where your polices rule the day.  

 

You'd rather live in a place that daily disregards the Constitution and Bill of Rights...got it!  For a country that touts freedoms and liberties, it certainly seems to be restricting them more and more.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

I’m not even referring to economics.  Indians are some of the hardest working for sure.  

 

Every Philippine I've met has like 3 jobs.  I've never met a lazy Chinese or Japanese person.  Hispanics and African-Americans make up much of the service industry.  Lazy immigrant is an old anecdote!

 

Can the numbers of skilled and unskilled immigrants be adjusted...sure.  But to say that the unskilled immigrants are lazy, consumers and don't contribute back is like I said...old, outdated and inaccurate!  Cheers! 

[73 Reds]

2 hours ago, dwy000 said:

Its a question of when individual freedoms impact societal freedoms. If a person wants to do things that risk their life and health nobody really cares - Darwin theory.  But if doing so risks the life and health of broader society then people react. And nobody will ever agree where that line is.  Whether its vaccines where we can eliminate disease entirely if everyone plays along or guns.  

 

Generally, people living in more populated and dense societies (cities) understand that the rules that provide a greater good sometimes limits individual freedoms. Rural populations generally feel the opposite. 

In part, yes.  But one can make the argument that the thousands of people who die each year from vehicular accidents can be avoided if we outlaw vehicles.   The issue comes down to whether or not one chooses to take personal responsibility for their own actions while at the same time not living their life in fear of everything and anything.  If you're afraid of being around people, there are many career and life choices that don't involve being exposed to many people.  Its up to the individual, not the government.

[73 Reds]

17 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

You'd rather live in a place that daily disregards the Constitution and Bill of Rights...got it!  For a country that touts freedoms and liberties, it certainly seems to be restricting them more and more.  Cheers!

That's complete nonsense.  Nothing further warranted.  Cheers!

[Spekulatius]

17 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Worked fine for my family who immigrated here...as well as millions of others.  We've paid a ton of taxes, charitable work, community work and have certainly given back more than taken.  And that was after my grandfather passed away two years after coming to Canada and my father was left working three jobs to support his non-English speaking mother, 12 year old sister and 4 year old brother.  The assumption (lie) that immigrants are a lazy burden to society is an anecdote that has been disproven time and time again both statistically and in truth!  Cheers!

I think it works like this. The argument against immigrants are economical (they are a net burden on society, take jobs away from citizens etc) but the underlying motive is racial and cultural (brown people smell like curry). This is obvious when you follow X and other social media now.

 

On a side note, the home development we bought a house in Charlotte is at least 1/3 Indian occupied by Indian’s. I had no idea when I bought the house in January but it’s even obvious now that we walk the neighborhood in the evening or go by the community pool. They are very family oriented and you don’t see some of the nonsense that you see in other neighborhoods.

 

I was joking to my wife that we ought to make some friends there so we get invited to the parties there that they seem to have because the food smells pretty good.

 

Oh well, each it’s own. 

Edited October 4, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Every Philippine I've met has like 3 jobs.  I've never met a lazy Chinese or Japanese person.  Hispanics and African-Americans make up much of the service industry.  Lazy immigrant is an old anecdote!

 

Can the numbers of skilled and unskilled immigrants be adjusted...sure.  But to say that the unskilled immigrants are lazy, consumers and don't contribute back is like I said...old, outdated and inaccurate!  Cheers! 

I agree with most of that, but again, not really referring to economics.

[backtothebeach]

19 hours ago, Parsad said:

And there were many cases of healthy young children dying directly from Covid due to respiratory issues.

 

You're argument is like saying "healthy kids don't need to wear seatbelts...only the sick ones!"

There are different stats, but it is about two or three in 1 million healthy children. Nowadays, with more natural immunity and post Omicron, it should be even less. Not enough to subject ALL children to yearly injections IMO.

 

Your seatbelt analogy is lazy.

Anyway, no one is convincing anybody here, agree to disagree.

[dwy000]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

In part, yes.  But one can make the argument that the thousands of people who die each year from vehicular accidents can be avoided if we outlaw vehicles.   The issue comes down to whether or not one chooses to take personal responsibility for their own actions while at the same time not living their life in fear of everything and anything.  If you're afraid of being around people, there are many career and life choices that don't involve being exposed to many people.  Its up to the individual, not the government.

Come on, common sense has to be part of it. The benefits of vehicles massively outweigh the dangers - and its also one of the most regulated products and activities in the country to try and minimize the harm. If people driving too fast only killed themselves nobody would care. 

 

Its a matter of how much people place their personal freedoms above those of society.  If someone wants to be fearful that's entirely up to them - it impacts nobody else.  And if you choose not to live in fear that's fine too - as long as you dont limit anybody else's right to safety. 

 

Most importantly though, because its impossible to get everyone to agree, it IS up to the government as to where to draw the line.  Every single law we have in society is the government drawing the line. And different countries draw it in different places. People disagreeing on those lines is exactly what political issues are. 

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I think it works like this. The argument against immigrants are economical (they are a net burden on society, take jobs away from citizens etc) but the underlying motive is racial and cultural (brown people smell like curry). This is obvious when you follow X and other social media now.

I agree, the biggest issue isn’t even economical, it’s just another talking point.

 

However I disagree agree with your generalisation that those who argue on cultural grounds are racist.
 

There are plenty who racist and want less immigration - scroll twitter, it’s obvious - but there are many more who want to preserve their cultural and ethnic identity with no animosity towards others just because they different race.

And in a world were we believe in democracy, and that the country belongs to its people, there shouldn’t be an issue with them wanting to preserve what makes them unique, and brings them together as a people.  That is how nations form and stay together.

 

Edited October 4, 2025 by Sweet

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Come on, common sense has to be part of it. The benefits of vehicles massively outweigh the dangers - and its also one of the most regulated products and activities in the country to try and minimize the harm. If people driving too fast only killed themselves nobody would care. 

 

Its a matter of how much people place their personal freedoms above those of society.  If someone wants to be fearful that's entirely up to them - it impacts nobody else.  And if you choose not to live in fear that's fine too - as long as you dont limit anybody else's right to safety. 

 

Most importantly though, because its impossible to get everyone to agree, it IS up to the government as to where to draw the line.  Every single law we have in society is the government drawing the line. And different countries draw it in different places. People disagreeing on those lines is exactly what political issues are. 

No argument with your words but it is not govt.'s responsibility to regulate everything that *may* have a negative consequence.  Sanjeev proposed a mandatory flu shot.  The idea is absurd.  What penalty would he propose for those who refuse and how, pray tell would such a penalty be enforced?  Most folks understand that policies too have consequences and no one should be forced to endure the consequences of a mandatory flu shot.   People get sick, they get in accidents and sometimes bad things just happen.     

[Gregmal]

LOLz....what happened to "my body, my choice"?

[dwy000]

37 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

No argument with your words but it is not govt.'s responsibility to regulate everything that *may* have a negative consequence.  Sanjeev proposed a mandatory flu shot.  The idea is absurd.  What penalty would he propose for those who refuse and how, pray tell would such a penalty be enforced?  Most folks understand that policies too have consequences and no one should be forced to endure the consequences of a mandatory flu shot.   People get sick, they get in accidents and sometimes bad things just happen.     

Nobody is arguing that people get sick and bad things happen. Thats just life. The argument is where to draw the line on preventing one person's freedom from interfering with your freedom.  Some people want to have everyone get a flu shot to minimize the impact on society while others dont want to any rules at all.  Satisfying both is impossible. 

[Parsad]

58 minutes ago, backtothebeach said:

There are different stats, but it is about two or three in 1 million healthy children. Nowadays, with more natural immunity and post Omicron, it should be even less. Not enough to subject ALL children to yearly injections IMO.

 

Your seatbelt analogy is lazy.

Anyway, no one is convincing anybody here, agree to disagree.

 

Your response is lazy...the actual number is 0.002%, so in a million children, that would mean 2,000 deaths.  

 

Yes, that number would be a bit lower today with medications to alleviate symptoms, but it's not much different than the difference that seatbelts make.

 

I also wouldn't subject all children to flu or Covid vaccines...only those that have underlying health issues or compromised immune systems.  Some of you are arguing that it just isn't necessary and that's dangerous!  

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

45 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

No argument with your words but it is not govt.'s responsibility to regulate everything that *may* have a negative consequence.  Sanjeev proposed a mandatory flu shot.  The idea is absurd.  What penalty would he propose for those who refuse and how, pray tell would such a penalty be enforced?  Most folks understand that policies too have consequences and no one should be forced to endure the consequences of a mandatory flu shot.   People get sick, they get in accidents and sometimes bad things just happen.     

 

Yes, just like with guns...a few hundred thousand dead is worth the cost of freedom.  Citizen criminals with guns are ok when compared to non-citizen criminals with guns.  Cheers!

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Nobody is arguing that people get sick and bad things happen. Thats just life. The argument is where to draw the line on preventing one person's freedom from interfering with your freedom.  Some people want to have everyone get a flu shot to minimize the impact on society while others dont want to any rules at all.  Satisfying both is impossible. 

Right, but most people fall directly in the middle.   Reasonable precaution is what has gotten us this far.

[73 Reds]

10 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

LOLz....what happened to "my body, my choice"?

Yep, only when convenient.  

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Yes, just like with guns...a few hundred thousand dead is worth the cost of freedom.  Citizen criminals with guns are ok when compared to non-citizen criminals with guns.  Cheers!

How many people's lives have guns protected?  

[Cigarbutt]

On 10/3/2025 at 3:53 PM, Castanza said:

Well then take it up with NIH…it’s not my study. 
And nowhere did I say Tylenol causes autism or that you should not get your covid vaccine… 

 

Your statement/conclusion: 

"You do realize the covid vaccine does not prevent you from spreading covid if you have covid right?"

This statement/conclusion has odds of 99 to 99.9% of being wrong, if one uses solid underlying data within a solid and reliable analytical framework.

If one uses poor underlying data and unverified or non-peer-reviewed opinions within a poor and biased analytical framework, your statement could be considered correct. A similar framework was used to come up with the statement/conclusion that Tylenol 'causes' autism.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is...

[Gregmal]

46 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Yep, only when convenient.  

It’s pathetic. There’s absolutely ZERO, logical consistency or intellectual honesty with them. 
 

[dwy000]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

LOLz....what happened to "my body, my choice"?

Exactly. People draw the line in different places. What about legalizing drugs? 

Edited October 4, 2025 by dwy000

[dwy000]

53 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Right, but most people fall directly in the middle.   Reasonable precaution is what has gotten us this far.

Reasonable is in the eyes of the beholder.