kelownabomberfan

yes, as an example of a hypocrite who wanted super-high taxes, and then ran to Belgium when they actually were implemented. Perfect example. The wealthy are able to transition to lower-tax jurisdictions, and so if you implement high tax rates, they leave, and you get nothing. Nada. High tax rates DON'T WORK. It's that simple. I can ask you the exact same question. Right back at you. Please stop accusing me of this. And take a long hard look in the mirror.

Having read a lot about the Vietnam war, and having been there twice (and truly realizing what a stupid freaking horrible waste of humanity that war was) I can safely say that the BBC is not telling the entire story (surprise surprise). And if you want to blame politicians for Vietnam, Kennedy and Johnson wear a lot of shame as Kennedy started a stupid useless war, and Johnson escalated it dramatically. Nixon ended the war, though he really didn't have much choice.

This is pretty ignorant. It's like you are deliberately putting your head in the sand to not understand basic tax concepts. How are you supposed to be taken seriously with comments like this?

What part of her plan isn't? Where is she going to get the money??? Chasing Amazon out of New York has pretty much doomed her. It's nice to promise unicorn farts and pixie dust, but when you kill real jobs and cost people actual money, it's not fun and games anymore. Even DeBlasio couldn't believe she was that clued out, and he's right up there with the most regressive "progressive" leftists. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/02/18/bill-de-blasio-aoc-didnt-understand-amazon-dealat-all-n2541634

Well of course you want less of the latter, because you want to sell the myth that "progessive" (ie Left-wing politicians) are "forward thinking (the myth). This is not the case, as much as the Left are trying to push this false narrative. The country is at risk of losing it's most wealthy, who, despite claims to the contrary, create jobs and wealth. Venezuela chased all of their capital and investment and rich people out, and look where that got them. It's a doomed strategy that will always fail, as long as the mega-wealthy have somewhere else to go. Taxing zero wealth at 70% is less tax revenue than taxing billions of dollars at 40%. They never get it.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-liberals-are-now-at-the-edge-of-a-cliff

and as has been demonstrated in every country that this has been tried, the "pro-human" types end up taxing nothing, as the super-rich head out the door. Even uber-leftist and Fidel Castro super-friend Gerard Depardieu high-tailed it out of France when they brought in a tax on the super-rich, proving the hypocrisy is alive and well in all of these far-left celebrities.

OK, I get what you are saying. It's factually correct to say that progressive and forward-thinking are the same, and it's just the people right now in the political sphere who are labeling themselves progressive, because they are actually not forward thinking, that are being factually incorrect. I get it now.

Her plan, if you can even call it that, is bat-poop crazy.

It's definitely misleading if/when applied to those in the political spectrum that are labeling themselves "progressives". They are actually the furthest thing from it! That's the point.

At least we can agree on this. What a monster indeed.

LOL - yes, of course. Just as usual, ignore the content. So you think that banks should be held accountable if someone they lend money to has an environmental issue? Really? That to you is a "nothing burger"?

But that's my point - calling these terms "synonymous" is extremely misleading. In certain peoples' opinion they are synonyms, but not really. In fact, as demonstrated by a lot of self-identifying "progressives", like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren for instance, they have a lot of extremely non-forward looking views, in terms of taxation and spending. To say that Bernie Sanders is both "progressive" and "forward looking" may be the opinion of some, but it's just an opinion, not a truth.

interesting take on it. I agree that both sides, left and right, need to adapt their positions to fit into the future, for sure.

Nice article on AOC: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ocasio-cortez-again-proves-shes-clueless-on-economics man is she clueless, about just about everything. Her policy ideas are silly and unsupportable, and would really cause a lot of economic and societal damage.

why does it explain a lot? It just seems like people are assigning themselves a high moral ground here that is completely undeserved, just because they identify with a specific political group. Anything that disagrees with this political group's ideology is immediately labeled "regressive" (whatever that even means) no matter what the points of disagreement may be. Case in point - if you question the 12 year death sentence certain politicians have put on the planet due to the man-made climate change hypothesis, you are suddenly "regressive", which is just plain silly. Being "progressive" seems to be to actually be pretty regressive in a lot of ways, and extremely damaging to the environment and the economy. So to sum up, the moral preening of those labeling themselves "progressive" is pretty hard to stomach, and also pretty hypocritical.

define "progressive and forward thinking", because to me that phrase is actually an oxymoron in a lot of ways.

Liberals almost caught with their pants down, but able to lie their way out of it. Seems to be a steady pattern with this bunch of corrupt losers...

Petan is perfect for Europe. I think HC Davos is his future.

we can't keep trading our first round pick year in year out just for rentals, I don't see that being sustainable.

I want Notley to lose in Alberta, and move to BC. If the NDP here in BC would have her as leader, we'd be so much better off. Notley is a freaking dream compared to the dumb-dumbs we have here.

No, I didn't get this memo. And I'm not "gunning" to lock any threads down, I leave that to those who can't seem to tolerate any opposing opinions.