Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8883961)

St. Pat's? Lol.

Interesting that the only person here to openly support the idea, is a woman. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see another perspective. But that is interesting. I think it's a lot different for men.
Men are also more likely to transition than women. Probably due to the fact that men and women both share the x chromosome, while women don't carry the y. Which is the biological difference between man and woman. I assume that's a big part of it anyways... Very different for men/father's.
I just don't think children need to learn these things at that age. And I think it's disturbing that if someone has that view, it can be shifted into them being opposed to the whole idea of transgender. It immediately becomes a black or white conversation.

And I'll be completely honest, as I try to be; I think as a society we're becoming too open to lgbt. The relationship between a man and woman is as natural as the gender you were born with. That's not to say that being gay or wanting/needing to be a gender other than what you were born with is wrong. But it is unnatural. Irregular. That is the truth. And if we can't say that without being labeled a bigot, than we're not being honest with each other. And that is political correctness running amuck.

PS. Not everything needs to be politicized.

Originally Posted by Lomac (Post 8883971)

Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8885035)

? I was being serious, I watched the entire thing and looked up his books after, fascinating guy, can’t believe he’s still teaching at 87 years old.

Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8885050)

^ Eh? Friedman’s economic policies were almost entirely based in John Maynard Keynes theories who was British born european, at what point is anything he says even remotely Zionist? If anything it’s quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by hotshot1 (Post 8885061)

Friedman was the opposite of Keynes, he was more of a free market capitalist. Regardless, I have the same question - how is Friedman Zionist?

Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge (Post 8885109)

How is he not as Zionist? is the question. Dont even look at his past, look at his policies... but I guess one would have to be worldly aware of how the New World Order works to begin with.
youtube.com/watch?v=9uVoktXVPNY

Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge (Post 8885156)

Thats like asking would you want a Canada that is occupied and is now paying 40-50 billion a year on debt interest or would you want a Canada that is constantly in surplus with yearly payouts to its citizens, free university, healthcare, no taxation what so ever, cheap gas, cheap quality food, free train and bus service, affordable housing. Canadians wouldnt even have to work because the amount of resources it exports every year covers all that many times over.

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885180)

So if Canadians wouldn't have to work, do you suppose the country would just run itself?
Please explain to me how the concept of work applies in a collectivist society, where everything is 'free'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885180)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile


Compare that with the economy under Allende's presidency.

Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge (Post 8885198)

Yes! There is enough resources to export that people could use their little government pay cheques every month to buy cheap processed food and not have to work... well at the same time have no money to do anything else.
Those that want to attain nice houses, cars, healthy children, good food, can work mining said resources and other needed jobs.

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885218)

So what if a large percentage of people decide that they're fine not having to work?

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885218)

And where does funding come from to run free transportation, housing, education, etc..?

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885218)

I'm aware that's not really a fair comparison, but what other relatively recent president of that country imposed such egregious levels of socialism to compare to?

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885218)

Where do you contrive this hypothetical result from? Because the trend of nationalized resources and heavy government influence seemed to show otherwise.

Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge (Post 8885222)

When their system becomes this stable, people with little to lots of money will funnel that energy into ventures of their own desire and perhaps start another renaissance.


New zoning for micro houses, transpiration powered by our hydro dams... education is just made to look expensive to keep people in an underclass.

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885236)

You still haven't explained where funding comes from.

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885236)

For the worse, yes.

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885236)

And yet you seem to have no issue with allowing a sovereign government to control everything.
You know as well as I do that it is inherent for human beings to control. The trait does not discriminate between ideologies.
Whether it's a government, the zionists, marxists, capitalists, whoever. The end result is always the same. A small group, to some extent, controlling the vast majority. That will always be inevitable.

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8885306)

...

Why don't you ask the thousands of arrested protesters of the flaws of their non secular government? The ones who aren't being slaughtered or tortured as we speak.

The fastest growing intellectual country in the world. That imposes the death penalty to those who insult the prophet, commit adultery, display homosexual behavior or commit apostasy, to name a few.
...