philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
About (aboot?) 40%, but what's half an order of magnitude between friends.
One solution might be to make a territory, not a state, so they wouldn't have the right to vote.
If this was the proposal, there's no way in hell it happens in a voluntary way, like Trump seems to want at least according to the video.
Not that I give much odds of that in any scenario, but especially that one.
Yeah, the territories would probably have the same "no, you don't get to sit at the big kids' table" status as they do now within Canada, if not moreso. Might want to merge some of the Atlantic provinces too, making ten provinces into something like eight US states.
Hypothetically, if Canada did become the 51st state, would I be right in saying it would be the largest state in the union by landmass by quite a huge margin? Or am I too Mercator-projection pilled?
LOL. By landmass, Canada is the second-largest country in the world, after Russia. It's not just bigger than any US state, it's bigger than the US.
Even by population, it would be the largest, just slightly higher than California.
I've noticed this phenomenon among the right (necessary disclaimer: I completely acknowledge that this is true of the left as well, but they're not in power now so it's not as fun to scrutinize them) to boldly assert the truth of easily falsifiable claims. The "media ignore it entirely" is such a claim: CNN, CBS, ABC, and my favorite, an ominous report from the Washington Post. This story is obviously being covered...
This is a genuine case of "both sides do it", but yes, any time you see "why isn't anybody talking about _______?!?" on social media, the correct response will invariably be somewhere on a spectrum from "They are!" to "Are you living under a rock? No-one seems to be talking about anything else".
I think the person you're replying to is talking about within the US, where supposedly most "African-Americans" have at least some white ancestry, and they seem to be comparing against the largest genetic difference you'll find between white Americans, not the average or most common case. Certainly the context of the larger conversation is about something that primarily applies to the US.
How I wish it were true, or at least plausible.
Even then, the same thing can be inexpensive (as government programs go) and worth keeping. Dropping such a thing wouldn't be likely to cause a recession, but barring cases where they specifically say that, there's nothing wrong with that logic.
"House of the Raising Sun" (because I misremembered the vocalist drawling "gambling" there)
If you mean The Animals' version, I think there's a slide during the first syllable that probably threw you, but it's still only one syllable.
And considering your list contains literally every Taylor Swift song I know the name of, I for one have no fucking idea what Sin is talking about.
That was in New Jersey.
I only know who one of those even is. I don't know if online life is to blame like someone else said - it seems to me to slightly predate modern social media - but whatever the reason, music is so fragmented now that it's almost inconceivable someone could get the whole culture following them the way the Beatles did. Taylor Swift is probably the closest thing currently possible but it's not that close.
Lucan Way is no less distinguished. Well, maybe a litte less--the University of Toronto is not even the Harvard of Canada, much less the Harvard of, well, Harvard.
If anything is the Harvard of Canada it's the U of T, but perhaps you mean to suggest that's not saying much.
Look at the recommended charities on GWWC (GWWC is recommended as the best overall resource for charities on ea.org). GiveDirectly spends 95% of its money on charitable expenses. For AMF it's 99.4%. Malaria Consortium is at 12% and HKI is at 16%.
If I'm understanding your links right, you flip what the numbers mean in mid-paragraph here - the first two (in the 90s) are the amount spent on actual charitable expenses while the last two (in the teens) are the amount they spend on overhead. This makes it look like the last two are really terrible wheras I take your intended point to be that they're nearly as good as the first two.
Its not 4-d chess, but it is some competent Jui Jitsu.
Jew Jitsu?
What, some coalition of black people, Hispanics and Asians decides to oppress white people?
Well for one thing, BIPOC (like URM or the even more direct NAM) specifically excludes Asians.
I think you're assuming most of these people are more informed (or less naive) about that region than is actually the case. That may be the practical upshot of them getting what they want, but it's not their goal as they would conceive of it.
A few hard-left loudmouths, sure, but not the vast majority of people who think Israel needs to tone it down or just want a ceasefire, any ceasefire.
They wouldn't if that's all that was going on, but I think you missed the context. They view blowing up hospitals as evil, even when rockets and weapon caches are the reason they're doing so.
It was, but that's just it; it was controversial, as in there was genuine disagreement, as distinct from being universally condemned.
aresa
I'm sure it's a typo for "area", but in my heart you meant to write "adjacent to their own arses".
Which, you know, chair, so it's extra-appropriate.
It's usually folk-pop sort of stuff (on the average, I'm not saying it's always that, just that that's about where the "center of mass" is), played much more quietly than you're thinking, but not quite so quietly that there's no point in it being there. Same with most coffee shops, if they actually want people to sit down for a while.
That's because it is just two random English words paired together. You don't need a non-English speaker (real or imaginary) in the picture to see that. You'd never guess its meaning from the words alone if you didn't know the history and context behind them.
I think people have largely come around on Bettman. The booing is mostly a fun tradition at this point and Bettman is very much in on the joke.
In recent years my biggest issue with him is the ridiculous lengths he went to to keep the Coyotes in Arizona long after the writing was on the wall. (Especially in contrast with doing little to keep the OG Jets from moving there in the first place, albeit almost two decades earlier under quite different circumstances.) He still doesn't seem to have wholly given up on Phoenix even with the team's de facto move to SLC. (Technically it's a new franchise that just happens to have inherited all the old one's assets, but it walks and quacks in a remarkably duck-like manner.) But still... trying too hard to keep a struggling franchise where it is, possibly against the league's financial interests, hardly seems like the worst of sins, especially next to the stuff from the 90s he gets blamed for.
The going conspiracy theory of biased-looking refereeing these days seems to be that it's got something to do with sports betting, not the league itself putting its thumb on the scales.
A quick Google suggests approximately 1/15.
More options
Context Copy link