A fine for a corporation that wealthy would have to be astronomical, at which point I'm not sure how we'd enforce it.
I'd prefer they just be denied to canadians, but I don't know if that would go over well either.
A fine for a corporation that wealthy would have to be astronomical, at which point I'm not sure how we'd enforce it.
I'd prefer they just be denied to canadians, but I don't know if that would go over well either.
I was ready to get up in arms, but this is actually good news. It looks like at one point in tiny text under our national parks it would say "state park" -- which doesn't make sense in canada, they are fixing that.
Although the locations were titled "provincial park" in large text, in small print, many across the country were labelled as "state parks" — a longstanding practice, according to the company.
However, that language came under increased scrutiny in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated threat that he wants to annex Canada against the wishes of Canada's political leaders and widespread public opinion.
Ugh, i thought this was a question, not a link. So i spent time googling for a good tutorial on floats (because I didn't click the link)....
Now i hate myself, and this post.
a) drag the whole country leftward, economically
I'm a big supporter of PR (I don't really understand people who aren't -- it gives your vote more weight). I also support more social spending and higher taxes for extreme wealth.
My understanding is that countries that have implemented it have a more fractured government where people complain that it can't get anything done. Given the support that cpc apparently has, and all the "fuck trudeau" people, i'm suspicious that we wouldn't also have a healthy representation the right; people with whom i disagree.
I was thinking of amazon.com and kind of happy about it... now i'm sad
20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.
It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn't.
No consistent association means the data doesn't back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn't say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.
I think it means can't pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.
Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.
I'm guessing here but I suspect that there's a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.
This is a weird way to say it, but if I understand correctly a win for tolerance and acceptance, in which case I salute you!
Wow, nice hot take!
I find the concept super intuitive, like a blueprint or a mold.
Voting for for trump does make them worse people, they are objectively supporting a racist. Trump family stole money from childrens cancer charity. That's bad. Likewise I didn't write off Peterson for his personal life I wrote him off cause his arguments are rooted in the bible.
Really what makes peterson and trump so bad is that they are completely self centered, and self gratification is their only goal. They care about nobody else.
I'm sad COVID didn't kill them.
lol, way better!