- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Greece is the word
Greece is the wordFollow
you having a bad day knoxx? I've seen you do much better then that.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,
Moe linked garbage. All Moes source does is verify the number of Canadians legally working in the US. That's like saying the only mexicans working in the US are the ones who have work visas. Even you and Moebius aren't that stupid.
Quote:
Moe linked a page previously, and I went through the effort of looking up the number of two types of visas previously and wrote down the information. The stuff was there to see; not looking at it isn't a valid excuse
Moe linked garbage. All Moes source does is verify the number of Canadians legally working in the US. That's like saying the only mexicans working in the US are the ones who have work visas. Even you and Moebius aren't that stupid.
Quote:
The Urban Institute estimates "between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live in the United States
Ok, so about 70,000 live here illegally, likely working since they can't receive benefits as they aren't citizens. Next?
Stupid Locke, it's the illegals no one knows about! Jeez
8.7 million of them!
Edited, May 7th 2010 3:39pm by Xsarus
8.7 million of them!
Edited, May 7th 2010 3:39pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Jophiel wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
I thought we'd already established I can't read or type and simply just roll my head over the keyboard and what comes out is what it is.
Fair enough. Stop face-rolling the keyboard while you're on drugs.
Shit, I mean, not to toot my own horn but I thought even *I* was more intelligible when on drugs.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
They were protesting a bill that would allow employers to fire people without providing a reason for the first two years of work. There was nothing about never getting fired.
Existing French law makes it nearly impossible for an employer to fire someone. It's the equivalent of every single person in the country belonging to a labor union. You basically have to commit a felony at work to get fired. The proposed change would allow employers to fire people "at will" for the first two years and *only* the first two years.
From a US perspective, that's a shockingly silly thing to riot about, and it shows a massive sense of entitlement in that population.
None of this changes the fact that you're a massive delusional cunt, though.
Here's some starters:
- This was not a riot.
- Existing French laws don't make it nearly impossible for someone to get fired.
- Even in the most unionised sectors of the public services, you can get fired for much less than a felony.
- In 70% of all French jobs, you can fired for the all usual reasons.
- But unless you've committed a serious mistake, you will get a few months paid notice.
- Your knowledge of the US is bad enough, but your knowledge of Europe is so shameful you're forced to make **** up.
- My bad, that applies to when you speak about the US as well.
- And obviously, yeah, you're a cunt.
Locked,
How about those Canadians that claim unemployment in Canada and cross the border to work on a cash basis? Any numbers on that amount?
90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US. That's 30+ million. And you can sit here with a straight face and say only a couple hundred thousand of them work in the US?
Quote:
Ok, so about 70,000 live here illegally, likely working since they can't receive benefits as they aren't citizens. Next?
How about those Canadians that claim unemployment in Canada and cross the border to work on a cash basis? Any numbers on that amount?
90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US. That's 30+ million. And you can sit here with a straight face and say only a couple hundred thousand of them work in the US?
Xarus,
Dumbass I'm not saying they live here just that they work here.
90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US.
Quote:
8.7 million of them
Dumbass I'm not saying they live here just that they work here.
90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US.
That's only because we're massing on the border in preperation for an invasion, duh.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
There must be an unbelievably massive amount of work within an hour or so of the US border. Wow. What do you have these 8.7 million people doing?
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
yeah, now that you've totally changed what you're saying!
My very first statement about this was that it's a semantic issue revolving around what you mean by "hurting the economy". I'm not sure how I can be accused of changing what I was saying when I started out saying that it depends on what you mean when you say those words.
Way to miss the point though. ;)
Quote:
So you agree that saying something like taxes are always harmful is silly and ignores most of what is going on. Great!
No. It depends on what you mean by "harm". Taxes always harm those they are taken from. Period. I just spent several paragraphs explaining this to you.
What's silly is painting a complex issue with a broad brush statements. Have a little bit of faith that most of us saying that taxes are harmful fully understand that despite this, they are often necessary, and the things we spend them on may product net positives beyond the harm caused, ok? It's not like we don't "get" what you're saying, we just still find it useful to remember that one part of the equation is harmful and another is helpful so as to know when/how to assess if the net effect is really worth it or not.
Knowing the components is necessary to assess the net result. If you know that <taxes> (T) + <benefits> (B) = <net effect> (N), recognizing that T is always a negative number means that you can assess the value of B needed to ensure a positive value N. If all you do is look at the whole and see that N is positive as a result of adding T and B, you can make the mistake of assuming that future additions of T an B will also result in positive N. That would be a mistake, wouldn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I took a poll and the consensus is that the 8.7 million Canadians sneaking across the border each day are probably all beaver farming.
Mostly in Wyoming.
Edited, May 7th 2010 4:39pm by Xsarus
Mostly in Wyoming.
Edited, May 7th 2010 4:39pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
Way to miss the point though. ;)
Quote:
What's silly is painting a complex issue with a broad brush statements.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
- This was not a riot.
WTF definition of "riot" do you use? IMO, the second a car is lit on fire, you've long since passed being a peaceful demonstration. Maybe the French have a different definition of riot though, perhaps involving nuclear weapons?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I was saying it was absurd to not look at the entire picture.
No. You said it was silly to say that taxes always caused harm. Had you said that we should always assess the harm caused by taxation against the good generated by the spending of said revenue, your statement above would be correct and I'd have completely agreed. But you didn't say that. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that we should not look too closely at the components which make up the whole, nor cast any judgment about any single part.
Quote:
You ignored it.
No, I didn't. I directly addressed the statement you made. Now maybe that's not what you meant to say, and you're free to retract or amend your earlier statement if you wish. But I can only respond to what you actually wrote in your post. And that statement was incorrect IMO.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I was saying it was absurd to not look at the entire picture.
No. You said it was silly to say that taxes always caused harm. Had you said that we should always assess the harm caused by taxation against the good generated by the spending of said revenue, your statement above would be correct and I'd have completely agreed. But you didn't say that. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that we should not look too closely at the components which make up the whole, nor cast any judgment about any single part.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
- This was not a riot.
WTF definition of "riot" do you use? IMO, the second a car is lit on fire, you've long since passed being a peaceful demonstration. Maybe the French have a different definition of riot though, perhaps involving nuclear weapons?
Hypothetically, then, if one man out of a million lights a car on fire then that makes it a riot?
I think Varus is one of those illegal Canadians and his refusal to set foot in Canada is just a cover for this.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,
Moe linked garbage. All Moes source does is verify the number of Canadians legally working in the US. That's like saying the only mexicans working in the US are the ones who have work visas. Even you and Moebius aren't that stupid.
Quote:
Moe linked a page previously, and I went through the effort of looking up the number of two types of visas previously and wrote down the information. The stuff was there to see; not looking at it isn't a valid excuse
Moe linked garbage. All Moes source does is verify the number of Canadians legally working in the US. That's like saying the only mexicans working in the US are the ones who have work visas. Even you and Moebius aren't that stupid.
Normally, when someone says someone else's evidence is garbage they give some sort of statistic or citation or source to back it up
Oh lawd, me and Moe are on the same time
Sir Xsarus wrote:
To rail against taxes because they cause some kind of harm is silly, and is ignoring a lot of factors.
I'm not ignoring those other factors. I'm just not demanding that we cannot look at the effect of taxes by themselves. As I pointed out above, if you don't separate the factors when considering the whole, you can't actually assess the whole.
I look at taxes and benefits separately. That way I don't make the mistake of thinking that there's no harm done by raising taxes.
And to present the flip side: I *also* don't make the mistake of thinking that no one benefits from social programs if the net effect from those programs and taxes is negative. I look at the harm caused by taxing people, and the help caused by whatever we spend the money on separately. Why would you look at this any other way? Heck. How can you look at it any other way?
Quote:
You were also saying that taxes always harm the economy initially, not just some kind of individual harm, and I disagree.
Of course they harm "the economy". You're taking money out of it first. That's "harm" in this context. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Quote:
Taxes that go to pay for infrastructure and order will provide a net benefit to the economy, fairly directly and quickly.
They may provide a benefit. They may even provide a net benefit. But the very fact that you mention the word "net" means that there's a calculation going on. And part of that calculation involves the negative effect on the economy which the mere fact of taxation causes.
You're looking a the end result, but I'm looking at the whole process. IMO, my approach is more useful.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
But the very fact that you mention the word "net" means that there's a calculation going on. And part of that calculation involves the negative effect on the economy which the mere fact of taxation causes.
While technically true, it's a ridiculous and utterly useless perspective. You have to sum vectors for the data to be useful.
It's an argument that bows move arrows backwards because they must be drawn first. It's an argument that in exchanging a twenty dollar bill for two tens I have lost money because I am temporarily down a twenty dollars before the transaction is complete. It's an argument that coal mining and oil drilling wastes energy because you have to power the equipment to bring the burnables to the surface. It's an argument that drinking Gatorade dehydrates you because for a few seconds before being absorbed into your blood stream the hypertonic solution causes water to leave surface cells.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,
How about those Canadians that claim unemployment in Canada and cross the border to work on a cash basis? Any numbers on that amount?
90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US. That's 30+ million. And you can sit here with a straight face and say only a couple hundred thousand of them work in the US?
Quote:
Ok, so about 70,000 live here illegally, likely working since they can't receive benefits as they aren't citizens. Next?
How about those Canadians that claim unemployment in Canada and cross the border to work on a cash basis? Any numbers on that amount?
90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US. That's 30+ million. And you can sit here with a straight face and say only a couple hundred thousand of them work in the US?
Sweetums wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,
How about those Canadians that claim unemployment in Canada and cross the border to work on a cash basis? Any numbers on that amount?
90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US. That's 30+ million. And you can sit here with a straight face and say only a couple hundred thousand of them work in the US?
Quote:
Ok, so about 70,000 live here illegally, likely working since they can't receive benefits as they aren't citizens. Next?
How about those Canadians that claim unemployment in Canada and cross the border to work on a cash basis? Any numbers on that amount?
90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US. That's 30+ million. And you can sit here with a straight face and say only a couple hundred thousand of them work in the US?
Yea, tell me when Colorado hits -30º F.
Bard,
Whatever;
http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/canadians-among-us?page=1
Quote:
Normally, when someone says someone else's evidence is garbage they give some sort of statistic or citation or source to back it up
Whatever;
Quote:
Since 2000, the number of Canadians living in New York City has more than doubled to over 21,000, myself included. In Manhattan alone, we make up the eighth-largest population of foreign-born residents. And there are between 70,000 and 99,000 unauthorized Canadians nationwide, according to the Urban Institute, a research firm that estimates figures based on population surveys. Although no one tracks the number living illegally in New York, the city continues to be a draw for my northern brethren
Quote:
Part of the reason for this influx of Canadians is a class of visa that was created in 1994, when NAFTA went into effect. The Trade NAFTA (TN) visa authorizes workers from Mexico and Canada to live in the U.S. for up to one year, provided they work in one of 60 scheduled occupations. A Canadian need only prove that she has a job as a graphic designer or an accountant, show up at the border, and pay $50. She can obtain a visa on the spot.
No wonder this town's crawling with frostbacks.
No wonder this town's crawling with frostbacks.
Quote:
SO WHY DO CANADIANS continue to make New York their home? For the same reason that all newcomers touch down on American shores: opportunity. More money, more recognition, a better life -- or at least a better job. We come, in short, for the American Dream.
http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/canadians-among-us?page=1
So you admit you were wrong about millions of Canadians coming to America. My favorite quote:
I've never lived in New York City, but to me it sounds like the cost of living is significantly higher than a lot of other places. Which is probably why people go there, get a job for a while for more pay than they otherwise would, then move back to Canada.
Quote:
"I feel like when you say ‘immigrant,' it sounds like someone ... from a Third World country, coming somewhere for a better life almost. As opposed to coming from Canada, [when moving to the States] is kind of like coming to a lower standard of living."
I've never lived in New York City, but to me it sounds like the cost of living is significantly higher than a lot of other places. Which is probably why people go there, get a job for a while for more pay than they otherwise would, then move back to Canada.
Quote:
"Before all these things happened with the market," said John Moore, president of the Canadian Association of New York, "you could almost say that there was a Canadian formula, whereby people would come here, and they would earn higher salaries, live in New York City, build up a bit of a nest egg, and they would want to go back to wherever they're from in Canada, and settle there, and build their family."
Recent Visitors: 296
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (296)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Greece is the word
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC