hitops

There was a rumor that Trudeau would try to shut down personal professional corps. No idea how that was supposed to work in reality. Looks like they gave up on that.

In this analogy, are you the moldy sandwich?

It doesn't work that way. Using AB as an example, when prices are high, royalties are much higher by percentage than when prices are low, at which point royalties can drop to nothing. This means the price of oil has a much sharper effect on the royalty revenues for government than on industry profits. Basically corporate revenues are like a stock that rises and falls proportionally with the price of oil. Government royalties are like a highly leveraged derivative of that stock, moving more exponentially relative to the fortunes of the stock.

It was way under priced for what it cost to make. Also low range and ugly as sin. GM cancelled it, likely because they knew nobody would buy it at a price to be profitable. Most likely yes. I can't even tell what environmentalists want anymore. Many of their actions seem counter-productive to the goal of preserving the environment.

Good point, all those judges got to those positions because of a lifetime of handouts. Oh wait, they didn't.

Quite right. I mean, there are whole sections of foreign political parties or foreign governments that support religious violence. Whole infrastructures, schools, chemical and engineering labs. Large swaths of populations who celebrate or defend those actions. Many websites promoting, millions of 'regular' Muslims on twitter and facebook groups cheering and encouraging it. Then some kook get drunk and shoots at his local office about something, claims he believes the bible, is immediately denounced by literally everybody of same religion, and we're told 'all religions are violent'. This degree of this false equivocation is beyond anything you can find on any topic.

Handouts have many more names than just treaties. What name you prefer is beside the point. Cocaine also has many names. I can't think of any that make it good though.

Ya it's worse. Federal debt damages everyone in the country, not just a single debtor. And how's that going to work exactly? If we just believe hard enough? Ya 2008-09 and the aftermath. Ah the 'good times'.

Even if $2 billion was true (it is not), no, it is peanuts compared to the size of the industry, and more than made up in revenues captured by government. Why do you think budget fortunes (federal, AB, SK and NB) rise and fall with the price of oil? The true cost without any subsidy, would be a few pennies more per liter. The true cost of removing subsidies to alternative, is that those industries cease to exist.

CO2 levels have nothing to do with breathable air. We could 10X the CO2 in the air, and you would not notice. Air pollution (particulates) and CO2 emission/climate change are completely separate issues.

More substantial handouts does not = helps. Often it makes things worse. Some politicians are fine with that, a permanent dependent class is sometimes useful for votes.

You'll have to clarify. What is the one thing? What book? I'm not arguing about variations. You can find variations about anything, with any number of people believing anything. I'm arguing on the basis of their scriptural texts, in order to having something static to evaluate rather than just attacking strawmen and guessing what 'most' or 'many' might believe. From the teachings (Koran) and actions/life (Hadith) of Mohammed, it is easy to make the case for terror. From the same of Christ (new testament), it is difficult if not impossible. The fact that some/many Christians live totally unlike Christ, and some/many Muslims totally unlike Mohammed, is quite beside the point. Imaging sending selected terrorists back in time. An ISIS member would be at home with Mohammed and his closest friends/ranking members. An LRA member would have no common ground with the disciples of Christ. If you're a disenchanted young guy with an axe to grind, it's not hard to get from 'cut off the heads of the unbelievers" of the Koran, to actually doing so. But the same guy has a hard time getting there from "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you". Could be, but how does this relate to any arguments about doctrine supporting/negating violence?

Two guys quoting Jewish scripture is not an argument against Christian doctrine. If you are trying to make an argument about Christian teachings, you should refer to those teachings.

Pretty much any murder fits into that definition. Latimer might be an exception.

Because it is said in sound mind, with millions who sympathize or outwardly support the same view. Along with an entire infrastructure devoted to exactly the same thing, including perfectly sane educated people who use that education to make bombs.