zephyreks @ zephyreks @lemmy.ca

Posts

8

Comments

635

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean... This is basically just a subsidy to Alberta's economy, right? It's to quell all the bitching and moaning about how the federal government doesn't spend money on Alberta.

While other cities get transit systems and housing projects funded, Alberta gets a pipeline. Sure, sucks for Alberta, but this is what Albertans want.

Sure, but violating ADIZ is a non-issue. There are other, more important things to worry about.

They need to tax income based on standard profitability rates.

The principle being, lower interest rates lead to more debt because spending is less expensive.

Turns out, it's advantageous to loan out money when global interest rates were dropping to about 0. Who woulda thunk?

He's a journalist, not some average Joe. Adapt or die.

Shitty things like... Flying within China's ADIZ that happens to overlap with Taiwan's ADIZ because Taiwan refuses to use the median line as their ADIZ boundary like China does?

"or"

not "and", "or".

The southwestern quadrant of Taiwan's ADIZ overlaps with China's ADIZ. If anything, Taiwan is overclaiming their ADIZ.

If the USB-IF can agree on it, why not?

The USB-IF moves so slowly it might as well be standing still.

Or even just less beef tbh. Beef is literally the most inefficient meat on the planet and it's not even close.

They didn't pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the free market?

Businesses are allowed cars

Ping him to start RSS/Mastodon/Lemmy, then?

This is the real problem. Corporate taxes are frighteningly low and Canada can no longer afford to subsidize domestic industries out of corporate tax revenue.

What's the problem with private companies subsidizing an industry? They're taking advantage of our population to make money and often offshoring profits to avoid paying taxes.

How can CBC squander a taxpayer bailout? Aren't they inherently taxpayer funded anyway?

Protecting the territorial sovereignty of countries internationally would have prevented Iraq and Afghanistan. It would stop Israeli efforts in the West Bank. It would block the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. It would block the skirmishes between India and China as well as India and Pakistan. It would have blocked NATO intervention into the Yugoslav crisises until international consensus could be reached. Borders are constantly in a state of flux and the international community almost never reaches full consensus.

Borders are not immutable objects, particularly for ethnically-unified countries. For Yugoslavia, the borders were carved into ethnic groups. For Ukraine, the borders are being carved into Russian and Ukrainian areas. For Israel, the borders are constantly being expanded for one particular ethnic group. As long as there are ethnic boundaries, there will be conflict between them. That's what makes us human. We are not a single entity; we have hundreds of distinct and unique cultures and languages and foods.

Why does the removal of nuclear weapons predicate itself on countries agreeing on borders? As it stands, countries develop nuclear weapons solely because they're afraid that nuclear weapons will be used against them (or, you're North Korea and the West has already expended their entire sanctions repertoire to go after human rights violations and now has no recourse against nuclear weapons development).

Countries may fight over borders, but the involvement of nuclear weapons turns what should be a localized dispute into a global one with world-ending consequences.

Damn, that sucks. I guess there's no option to live closer within budget or a competent train service?

When I was in Toronto, the transit wasn't great but it was at least better than Boston/Philadelphia...