Canada has multiple levels of taxation, there's a federal goods and services tax (GST) and provincial sales tax (PST). These would be equivalent to the VAT. Where I live there's no provincial tax on natural gas but some provinces charge PST and others charge the "carbon tax" on top of that. And oh yes the federal government charges the GST on natural gas regardless of where you live. With exceptions like fuel, the federal government can't tax natural resources as it's under provincial jurisdiction but they are trying hard to impose a "carbon tax" on provinces to virtue signal and ensure a steady flow of revenue for their vanity projects under the disguise of "environmental concern". Liberal policies are reverse Robin Hood schemes. It's a shame so many people believe in their crap, but I guess it takes a while for people to realize they are being fooled.

Umm, did you read what I posted?  I mentioned the stuff you just said.  I also showed the false results for both prostate and breast screening. By your "logic", we should end breast cancer screening based on the numbers from the links I posted earlier. Breast cancer screening has a 52% false positive rate.  End that shit since it's so unreliable.  Oh wait, we won't because VAGINA. Also, you clearly missed the main bit of the prostate cancer topic in this thread.  The UK does not have a prostate cancer screening program, at all.  It's not about age, but about not doing it for prostate cancer at all. The UK has a breast cancer screening program for women, despite the 52% false positive rate. The UK (at least in Scotland) still doesn't give males the HPV vaccine.  The excuse is that if you protect the vagina, then males will be covered too.  HOWEVER, not all males shag women.  ALSO, not all women get the vaccine.    Despite the fact that males are harder affected by it, who fucking cares, because vagina.

I'm not in France, so I can only go by what I see in the media. The rich got tax cuts, while Macron piled on taxes that seriously hurt the middle class. Another problem is that 79% of French citizens say that they have had enough unfettered immigration.  As part of this uncontrolled immigration, taxes have had to go up to support these people. Many of the things happening in France are happening in the rest of the west. Sweden had to raise its retirement age from 60 to 69 to fund the welfare for the migrants.  Previously, they had a 5 year surplus in their state pension fund, meaning they could have lowered the retirement age to 55.  That is a 14 year loss in their state pension fund, solely due to migrants coming to the country so they can get welfare.

No one is really "free" but the US is the free-est country there is, thanks to its constitution. Military controlled countries are far from free, though free-er than religious controlled countries.

I've been watching this story unfold and it's extremely scary. You know when the kid finally does snap and kills his mother, he'll still get the death penalty. All this crap is based on the junk science by that Canadian fuck wit (can't remember his name right now) who looked for a boy who was injured during MALE GENITAL MUTILATION so he could convert him into a girl and prove to the world that gender is a social construct aka learned.  Anyway, the kid was fine until he got into his mid-teens than everything went crazy.  He trans-ed back to male when he became an adult, but ended up killing himself.

@raphjd: The total number of votes cast in Alabama is lower than the number of votes assigned to candidates.  That is a fact.   Even if we ignore who benefitted from it, the fact remains that more votes were assigned to candidates then votes were cast. are you saying there is something nefarious because (324,050 + 318,303 + 237,981) is bigger than 564,478? I think you are misreading the article, intentionally or not I do not know. You cannot add the numbers like that, because voters could legally vote multiple times! You (and the article) are trying to get some sort of meaningful information about a popular vote from an election that does not really allow us to think in those terms. JFK and Nixon were not on the ballot. 22 electors (11 D, 11 R) were on the ballot, some of whom were pledged to a candidate and some were not. Every voter in Alabama could vote UP TO 11 times, and split those votes among electors in whatever way they wanted to, as long as they only cast one vote per elector. So it is impossible to tell how many actual people voted in the election, as some could have voted 11 times, and some could have voted only once. Wikipedia does not tell us the numbers for each and every elector, only the highest total for each. It assumes that those numbers are exclusive, that no one would have voted for both a Nixon elector and a Kennedy elector. But that is an assumption only, not a fact. In principle, every single voter could have split their votes among the D and the R almost evenly. Unlikely, but possible. The fact is that we DO NOT KNOW THE TOTAL. The only thing we can say as a FACT about the total number of voters is that at least 324,050 voted in the election, the highest vote for an individual elector. Everything else is supposition and conjecture. as to the 324,050 + 318,303, it is also an assumption that the 318,303 (highest Kennedy elector) also contributed to the 324,050 (highest unpledged elector). Again, NOONE KNOW FOR SURE.  Maybe some did and some did not. Wikipedia is not adding them together that way because they are assuming the redundancy. All we know for sure (meaning the only useful fact for determining electors) is that the highest vote total for a Republican elector was still lower than the lowest vote total for a Democrat elector. In other words, in a contest among the 22 people actually on the ballot, under the up to 11 votes rule in play, the top 11 elector vote totals were all Democrat. So those people won the right to be AL electors that year. That is the electoral college. that is the end of it. We can use the number of various votes and make all sorts of assumptions to try and tell some story about the mythical "popular vote" in AL, but that is all they are; stories, not facts. I will say this; the Wikipedia article does a very bad job of explaining their numbers, totals, and assumptions. They should not have a column called "popular vote" at all, and certainly not put the numbers in like they did, because it is confusing, making it look like more votes to candidates than votes cast. the whole thing is bubkis, Raphjd. But it is not anything like the Florida shenanigans.

why the background seems like full of bdsm stuff?