Posts by SteveBluescemi
Looking at the package and it's like $5-10k per person. You're telling me that's subsidized?
92 year old former Canadian prime minister looking very similar to Bill O'Reilly
I thought this was 92 year old Jean Chretien
Very much Ruler of Everything
It's "where is ze meecro-film?" for me
Now let's finish the job and patch up that ridiculous notwithstanding clause!
iirc a bunch of homeowners in Connaught Heights were very pro-TOD around 22nd Street Station for this reason.
COPE leans NIMBY too (unless it's social housing, but even then...). There are some efforts to change those attitudes within both COPE and Green afaik. There will hopefully be some more YIMBY-leaning candidates on the slate from those two parties.
Isn't this kind of like, negotiating with terrorists? Why allow ourselves to be held hostage by this fringe now or in the future? Why should we let the lunatic separatists dictate our national economic policy during a crisis when they are almost certainly going to lose the referendum anyway?
Doing anything whatsoever to reduce dependence on fossil fuels is also anathema to Alberta politics, should we just do nothing ever on that file out of deference to them?
Judge Childs wrote a whole ass novella in dissent
yes
Opposing new homes in a housing crisis on the basis of neighborhood character or shadows etc. is like opposing food during a famine because you're annoyed by the sound of people chewing.
adam savage: if I remember right, you were actually born in the space between spaces?
eldritch jamie hyneman: that's right
adam savage: will you release us from this torment?
eldritch jamie hyneman: P̴͓̾Î̷̠G̷̝̽S̸̗̾ ̷̱̋Ȁ̷͉R̶̲̍Ę̷̓ ̴̠́Ṱ̷̀H̷̭̍E̶̺̅ ̵̳͊C̵̢̛L̸̹͐O̵̦̊S̸̛̗É̸̺S̸͈̈T̶̹̏ ̵̗͠H̴͇͠U̸̲̓M̷͙͗Ā̸̯N̵̞̔ ̸͚̓A̸̜͒N̴̛̬A̸̯̎L̶͈̕Ö̵͕́Ǵ̷̘
Provinces are almost always going to be in a better position politically to enact land use reforms than cities. Cities are highly incentivized to not fix housing. Notably, BC has enabled plexes and TOD provincewide, a necessary (albeit insufficient) step towards a functioning housing system.
Which is why AB needs to do it, but they won't because they suck. ON also needs to discipline its cities, but they're unlikely to do so because they suck. They're both equally unlikely to pursue this referendum plan too. The solution is to sufficiently pressure/elect politicians to suck less!
Imo you have to put forward a thoughtful, detailed plan for broad densification that the government can stand by on its merits, not play this phony game of "well we could densify, or we could kill the trees. We're not sure, what do you think?"
Provinces can override municipalities anytime they want. Asking for a referendum is just asking for delay and defeat. People are gonna be outraged at the lack of middle ground between "destroy the greenbelt" and "allow a four storey building next to your house in Timiskaming".
Why on earth would we leave something like that up to a referendum instead of just doing the obviously better policy? Why do we "need" a referendum?
Angling for the critical Kennedy Stewart vote I see
MUTANT CHUCK SCHUMER MELTED INTO AN UNRECOGNIZABLE PILE OF FLESH BY THE FALLOUT RADIATION: We need to get back to kitchen table issues. Ignore the horror of my existence and focus on what matters: how can we blame trans people for the price of eggs?
Chuck Schumer, in the microseconds between the white flash and the fireball vaporizing us into atomic dust, "we must not let Trump's nuclear armageddon distract us from the price of groceries"
CBC headline, "Panel sets snow crab price at $5.30 for the season, union calls it 'disgusting'"
You know what, if you're gonna be in the industry, you should at least like how snow crabs taste.
The original Red Lobster was located in the food court of the Crimson King Shopping Center in Wilmington, NC.
No more mr. wet ass pussy
I have been using the term "fossil politician" to refer to out of touch leaders beholden to oil and gas interests.
This is going to single-handedly fund UBCx
Please stop sharing terrible push polls with obviously biased framing. Canada's net immigration rate was *negative* for 2025, with negative/flat projections for the next few years too. Obviously if you only provide the inflow numbers, it's gonna sound like a huge amount of people coming in.
Once again, an insanely and obviously biased framing. There's no option at all for expressing a preference for more immigration or even the same amount!
Imagine the fossil fuel industry polling this:
"Canada would be better served by using more (X):
-Coal
-Oil
-Natural Gas
-Gasoline"
When I was visiting Quebec with only a highly atrophied elementary school French education, I actually had a French speaker stop me on the street and ask for directions. Pretty sure I replied in broken Spanish.