Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Greece is the wordFollow

#127 May 10 2010 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Siesen wrote:
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."

That's the Mexican Dream as well. It's kind of hard to pull off in New York, what with the costs of living, but you can stuff a bunch of people in an apartment up in Yonkers and take the train.
____________________________
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.
#128 May 10 2010 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
knoxxsouthy wrote:
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

So, you've got a link to an op/ed that claims another organization suggests that there might be 70-100k undocumented Canadians in the U.S. right now. I have a link that lists 227,527 Canadians with "work" visas last year. Between the two of us that puts the number somewhere between 300-335k Canadians, documented and not, working and living in the U.S.

Can you tell me what sort of maths your using to come up with 300k as half of 20+ million working Canadians? I want to employ it in some of the statistical models I've been building lately, because I think I can show a much bigger up side for some of my more dodgy strategy drafts.
#129 May 10 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Jophed,

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.

And here I'd thought you kept you cat's food and litter box next to your keyboard
#130 May 10 2010 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Jophed,

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.

And here I'd thought you kept your keyboard in you cat's litterbox.

Sounds about right.
#131 May 10 2010 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
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.


And you have to know what those vectors are before you can calculate that sum, right?

Quote:
It's an argument that bows move arrows backwards because they must be drawn first.


Except that what's being drawn backwards isn't the same thing that's being propelled forward. A more accurate ancient war analogy would be that in order for 100,000 citizens of your kingdom to survive the barbarian hordes, 10,000 of them must suit up for battle and fight them. And while we can certainly say that the net result is a savings of lives, it's kinda relevant to recognize the numbers who lost their lives so that result could occur.

The danger in failing to recognize that is that while we may be willing to sacrifice those lives in that situation, we might not be willing to in a situation where the number of civilian lives at risk are not so great. Assuming that "going to war" is always going to result in a net positive of lives saved is a mistake in that situation, right?

Same deal with assuming that "the economy" is going to be improved as a result of taxation. Taxes always take away money from the economy, just as warfare always takes lives. While the end result might be "better", it is pure folly to fail to recognize the components of what you're doing when assessing whether a given action is a good one.

Quote:
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.


Lol... Have you ever handled money? Failing to understand this is the cornerstone of how short change scams work. Idiots who don't realize that the "you give me $500 so I can release $1M, and I'll give you $500k back" means that they are first losing money are the ones who get scammed. You couldn't have picked a worse example btw. Of *course* you are losing that money when you exchange it. That's why you do so at a reputable location and pay close attention to how much you hand out and how much you get back.


I'm frankly not sure why you're arguing this. It's doubly silly when were talking about a situation where largely one group pays the extra taxes, and a completely different group reaps the benefits of those taxes. Looking at the whole is kinda unfair to those who are paying the taxes, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 May 10 2010 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
You are the fifth stupidest person I know.
#133 May 10 2010 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Moe, why can't more conservatives be smart like you? I don't agree with half of what you say, but damn I like the way you say it.
#134 May 10 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
(paraphrase)"looking at the parts informs the whole"
And this would be fine if you talked about it in this way. However you don't. When asked to defend yourself you pull out this very reasonable sounding argument about considering the parts as well as the whole. The problem is that when you bring it up, you talk about it as if the harm is the only element in the equation. That's why it's a silly thing to say. It's not because it can't be part of the discussion, but it's the only factor you bring up 90% of the time.
____________________________
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
#135 May 10 2010 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
catwho wrote:
Moe, why can't more conservatives be smart like you? I don't agree with half of what you say, but damn I like the way you say it.

For both our sakes I will pretend that this post never happened.
#136 May 11 2010 at 2:39 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
Mow and Catwho, sitting in a tree!
#137 May 11 2010 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Mow and Catwho, sitting in a tree!
F I S T I N G
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#138 May 11 2010 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
Lord Nobby wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Mow and Catwho, sitting in a tree!
F I S T I N G
First comes e-stalking, then come lawsuits...
#139 May 11 2010 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,969 posts
MDenham wrote:
Lord Nobby wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Mow and Catwho, sitting in a tree!
F I S T I N G
First comes e-stalking, then come lawsuits...

Then comes Gbaji stylin' in his Zoot suit
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#140 May 12 2010 at 7:42 AM Rating: Decent
Moebius,

Quote:
For both our sakes I will pretend that this post never happened.


Why? So you can continue to delude yourself that you're views are really any different than their own?

#141 May 12 2010 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Moebius,
Quote:
For both our sakes I will pretend that this post never happened.

Why? So you can continue to delude yourself that you're views are really any different than their own?

Contrary to what Sean Hannity tells you every day there is a way to present your ideas in such a manner as to not sound like a complete moron. You should maybe take a look at making your message accessible to people who don't like to f'uck blood relatives.
#142 May 12 2010 at 9:19 AM Rating: Decent
Moebius,

Quote:
Contrary to what Sean Hannity tells you every day there is a way to present your ideas in such a manner as to not sound like a complete moron. You should maybe take a look at making your message accessible to people who don't like to f'uck blood relatives


Is this where I'm supposed to proclaim my ignorance of Hannity in a transparent attempt to convince you I don't agree with some of the things he has to say? I'll get to it later.


And if you're going to compare me to a talk show host I would prefer it be Levine or Boortz.


#143 May 12 2010 at 9:43 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Well I'm glad we're finally settled on who tells you what to think.
____________________________
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.
#144 May 12 2010 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
knoxxsouthy wrote:
And if you're going to compare me to a talk show host I would prefer it be Levine or Boortz.

So you go right with the original sources then instead of the guy who idolizes them? Good plan.
#145 May 12 2010 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Debo,

Quote:
Well I'm glad we're finally settled on who tells you what to think.


Sure beats Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, and Obama. What am I saying; they don't tell you what to think, they don't have to and they know it. They simply do whatever the f*ck they want with the knowledge that whatever they do they will continue to receive the votes of mind numbed half wits like yourself.



#146 May 12 2010 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Is this where I'm supposed to proclaim my ignorance of Hannity in a transparent attempt to convince you I don't agree with some of the things he has to say?

Gbaji might get upset that you're stealing his schtick.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 May 12 2010 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
(paraphrase)"looking at the parts informs the whole"
And this would be fine if you talked about it in this way. However you don't. When asked to defend yourself you pull out this very reasonable sounding argument about considering the parts as well as the whole. The problem is that when you bring it up, you talk about it as if the harm is the only element in the equation. That's why it's a silly thing to say. It's not because it can't be part of the discussion, but it's the only factor you bring up 90% of the time.


It's the only factor *I* bring up because it's the factor that is consistently ignored by those with whom I'm conversing. If 9 times out of 10, when a discussion of government programs to help <insert needy group here> fails to mention that by doing so, we're going to have to raise taxes on <insert some other group here> I'm going to point out that missing component of the equation.

I end out always talking about this one aspect, not because I fail to see the whole picture, but because I'm debating with people who refuse to acknowledge that one part.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 May 12 2010 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Is this where I'm supposed to proclaim my ignorance of Hannity in a transparent attempt to convince you I don't agree with some of the things he has to say?

Gbaji might get upset that you're stealing his schtick.


Who is this "Hannity" you speak of? ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 May 12 2010 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
Who is this "Hannity" you speak of? ;)
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with, a-hole.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#150 May 12 2010 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Lord Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Who is this "Hannity" you speak of? ;)
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with, a-hole.


Are that a a-hole, your speaking out of? ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 May 12 2010 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Lord Nobby wrote:
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with, a-hole.

Spreading false grammar conventions should be a capital offense.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 241 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (241)