267 karma · joined January 20, 2016
This idea would work best if everyone had to do it, otherwise there are further incentives to move industries out of Canada.
Although they talk about making the revenue neutral it seems unlikely that the government is going to give up the extra money.
You've read one article with one suggestion and made a massive sweeping assumption about the authors intentions, good job.
What if people haven't thought of the benefits that this article is suggesting?
This is also targeted at people who are choosing fast food over home made food because they want to, not because they have to.
Innovation is great, but if you read the article it talks about many benefits to making food, I'd say the intangible benefits are the greatest, i.e., purpose and accomplishment.
But the actual content of the article suggest restructuring for a more sustainable future.
The line between 'opinion' and 'fact' is mostly invisible, in fact presenting anything beyond the exact quoted words of a person is speculation and opinion. A story that gives context to a quote by its very nature has a bias or opinion to it.
It is very rare if ever the case that a purely factual, dry presentation of facts is presented in the news. For this reason it seems unreasonable to hold that as the standard of news.
I've noticed at times, that the driver doesn't get a receipt till I'm out of the car... Maybe this is so that we can't discuss the difference in what I pay and what they get?
But that is hardly the point, most of the media told us for months that Trump wasn't a real candidate, then he wouldn't win and that Clinton was the only real candidate and you had choose her. They published tons of positive articles about her and tones of negative about him.
In a general sense this tarnishes their credibility, either they lied or they didn't know what they were talking about for the last 6 months.
Being wrong about who would win isn't so much of the problem, its more about being totally clueless about what was going on and what people actually thought about the situation.... They failed at their job of telling everyone what had happened.
Everyone for 1 day said "Hey maybe the news doesn't know what they are talking about?"
The next day everyone forgot, and now we get the same news sources that were so wrong, telling us again the problem is "this".
How come they were so wrong and we all knew it, then forgot, then will accept another one of their likely incorrect explanations for why all this happened?
If someone else gets to decide its censorship.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page...
What if the real news list chooser doesn't like a certain website, so they black list it?
Isn't trying to control this unintentional or maybe even intentional censorship?
By letting 'the people' choose what trends, at least you are being honest.
Most real news is fake anyways.
Also, Trump was offering hope, Clinton was offering nothing but staying the same.
I get the sense that the American economy is bad for most people, Trump talked about that, he said it was a problem. If you were watching mainstream news all you heard was about how great everything is and how it should stay the same.... That is simply not what many people think or feel.
My wife told me at school that all the students take turns cleaning the bathroom, this meant if you made a mass you'd eventually have to clean it up. The idea seems to be that by keeping it clean you avoid having to clean up someone else's mess later, seems to encourage doing the right thing.