Yes, good point.

Sure, but there was a very long debate about the implications of Brexit with both sides getting a comprehensive airing. I’m not defending Boris. Boris is an asshole and a corrupt, clownish demagogue, but the Conservative Party is more than just Boris. The people of the UK voted for Brexit in a refendum and kept the Conservatives in power for 14 years, including twice AFTER the Brexit referendum. Heck, the 2019 election was practically a second referendum on Brexit and the Conservatives got their largest landslide victory since Thatcher was PM. Boris may be an asshole, but the people of the UK have to own Brexit.

Is Tusk similar to Boris? I mean, obviously Boris presided over Brexit which was a real fuck-up. Then again, was Brexit really Boris’s fault? What with the referendum, democracy and all that good stuff. It seems to me that the people of the UK made their own bed in that regard.

That dude has a good sense of humor. He seems like a good leader.

My brother, I didn’t say it was “nothing”, I said it was middle class. I worked a second job in the evenings to save up enough to afford the first boat. Then I sold the first boat for the same amount I paid for it and used that plus some savings and a small loan to afford the second boat, which I just paid off. And I drove a rust bucket for an extra five years so I could afford to save for the second boat. I didn’t just have a spare $45k laying around. And even if I did manage to save $45k over a decade, that’s still not rich by any means.

Middle class is not rich. Fundamentally, it means you have to work for a living and make more than the bare minimum needed to get by. Middle class means you can save a little and be able to afford a little nicer house over time, a decent car, and a few luxuries. If you only make enough money to scrape by with no ability to save, then you aren’t middle class, you are poor. Being middle class also means you need that pay cheque every two weeks and that you are vulnerable to becoming poor if you lose your job.

Not at all. Fire suppression on a small yacht is a hand-held fire extinguisher or two, which is $30. In fact, I don’t know anyone who has more than that for fire suppression. Satnav is not necessary, but most boats over 30ft will have a chart plotter already because manual charting is a lot of work. Every sailboat over 30 feet has a depth sounder already. A decent chartplotter-depth sounder combo is about $1200, like a laptop, if you need or want to replace it for some reason, but they’ll last 20 years no problem. Small sailboats don’t require much paperwork and don’t require annual licensing in many jurisdictions, just a small one-time registration fee when you buy it. Permits for international travel are cheap. If I recall correctly, the permit to sail to the US, for example, is under $100.

You definitely don’t have to be a rich asshole to own a sailboat and it is weird that this perception persists. My first sailboat was a 1983 30-footer that I got for $18,000 about 10 years ago. My slightly newer 36-footer was $45,000 and it is big enough for a coastal cruising couple to live on pretty comfortably. The vast majority of boats are designed to be sailed by a cruising couple, and most sailors are stinky, sunburned, slightly stressed, somewhat impaired, and bruised from doing their own maintenance and being tossed around in rough conditions.

The average sailboat is basically a trailer on the water, except you don’t need a big truck to haul it. You can spend as much or as little as you want to, of course, but the majority of boats in an average marina (ie, not a rich Florida asshole marina) are 1980s-era fiberglass boats in the 30-40 ft range. The engines are typically 3-cylinder marinized small diesel tractor engines in the 25-50 horsepower range that’ll push the boat at about 6 knots (about 11 km/h). This is not the description of a rich asshole toy. This is a solid, middle-class hobby similar to trailer camping.

This comment is so wrong. You are dehumanizing Jews and condemning an entire country as illegitimate.

Don’t go bothering Korean Jesus. He’s busy with Korean shit.

Exactly. Many people have an ignorant view of British cuisine, as though only foods grown in the British Isles are British. All kinds of foods and dishes from all over the world have been shipped, used, and adapted in Britain since at least the time of the Roman Empire. Heck, most of what a British, European or North American person would see on the menu of their local Indian restaurant is not traditional Indian food at all, but rather Anglo-Indian.

I’ve never seen that diagram before. I like it.

I think Americans need to absorb a bit more global context about the left-right spectrum. I see people saying that policies like universal health care, access to abortion, basic worker rights and affordable education are “far left”. Most of the proposed policies of the left in the US are centrist in the rest of the Western world. Unless you are advocating for a Communist regime along the lines of the Soviet Union or Maoist China, you aren’t really “far left”. Similarly, unless someone is advocating for a fascist dictator state, we should probably not call them “far right”. Of course, that is what Trumpists advocate for, so they really are far right!

Not at all. I identified a particular historical event where the French failed badly. Identifying one country’s specific mistakes doesn’t imply that others are angels. For example, obviously no one would claim that Germany and Japan were “angels” during WW2, but that goes without saying, right?

In fact, I responded to another commenter who called them out for racism and arrogance because that is far too general a claim with no evidence.

The current bad reputation of the French is mostly because of WW2. They surrendered after only 6 weeks of fighting and then heavily collaborated with the Nazis. French collaboration was so heartfelt that they refused to hand over their navy to the British when requested to do so. They even fired on American ships and troops in North Africa when the Americans arrived to liberate them from German occupation.

The French were also enthusiastic participants in the Final Solution. According to Wikipedia, “the Nazis in France relied to a considerable extent on the co-operation of local authorities to carry out what they called the Final Solution. The government of Vichy France and the French police organized and implemented the roundups of Jews.”

After the war, De Gaulle promoted the narrative that the French heroically resisted the Nazis, but this was not at all true. The famous French Resistance was tiny until the last part of the war, and only grew once it became clear that Germany would lose. The French government also denied their role in the Holocaust for over 50 years until 1995 when Jacques Chirac finally admitted that, “[T]hose black hours soiled our history forever. … [T]he criminal madness of the occupier was assisted by the French people, by the French State. … France, that day, committed the irreparable.”

So, yeah, that’s why people dunk on France, particularly when it comes to military matters. They certainly did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution or the martial prowess of Napoleon.

I didn’t know until now that I unconsciously use strong implicit multiplication (meaning that I get the answer “1”). I believe it happens more or less as a consequence of starting inside the parentheses and then working my way out.

It is a funny little bit of notational ambiguity, so it is funny that people get riled up about it.

The narrator makes the point that there wasn’t much else for a medieval peasant to spend their money on besides food, shelter, and clothing. If you want to subsist on vegetables and porridge, in a small home in a tiny rural community, wearing basic clothing, you wouldn’t have to work many hours to get by.

The other element is that medieval Europe experienced a huge labour shortage following the Plague. Owners weren’t allowing workers to work less because they were nicer in the medieval period. They had no choice. Exploitative 18th and 19th century capitalism coincides with a massive increase in population, which decreased the power of the individual worker, at least until unions became a thing.

There is a huge difference between small and large landlords. The example I gave was clearly related to small landlords. If you have two houses and two mortgages and are doing your own maintenance, you aren’t driving up the cost of housing significantly. If you are a small landlord, as I’ve described, the only “profit” you’re making goes straight into the payments on that mortgage, most of which is interest for the bank. Also, those “profits” won’t be realized for 20+ years. Of course, I’m talking about averages over time. Clearly, housing is unbalanced right now, and bubbles create exceptions.

Large landlords, hedge fund investors, foreign investors, large AirBnB investors… these are a different story. They are the ones on large amounts of property, creating artificial scarcity, jacking up rents to unreasonable levels, etc.

“Rent to buy” already has a name. It’s called a mortgage and you get it from the bank. As a bonus, you get to do all of your own maintenance and take all of the risk. It’s awesome.

Step 1: Use the equity you’ve built up in your primary dwelling to put a down payment on a second house, which you can rent out. Congratulations, you now have a second job to fill your evenings and weekends.

Step 2: Hope like hell you get a decent tenant who pays the rent on time and doesn’t destroy your property.

Step 3: Pay all of the taxes, mortgage payments, maintenance costs, repairs, legal fees, etc., which the rent will just barely cover. Of course, most of the mortgage payment goes to the bank as interest.

Step 4: Keep crossing your fingers that you don’t rent to someone who will destroy your property, fail to pay rent, sue you, or cause any other major headaches.

Step 5: After 20 years of doing this, you have now paid off that second house. Yay!

You certainly did unknowingly imply that changes need to be made when you said that the “president’s” staff should be vetting the Speaker’s decisions. However, I understand that you aren’t familiar with how Canada’s Parliament is structured. To be clear, it is not currently the Prime Minister’s prerogative or job to vet those whom the Speaker invites to speak in Parliament.

Canada doesn’t have a president. The Speaker of the House is the top official when it comes to running Parliament. He definitely fucked up, but it was his fuck-up and he resigned because of it. I don’t think it means we have to re-write the rules for how Canada’s Parliament operates. I mean, it’s not like we actually elected a Nazi, unlike some countries.