EVEN THE DENSEST LIBTARD SHOUD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you
are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. — Professor of Economics.

That's very good Jim, and so true.

Let's try another drinking game. Suppose we had a hypothetical Vintner. We'll call him King. Now King is a proud man who frequently brags about his Award Winning Marechal Foch wines... even though he doesn't actually make this wine.

No, actually he just grows and tends about an acre of grape vines and sells his grapes to a hypothetical winery called Jost Coastal Vinyard Wines. Here's a hypothetical link:

http://jostgrows.ca/index.php?id=13

Now King works hard, planting and pruning and so forth, to produce good quality grapes. Because of the amount of pure bullshit King produces, his soil is the most fertile in the land. As such, he gets top dollar for his grapes and uses the profits to buy some of the finer things in life such as pure 100% Scottish Wool kilts and hand-made bagpipes. And he is a proud man who brags about the many awards won by the wines made from his grapes.

But then some no good Libtard notices this and says all this self-aggrandizement and profiteering is an euphemism for selfishness, and this is unfair to some other lesser growers whose ancestors were Nova Scotian slaves 200 years ago. So this Libtard Socialist prevails and succeeds in electing like minded Socialists who decide to level the playing field. They say each is responsible for everyone else. They pass laws and make executive actions to heavily tax King's profits such that he can no longer afford expensive imported kilts and bagpipes. He can no longer afford trips to Hyannis Port to hang out with the Kennedy clan. And since it is unfair that one man's grapes should make award winning wines, thus making other lesser growers feel inferior, it is decided that everyone's grapes shall henceforth be blended into one homogenous liquid. The fermentation of this juice results in a mediocre and decidedly nondescript wine sold mainly in drive-thru beer and wine depots, and drank straight out of the screw top bottle. There are no more awards for King. He works just as hard, but makes far less money and has less personal satisfaction. But the other lazy growers, and even people who drink, gamble, and use drugs are all happy because they now get a nice chunk of King's money for doing little or nothing.

So, they re-elect the Socialist Liberal lawmaker who rewarded them with the fruits of King's labor. They all hope the Socialists will tax King's CBC pension, and withhold medical treatment from him and give it to someone who deserves it more because they are poorer, younger, or can't afford it because they are in Canada illegally.

The winery that actually turns King's grapes into wine soon becomes less profitable because they cannot compete with Mogen David or Ernest and Julio Gallo. They are forced to lay off most of their workforce, and the Liberal Socialists increase King's taxes even more to pay for job retraining for the displaced workers, and to give them 99 weeks of unemployment. Taking ever larger amounts of taxes from King and other workers is never enough, so the Estate tax, fuel tax, and a million other hidden taxes are also increased, and the Canadian Government goes trillions in debt and can no longer afford to be the world's leader in permafrost exploration and lichen research. Soon, Siberia and Mongolia overtake them in these critical areas and the nation, which now has it's first black prime minister, becomes a laggard in stature and respect.

If only this wasn't a hypothetical story about a hypothetical Libtard.

I know King is ignoring you keith, or so he says but he really SHOULD read this post of yours. It greatly simplifies things for him.

Oh but he's not ignoring me J.R.B....he's just pretending to ignore me ever since he made the dishonest claim that I put words on his mouth after I had quoted him verbatim.

Later, that lie evolved into another lie when he claimed that I "dishonoured" his father. Personally, from what I've read of his WWII hero EX-POW father, he must have been quite a guy, and nothing like his bloviating boy. And I'm still not buying the cock-and-bull story about his Dad converting to Catholicism without belief in the Resurrection in the last year of his life. It would be absolutely pointless and makes zero sense. What motivation could there possibly be... an active versus a social membership to drink at the local Knights of Columbus???

JRB, my father didn't think of himself as a hero, nor his community or me. Canada doesn't make heroes as they do in other places. He saw his duty and did it. He was an Anglican who never attended church after his boyhood. He admired the Catholic Church, warts and all, and joined it the last year of life. None of his mentors for his baptism believed in the Resurrection either. I am obliged to correct any imputations of my father's motives for becoming a Catholic, and particularly one that dishonours him with a wisecrack.

Yeah, yeah, your Dad was a great man, just like my Dad but I'm talking about the tax system. Keith showed you in simple terms how the socialist/liberal tax system works by using your grapes/wine as a comparison. Your once beautiful grapes are now turned to slop. The fruits of your labor have been taken away and given to those who didn't earn or deserve it. Don't tell me that you would be happy being debased to the level of a skid row bum drinking Mad Dog 20-20. That is what happens with your socialist programs. They take from the haves and give to the have nots that don't deserve it. It's called communism and communism suppresses production and innovative ideas. Personally I don't give a tinkers damn about the lazy have nots. They can either support themselves or starve. If they choose the latter that's fine with me, it will decrease the surplus population and leave more air to breathe for productive members of society.

See J.R.B.,I told you that the Burger King only pretends to ignore me... much like a pissed off woman might react. We all know I never once dishonored his father. I much admire his contribution in the war as I do all who served. They are all Heroes to me... some more than others. King says Canada doesn't make heroes of those who do their duty to country, but we also know that' s another crock of shit. Remember the accolades for the Mountie who took out the Muslim gunman in Parliament recently. Viola! Instant National hero.

But when you've got nothing, all that's left is demonization and grasping at straws. Being a Catholic myself, I happen to know a thing or two about the process of adult conversion. King's version of the event strains credulity. I have no doubt there have been clerics who did not believe and only used the Priesthood as a convenient cover for pedophilia or homosexuality. But they would never admit to it. Adult converts are asked the same questions that a Godparent answers on behalf of an infant at baptism, and belief in the Ressurection is one of them. Is King really trying to say that his father lied to join the Church, or is he telling us that he said he did not believe in the Resurrection and a Priest violated the tenets of the Church and baptised him anyway? Or is King just telling us another big fat lie because he is an Atheist who could not accept his fathers decision to become a Catholic?

I highly suspect the latter, on the evidence, as King would say. I do not believe Kings father lied in order to become a Catholic, and never even entertained the thought. I also do not believe that multiple Priests or mentors would be either members or clerics and openly profess unbelief in the most basic tenet. But I do believe and know for certain that King lies to us on a regular basis.

I have my opinion of who dishonored his father, and it sure as hell wasn't me.

Don't expect King to ever admit that he wouldn't be happy with my hypothetical scenario that would redistribute his labors or profits from his little vineyard, and take away his awards and bragging rights. The number one rule of Libtardism is to do as I say... not as I do.

JRB, you've provided insight into why Americans are so cranky and Canadians much happier with their lives. Redistribution puts fire in your eyes. I don't feel abused by our tax system in the least. It pays for much higher health and educational standards than the US and much more pleasurable lives according to the UN happiness index. Dollar for dollar, Canadians are getting far more from their taxes than Americans.

Redistribution is national policy. Richer provinces contribute to weaker economies under an equalization formula so that we don't have pockets of misery. In Nova Scotia, the sales tax for heating and electricity was eliminated, and those with low incomes get tax rebates. Sharing the wealth is common to advanced societies. We don't go to China to pay our bills.

From Wikipedia:

"In Canada tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP,[1] compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%.
A significant portion of this tax differential is due to spending differences between the two countries. While the US is running deficits of about 4% of GDP, Canada's Federal government posted a budget surplus of around 1% of GDP per year from the mid-1990s until 2008, and is projected to enter back into a surplus by 2016. The deficit patterns and indebtedness of Canada's individual provinces vary like they do in the US among different states. Considered in a revenue-neutral context, the differential is much smaller - Canada's total governmental spending was about 36% of GDP[ vs. 31% in the US. In addition, caution must be used when comparing taxes across countries, due to the different services each offers. Whereas the Canadian healthcare system is 70% government-funded, the US system is just under 50% government-funded (mostly via Medicare and Medicaid); adding the additional healthcare-spending burden to the above figures to obtain comparable numbers (+3% for Canada, +7% for the US) gives adjusted expenditures of 38–39% of GDP for each of the two nations.
The taxes are applied the same as well. Canada's income tax system is more heavily biased against the highest income earners, thus while Canada's income tax rate is higher on average,[citation needed] the bottom fifty percent of the population is roughly taxed the same on income as in the United States."

PS---I'm not rubbing it in. You asked.

Is this from your new happiness blog? Just kidding. I suppose there's a 'fact' we might research here for courtesy, but are we to understand the mission statement of the un is? Never mind. I would hope the un had polled US Christians when they were applying external pressure by implying that the US would 'feel' much better if they dug deeper. It's a consistent fact that Christians in the US live healthier, happier, longer, more generous lives than the secular compilers of the un report.

Dollar for dollar, oh oh I better check the exchange rate, not a whole bunch of other intellectual curiosity to consider. I'm pretty sure we've beaten healthcare comparisons to..., but then again it may be worth revisiting as the less palatable parts of ocare kick in by chinese, wink, water torture.

Are there rules of honor for discussing emotional curiosity. Awe never mind, it really did look like some blog, the way you opened it up.

Keith, this is what I'm talking about when I say I am weary of every thread in Misfires being turned into being about King.

Jim posted a funny, albeit pointed piece about the fundamentals of taxation and its effects for both our countries. In the very next post, you make it about King. Now I'm sure you can say that as our resident town crier, exposing duplicitous Libtards advocating confiscatory tax regimes, it was your duty to make it about King. But I think that, and similar arguments from you, should you make them, are specious.

King, seeing as you weighed in, you are fair game as well. Be very careful about touting Canada's equalization program.

It is classic, soul destroying welfare writ large, encouraging sloth and poor social, political and fiscal decision making in the regions that have come to depend on it, namely both our home provinces along with Quebec. It is classic warm cozy idea that has horrible long term effects.

Worse, it is now a sacred political cow that no politician has the balls to stand up and admit it has been bad for our country over the last 45 years.

You slide it into a larger post comparing the possible benefits that the different tax regimes offer our two countries. This is exactly the kind of thing that gets the goat of many here. You write as though it's benefits are fact. It is a hugely contentious program with illusory short term benefits of little staying power when compared to the rancor and division it creates. It's long term effects are clearly detrimental to a spirit of creativity and success.

You use it as an example of the Canadian tax regime superiority to an audience ill informed to make a judgement about the veracity or not of your statement. All thoughtful Canadians, not blinded by ideology or by personal benefit, have concerns about the program.

Redistribution is the Christian way, Craig, supported by those who believe and don't believe because it builds stronger societies. The countries who support it most strongly, my guess, are those that are more secular i.e. northern and western Europe and Canada. Take a look at UN happiness index. We are blessed. The Spirit flourishes.

King, don't you find it odd, the inherent contradiction of this statement? "The Christian way"...."more secular"?? Which is it??

Lets see. I started this thread with a post that clearly shows that socialist "redistribution" of wealth is a sick farce.
Now we are at the point where an admitted athiest is claiming it's the "Christian way".
So I guess one can assume that Christians are far superior to athiests when it come to having a social conscience!
Hypocritical implication?? You Bet!!

Jim, in just about every analysis I have ever seen about charitable giving, the greater the proportion of avowed Christians and the more conservative the political leanings of a given population, the higher as a percentage of income will be the giving.

Secularists substitute a mandatory state authorized confiscatory system that removes personal connection and choice from charity and then vilify those who object as selfish.

Here it is, James, from December 2013 Globe and Mail:

"Nearly all Canadians say they give to charity in some form. The statistical trend, however, shows that fewer people are claiming tax deductions for their donations. And few people have a sense of how much a good citizen is expected to give.

On average, Canadians give a little less than 1 per cent (0.8) of their annual income to charity. But there are significant differences between communities.

So what do we know about who gives and how much?

The people of the Prairies file for charitable tax deductions at the highest rates, with more than a quarter of all tax filers claiming a donation, making Manitoba and Saskatchewan, by one measure, the most generous provinces in the country.

But when Statistics Canada asked people about whether they made a donation to a charitable cause, the four Atlantic provinces had the highest rates, ranging from 88 per cent in New Brunswick to 92 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia had the lowest at 80 per cent.

About 85 per cent of Quebeckers said they made a donation in 2010, but tax data from 2011 showed they donated just 0.36 per cent of their income, the lowest percentage in the country.

More broadly we know that women tend to give more than men. The old give more than the young. The religious give more than the non-religious. And university graduates give more than those who didn’t attend university."

James, how to explain mostly liberal Atlantic Provinces up there with donations, most populous and mostly conservative Ontario not even mentioned and "most generous" Manitoba and Saskatchewan of mostly "socialist" persuasions at the top?

King, can't speak for Saskatchewan but I can for Manitoba.

When one delves into the numbers, it is clear the reason Manitoba ranks so high (the highest)is because of the charitable inclinations of it's large Mennonite population. While there are some of what one might call Old Order Mennonites of the horse and buggy persuasion, the vast majority are full fledged members of modern society with a strong Christian bent. Their population base is south central and south east Manitoba, below Winnipeg and Winnipeg itself. Outside Winnipeg, in areas where they dominate the population mix, they elect almost exclusively CPC MP's.

Strongly Christian and strongly conservative. And very strongly committed in both financial terms as well as personal effort around the world, to helping their less fortunate fellow man.

Mostly Conservative Ontario???? Mostly Liberal Maritimes??? They both are the definition of swing regions. Ontario votes the way the wind is blowing. Maritimes vote for who promises the most. Take the GTA out of the equation, then lets see the numbers.

King, please read this again and comment. Is it not one of the favorite slanders of the right by the left that they are selfish????

Thanks King for your brutal honesty. I don't know a thing about their accuracy, but the numbers show an amazing comfort with less than honesty. You were not kidding when you said, 'everyone does it'. Are these folks really 'happier' or just polling happier because of some conditioned auto response. My suspicion would be to look at early education agenda influences.

Back to the tax link. Regardless of the rhetoric, the 'facts' seem to say that Canadians turn to the gov in this manner of helping those in need, when donations are elective based on the desires of the individual.

No, I may not be thinking properly this morning but I don't see a contradiction. I believe Christianity is the foundation of western civilization. It evolved rapidly in many directions from its beginning. Churches scuppered a lot of their canons as myths---which was the sentiment in spades for my father's conversion---but the Christian ethos is firmly planted within the secular.

Jim, I've explained here that I don't know what I am. I don't buy the whole thing, all the myths. Neither do most religions and denominations. I don't know if that excludes me from being a Christian so I say I'm an atheist until I figure it out or Another does it for me.

yes J.R.B., you asked. And you got exactly what you knew you'd get... a Libtard analysis with the Liberal biased Wikipedia as a source.

Actually, the comparison of U.S. vs Canadian tax rates is much more complex than King would have us believe. Buy even if you do believe his facts and figures, one thing jumps out at you, and even King points this anomaly out. Using King's own figures, taxes as a percentage of GDP are almost identical, but for some reason, U.S. citizens are getting less bang for their buck when it comes to Gov't. funded health care, education, and certain intangibles like happiness. Obviously, something is amiss. Conservatives and TEA Party members are justifiably upset, yet Liberals here wish to raise taxes even more and continually add on more hidden taxes and fees. King concurs and calls us selfish for not wishing to continue paying more and getting less.

According to this Canadian News source, it seems that, contrary to King's personal feelings, the majority of Canadians are no happier about seeing so much of their money taken by the tax man than we are... even though they get more in return.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/30/18087141.html

We see here that about 33.4% of Canadians pay no tax while the number for the U.S, is 45%. Some sources put that U.S. figure at over 50%. The figure gets skewed because unemployment is taxable. This allows Liberals to claim that recipients are taxpayers because they have to give back a small percentage of their free money. No matter, because either way, that's a lot of people with no skin in the game who are still able to vote themselves even more freebies. The higher that figure goes, the sooner that the freeloaders will have a large enough voting bloc to ensure that the treasury will be drained and the nation will inevitably become insolvent.

King often says we're selfish, but look, a smaller number of us percentage-wise are supporting more freeloaders than the average Canadian. Suddenly we see who's really selfish, and who is simply a stupid agenda driven Libtard.

I don't know how we truly get an accurate picture. It sure isn't from Wikipedia, and we know we cannot rely upon King for accurate figures when they won't support his stated agenda. Remember, he sees Misfires as this dangerous Conservative Blog, and has made it his mission to counter our horrific ideology of greater personal freedom and self-reliance. But as this article states, comparing the tax stats between our two countries is like comparing the stats of a Hockey player vs. a Basketball player... apples to oranges if you will.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-ed...-americans.aspx

The figures in this article are quite a bit different than King's Wikipedia source. But King is a one trick pony and knows where to find reliably Liberal oats and horseshit. The guy who talks about fact-checkers up the yin-yang can't be bothered checking multiple sources and sorting wheat from chaff. It makes you wonder if he was just as sloppy and biased as a Journalist. Really, you don't have to wonder very long or hard, and if you take a bit of time to do your own due diligence, King's credibility goes deeper in the red than an Obama/Liberal Dumbocrat budget.

Keith, here's one explanation for the different "bang for the buck" if tax rates are relatively the same.

We spend next to nothing on military! We rely almost entirely on the goodwill and self interest of Americans for our security. It's both humiliating and embarrassing to be such a parasite and then to have the national gall to complain about America's use of military force. It usually leaves me speechless.

James, are you making this about King? I forgive you. Don't let it get to you that he's dancing around your query. He reserves the right to answer who he wants and when. King does not ever admit to his his slanders and insults because he thinks he is morally superior to you and I, and the ends justify the means.

I don't know of anyone here who considers Canada to be a parasite because they may benefit from being a close ally of the U.S. Of course I considered our large military expenditures, but much of that expense is churned directly back into our economy in the form of paychecks and civilian contracts. Certainly, there is waste, fraud, and abuse, and more oversight is needed.

I believe more by the day that early education is an enormous influence. I don't know the answer to your last point. I think of it this way: Taxes should pay for the necessities. We shouldn't depend on charity to provide the basics. Our donations should contribute to betterment, even excellence, the things that make us more human.

About early education:

My granddaughter was called last week by a teacher about an incident at school attended by my great-granddaughter, five-year-old Kinley. Kinley told a boy to stop calling another girl names. The boy said to shut up or he'd kick her in the knee. Kinley kept yapping so he kicked here in the knee.

"I don't care what you do, stop calling her stupid and ugly. You're just a bully." The boy said he'd punch her in the face if she'd didn't stop talking. Kinley didn't stop so he punched her in the face, at which point a teacher broke it up and told the boy to apologize to the girls.

My granddaughter walking home asked Kinley how the day went. Okay. Did you do anything different? No. Nothing at all? No, nothing.

My children and grandchildren were brought up to use ugly and stupid very carefully, and better not at all. One should not speculate at the home environment of the little boy. Whatever he wasn't getting at home he was getting at school. Your observation is right on.

I would agree the Christian ethos is firmly planted, but hasn't a key tenet of the left's agenda been the debunking and rejection of Christian values? Where do we see socialism doing anything but rejecting religion and all it stands for.

In reality, the left rejects religion because, as Ken regularly states, they are substituting one religion for another...statism as opposed to Christianity.

HAHA, as I said earlier, once he enters the fray, he's fair game.

Quote:
"Jim, I've explained here that I don't know what I am. I don't buy the whole thing, all the myths. Neither do most religions and denominations. I don't know if that excludes me from being a Christian so I say I'm an atheist until I figure it out or Another does it for me."

King you are 80 + years old and you don't know what you are?? It took me 30 years and a few life changing events to get past my agnosticism but it happened.
IMO: It is high time you did some serious soul searching and you may just happen to get enlightened.

I appologize to everyone for my own deviation from the subject of this thread which is the hypocritical view of taxes by socialists and a fundamental flaw with socialism.
Jim

Jim, apology accepted but not needed. We have all veered around.

Not "usually," it leaves me speechless, always. Even more when successive federal governments say they support the military and veterans and do the opposite.

That's what I'm saying James. Nearly 2500 Misfires posts since late 2012 certainly qualifies as entering the fray. Pissing on our gun rights, calling us selfish, lying, and then running from his own words is a cowardly way of entering the fray if you ask me, but as you say, he's made himself fair game.

It's for no lack of trying. Like Socrates said, the unexamined life isn't worth living. I was humbled by the Church accepting my father's beliefs about the Resurrection, Immaculate Conception, and the pope never wrong and was more concerned about his Communism as a 20-year-old during the Great Depression. His mentors let him "in" on grounds that he was ahead of his time! I was there.

I'm out of here on religion, promise.

How long did it take you to concoct this rotten lie King? The Church would be more than happy to accept a former Communist who believed in the teachings and tenets of the Church, but not the scenario you are trying to get us to swallow. I'd love to hear it from the mouths of these ultra Progressive clerics and Priests who consider everything the Church stands for to be wrong, and for unbelievers to be ahead of their time. But that will never happen because this is just another of your many lies.

Who's dishonoring your father?

I admire Jim for trying to save you, but I think you're too far gone and it would take a major miracle to save you from yourself. You're obviously just trying to secularize Catholicism and Christianity. What a dirtbag.

I just promised I'm out of here re religion. Your view deserves a response. We agree Christianity is firmly planted in our common heritage. I'd be wary of saying only socialism or the left is moving toward secularism. North Americans subordinate religion to the rule of law.

It's the choice we make: If you don't want to live by our rules, go to another country. If you're coming to Canada, you obey our rules. We insist on all accepting our values whether you're Muslim, Christian or Jew. The jihadists kill in the name of a god with more than a billion followers. We'll have none of that here.

Yes, we've evicted God from our governments. Believe what you like but our sacred pledges for equality has made it so.

See this soft peddle of the 'new normal' is an example of why I'll tend to pick on you. A bit ago, you were making the case that Canadian taxation created better Canadian....happiness. What it 'should' do, implies short comings.

At a .8%, or significantly less, donation rate, it seems that your fellow country persons are turning to the government for 'betterment, excellence and humanity'. I don't believe we are blogging here about the 'facts' of the matter, just lobbying for ideology.

Great story. Your great granddaughter sounds like a million bucks, and not in the monetary sense. Hope your granddaughter gave 'em heck for that 'teacher' sitting back and sending a learning message to all the kids in that class room.

But, we've just learned in the charhebdo incident that radical islam deserves a censorship pass from the media to prevent satirical criticism. Is that an example of insisting everyone play by the same rules.

Nice try King, but you weren't talking about taking God out of government, you were attempting to take God out of Jesus. Christianity without the Resurrection reduces Jesus to being just another Hippie Long Hair Flower Child preaching love and communal sharing. Christianity and the Catholic Church isn't about revering or venerating a man.

There's nothing ahead of your time about worshiping a man. And by the way, it is almost exclusively the Liberal Left that has made it it's mission to remove all traces of the Christian God from the public square. The realization that the U.S. was founded upon Christian principles in no way establishes a state sanctioned religion.

You are correct and I'm conflicted. The Pope says we shouldn't make fun of any faith. I think you and I say, huh? I don't think we should make fun of any faith or religious leader but a greater right, a greater value in this case, overrides any particular religion's beliefs whether we believe them good or bad. No one should have a censorship pass.

I believe Canadians get better value for their taxes. The surveys and polling seem to bear this out. I don't know if it's so much turning to government for "betterment" as voting for an universal standard of services and not depending on charity.

Here's one on lying:

My granddaughter at dinner said to Kinley, "Do you remember when I used to tell you that broccoli were delicious little trees?"

"You lied to me?" said Kinley."

"It was only a little white lie and I only said it to get you to eat your vegetables."

"What other lies have you told me?"

(My granddaughter and her husband, both 30, own and run one of the best restaurants in the country called Supply and Demand in Ottawa, which gets back on thread, eh, Jim?)

When I was a kid growing up in New England us Catholics were referred to as "Mackeral Snappers" among other things because fish on Friday was a requirement at that time. These remarks were meant to be derisive but I don't remember anyone starting a fight over it or threatening someone over them.
There is a great deal of controversy over the new Pope and the Catholic church today. A lot of anti-Catholic materaial including cartoons are making the rounds but I doubt if we'll see Catholics with AK47s threatening those verbally attacking them.
The big diference Catholicism,even though I don't subscribe to it, is it's a RELIGION populated by people with core beliefs including "turn the cheek" Islam is a CULT populated by individuals with bizarre beliefs and NO tolerance for those who disagree.

Impossible, Comrade King.

You're the most fanatical, sociopathic, statist, reactionary, religious fundamentalist on this board. What are you going to do? Limit your posts to puppies and growing grapes?

Nah, too tame. Glad to see you back!

I'd lose you with puppies and grapes.

I've never left. I just lurk until something piques my interest.