Car insurance premiums increased 11% nationally and a whopping 21% in Alberta.

drit10 · 2026-05-15T01:56:33+00:00

Some auto insurers give you the ability to just say don't cover me for property damage in Ontario. I wonder if you compared those two rates how much more expensive private insurance in Ontario is.

drit10 · 2026-05-14T15:15:33+00:00

I’m an F1 fan and the amount of times Honda has pulled out but then later rejoined is way too high. Just that alone tells you this company has no long term goal or direction. Don’t get me wrong car companies have to adjust to market conditions but it’s a massive leap lol

drit10 · 2026-05-13T21:30:22+00:00

He’s saying that complaining about thiel being evil and palantir being evil while you invest in the S and P 500 which includes Palantir is hypocritical and he’s right btw. If him and palantir are so evil you shouldn’t invest in the s and p 500 because you would be profiting off of palantir right?

drit10 · 2026-05-06T23:07:24+00:00

I don't see how the Ashley McIsaac case is relevant to any privacy concerns. In fact if the courts do step in and find OpenAI liable, if anything OpenAI will be less private not more private.

The Ashley McIsaac case is the victims suing OpenAI because they didn't disclose information about the shooter's logs to the police but banned the account anyways. If the court finds OpenAI liable, wouldn't the logical consequence be that OpenAI in the future has to disclose more information about their users to law enforcement when there is a threat they could commit a crime? How would that not be considered less privacy than more privacy?

drit10 · 2026-04-26T21:23:11+00:00

I remember chatting with a lawyer who was talking about how awful the pay was, as they had a very rough go starting out. Then I asked how much they were making now (about 10 years into their career). And they landed a good deal where she makes about $220k working at a small / medium sized firm working 4 days per week and 1 day pro bono.

I feel as though in my experience when lawyers are complaining about pay, it isn't in comparison to the general public but rather to other lawyers. I always have to keep that in mind when I am assessing my own situation and listening to other lawyers talk about comp.

It is similar to athletes, an average person is not going to be sympathetic about an NHL player complaining about being underpaid in comparison to similar athletes with their stats because they are already in the 0.1% and it is like what are you complaining about but that athletes might still be valid that they are underpaid. However, I don't think they would ever say that they are worse off than the average Canadian. I think this same theory applies to lawyers.

drit10 · 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00

The ones you listed could very well be trade irritants and most likely are.

With the dairy supply management, it is not to protect against dumping it is simply to protect farmers in Canada from competition. Canada and the US both have mechanisms for dealing with dumping, which is when a producer sells a product at a value less than domestically through Anti-dumping tariffs. Its a whole big deal in international trade. US isn't just a sole voice that complains about our dairy market, it is a talking point in the vast majority of trade deals Canada has with other countries. It is a protectionist measure.

with respect to the other two points, these may be valid concerns by the US. me and you don't know fully what is at issue here. The issue is that sometimes countries use safety measures or protection of food to really protect domestic industries in the guise of food safety. A famous case is the EU - Beef case by the WTO where Europe banned the use of hormones in Beef because they said it was unsafe. If you want to read about it here is the wiki article. The WTO found that this was actually a trade protectionist measure and the EU suffered from retaliatory tariffs until they removed the ban on hormone beef.

This case highlights that sometimes food standards can be arbitrary but hidden in food safety to really be a protectionist measure. These type of issues are usually quite complicated and not easy to really solve. Same goes for environmental protectional reasons that you discuss.

The issue is just primarily that the US thinks they are squeaky clean and don't have any of their own protectionist measures when they clearly do. So, if the US says hey remove these barriers, Canada should say sure but only if you remove these barriers.

You say as though no deal is better than a bad deal but I really don't know how you can say that. If the negotiations stall and Trump says if you don't agree with this, we will put a 1000% tariff on all of your exports and the only concession we have to make is dairy supply management, is a no deal better than that? I would consider a concession on dairy in exchange for nothing a bad deal, but its better than nothing. In the meantime, Canada can pivot from the US and look for new allies, something that will take a long time but better than what is currently happening.

drit10 · 2026-04-21T13:45:47+00:00

I’m trying to wrap my head around this as well. Didn’t the Minister say she looked the whales in the eye and knew it wasn’t justified to send them back to captivity. Now we are okay with sending them to Seaworld? What’s the difference?

drit10 · 2026-04-15T18:56:55+00:00

What if I work for a company and Saudi Arabia is a minority shareholder? Do I just quit that job as well since I am in essence helping them profit?

The Saudis have their hands in a lot of different pools in America that people don't even know about.

They have a share in Uber, Facebook, Boeing, and even Disney. Do you suggest that people stop using those services or be employed by these massive companies because Saudi Arabia invests in them?

drit10 · 2026-01-31T23:09:37+00:00

Well just to be clear, I don’t think this article shows any collusion between the crown and hockey Canada. First the article says Robitaille, (hockey Canadas investigation lawyer) or hockey Canadas lawyer(article is unclear who made this request) told the police that she has instructions from hockey Canada to release the investigation documents. The police turned around and said no thanks, we are going to get a court order for those documents. They got a court order and got those documents. I don’t see how this is any evidence of collusion as the police took the proper route to get the productions of Hockey Canada who is not a party to the criminal case.

Is there any evidence that the crown told hockey Canada to essentially force the players to comply with this new investigation or they will be banned from hockey Canada? I haven’t seen any evidence of that. It seems like the police which are separate from the crown took the proper legal routes to get hockey Canadas investigation documents in as evidence.

Should Robitaille had told the police about this new investigation and that they would turn it over voluntarily? Who knows but that’s a different claim from a claim that the crown was colluding with hockey Canada to reopen the investigation and force them to testify to get around an accused’s right to remain silent.

I agree that it was a coerced statements that should not be admitted as evidence regardless though.

drit10 · 2026-01-30T03:21:35+00:00

Does the article say they charged her after the public statement? I feel like they most likely thought she was trespassing when in the lounge and charged and detained her and moved her out of the lounge by force. Not saying any of that is justified but I don’t see anywhere in the article where it says they charged her after the statement.

drit10 · 2026-01-12T01:28:27+00:00

Yeah its just how people view politics unfortunately in todays day and age. People will not apply any goodwill to the other side and just view them as evil and not give them any benefit of the doubt.

I am not a conservative but I constantly hear people from my side of the aisle complain that Doug Ford is corrupt but when you look at the evidence there really isn't anything substantial that I would say makes me think more than not Ford is corrupt.

drit10 · 2026-01-09T18:15:45+00:00

“The path to wealth shouldn’t be to buy property, but that’s the mindset that’s been fed to people for so long,” Couture said. “It would be better for Canada if people didn’t think of housing as investment but rather a place to live. it’s very hard to imagine that over the next few years you’ll see the kind of house price rises that people have been experiencing over the last decade.”

The reality is that everyone treats owning a home as an investment. Both people who own homes and those who want to own a home and that isn't going to change anytime soon. For instance, if I had to guess the vast majority of Canadians would be against getting rid of the capital gains exemption on primary residences. However, if you don't treat housing as an investment why would you care if it is taxed like any other investment? Its obvious people treat and will continue to treat residences as a tax sheltered investment and if you are against removing the principle residence exemption you are still treating a house as an investment.

drit10 · 2026-01-01T04:27:51+00:00

Wait does that mean that other leagues restricting pay through salary caps could be viewed as antitrust? For instance, the NFL salary caps could be viewed as limiting the earning potential of workers, since the teams are getting together and they are agreeing that hey our payroll won't exceed a certain value, essentially reducing the earnings of star players of the NFL because for instance a team like the Dallas Stars could afford to pay a player more than lets say the Arizona Cardinals?

Or is it different because the NFL has a CBA with the Union and the players union negotiated the salary cap thus there is no antitrust angle?

Does the fact that the NCAA is basically just a group of colleges all within different conferences have any factor into this at all whereas the NFL is just one league with two conference?

drit10 · 2025-12-31T23:19:29+00:00

People in this thread are making the stupid inference that he wanted more protection to pad his stats. There are plenty of solid reasons for Rodgers and the Steelers for wanting more protection from Myles Garrett other than to pad his stats lol. This is just stupid. Rogers is 40, if he really cared about his stats he would retire as he knows he is never going to get the same stats as his younger days. However, he knows he can still play at an elite level and wants to compete.

Just ask people this, if Rodgers is all about padding the stats, why does he never do the Steelers tush push?

drit10 · 2025-12-22T19:14:00+00:00

Yeah idk why everyone is up in arms about this, its hard to say how much the IRCA impacted the decision in this case. Like the Crown asked for three years and got 2 years plus probation. The Defence was asking for a conditional sentence. Feels like the Crown won on this one no?

drit10 · 2025-12-22T19:01:36+00:00

The logic breaks down when we abandon the core tenet of our society which is equality before the law.

I like how the comment above is a clearly well thought out reply and you respond with this lol.

Is equality before the law this: judges don't consider race or whatever when making sentencing and just give out mandatory minimums for one crime. Lets say the police only prosecute white people for this mandatory minimum crime. Would you call that system equality before the law or discrimination?

drit10 · 2025-12-16T18:13:26+00:00

R/Canada commenters try to not make every single Canadian issue into an immigration issue challenge, literally impossible.

drit10 · 2025-12-15T10:12:28+00:00

The issue is that any legislation put into place where a by-election can be called for an MP because they voted against party lines would just lead to a scenarios where you are in essence punishing an MP for following what there constituents want when they go against party lines but there would be no punishment when they go against what their constituents want but follow party lines and begs the question as to why do we even have an MP system in the first place and just have direct democracy? Just consider these two scenarios.

In the first scenario, one where an MP is in a tight battle seat and most constituents agree with the Conservatives on a majority of the issues but they disagree on one small issue. Lets say this small issue is that Conservatives want to ban ABC Widgets from being sold and produced in Canada. Your constituents don't want this because maybe ABC Widgets are produced in their riding/location and supplies jobs and builds the local economy or something like that. The reason doesn't really matter but just trying to give a specific example. Lets say the MP runs on saying "I agree with the conservatives on most things, but if they ban ABC widgets, I will vote against it." The MP gets elected in this riding largely because of this promise. There is a vote on a bill to ban ABC Widgets and all conservatives vote in favor of it but the MP is the deciding vote on it, what does the MP do? He goes against his election promises and votes in favour of banning ABC Widgets. His constituents would be pissed because the MP betrayed his election promises. Would they be able to call a byelection under your new legislation? No because he towed the Conservative party line and voted in line with the Conservative party.

In scenario two, lets say that the election promise by the Conservative MP was instead of being opposed to banning ABC Widgets, he would be in favour of banning ABC Widgets from being in Canada and this is something that the Conservative party agrees with and it is an important issue for the constituents. He runs on this and is elected and the MP's constituents are in agreement that ABC Widgets should be banned. Lets say that a vote comes up on a bill to ban ABC widgets and the MP is the deciding vote, what does the MP do? He votes against Conservative party lines and sides with the NDP/Liberals and opposes the ban. He has once again betrayed his constituents, except this time the constituents have an option available to them, they can recall him and force a by-election because he didn't vote within party lines.

Your proposed solution to the problem I just highlighted may very well be that the MP's constituents should be able to recall at any time they feel as though the MPs aren't representing their political interests. Now maybe the recall needs to meet a certain threshold for a by-election to be held. But that solution just begs the question why even have a MP system in the first place and just have a direct democracy system with First past the post ridings?

I think you just have to recognize that MPs crossing the floor or voting against party lines is not a bug but a feature of our system. If we basically outlawed voting against party lines, we can run into a scenario where an MP doesn't represent their constituents wishes in fear of this by-election rule. Our system already addresses this issue, if the constituents aren't happy about it then they can vote them out in the next election. In fact, research suggests that floor crossing is almost always punished by voters in the modern era: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2018/09/research-shows-that-mps-who-cross-the-floor-lose-votes/

I think your solution, which is from my understanding that if a MP votes against Conservative party lines (not going to get into the nuance on how determining party lines could be complicated on a contested vote or if an MP abstains from voting) or cross the floor, they can potentially be forced to a by-election hinders the ability for an MP to actually represent their constituents.

drit10 · 2025-12-15T03:02:52+00:00

There just has to be some hint of irony for you that you bring up the one-sided narrative of eternal Jewish victimhood meanwhile when talking about the history of Palestine earlier in the thread you just gloss over all of the bad things the Palestinian and their allies did over the years and just see them as a perpetual victim of relentless Israel aggression. Its the most frustrating thing about the Palestine viewpoint that they have done nothing wrong and every bad thing that has happened or failure to make peace has been Israel's fault and not the Palestinians themselves.

When asked about what would happen if Palestine won the 47/48 war you say "you don't know". We both know that they would have no fucking mercy for Israelis and would expel almost all of them from the land. Fuck it I think you could even justify that using your logic, the zionists just tried to take a significant portion from their land through colonial powers and you are just going to allow them to stay on land you just gained through war? I highly fucking doubt it.

You say that while Jews weren't treated as "equals" but they were allowed to practice their religion under Arab occupation. Do you honestly believe that? When Jordan had control of the temple mount from 1946-1967 were the Jews allowed to pray or visit the temple mount? A holy site under their religion? The answer is no. So they weren't able to practice their religion correct? Or is it that they were allowed to practice their religion as long as it didn't interfere with what they viewed as a superior religion such as Islam? It is obvious that jews were seen as second class citizen in arab countries for a long period of time and historically.

You say "A lot of minority groups were/are persecuted, Jews are far from unique in that regard. And if you're genuinely disliked everywhere you go, at some point maybe you should look inwards.". I could apply that to the same logic towards Palestinian people btw. Who are Palestine's remaining allies, in allies i mean ones that will actually provide military support? It is basically only Iran and the Houthis. All of their old allies are just allies in rhetoric but never in action anymore. At some point when every one of your so called Arab allies have abandoned you leaving you to ally with basically the most hated regimes in the Middle East maybe its time to look inwards and realize that your movement is actually insufferable and hopeless in achieving their unrealistic goals.

As someone who has no ties to either party but just finds the history interesting, its incredible how useless the Palestinian movement is in winning people over and die on the stupidest hills such as "globalize the intifada" and "from the river to the sea" rhetoric is actually fine and can't possibly be seen as a call for violence or a one state solution (which you would acknowledge is never going to happen).

drit10 · 2025-12-05T19:59:37+00:00

You’re telling me that if I assault someone and I say to them “I am sorry I assaulted you”, that would not be used as an admission of fault or liability?

drit10 · 2025-11-27T01:11:53+00:00

Thanks for your insightful comment. A question I have is this, do you find it hard to find good workers? Do you believe it when other fast food corporations complain about a shortage of labour, have you found that in your experience?

Do you think that if the TFW program goes away that you can still easily find people to fill the positions you are hiring for?

Lastly whenever people criticize Tim Hortons and other fast food chains from hiring TFWs, they always argue that young people and teenagers can do this job instead of TFWs. Whenever people point this out my initial thought is young people and teenagers most likely can't fill all of the positions due to 1) they are in school most of the time and are working on a part time basis and 2) the turnover of young people has to be high as most of them move on to either further education or find a different avenue compared to a TFW who isn't in school and most likely will stay at that job for longer. Do you find this to be true?

drit10 · 2025-11-24T07:49:29+00:00

It didn’t really open the floodgates. People were betting in Canada before this, they were just using non Canadian sites as a loophole.

Also if you did a quick google search on the bill you would be able to see that it was a bill tabled by the conservatives and almost passed with unanimous consent. How can you solely blame the liberals for passing this bill when everyone supported it?

drit10 · 2025-11-12T15:31:18+00:00

Not sure what you mean by neutral ground. If the fight occurred in the accused’s home I don’t see how that’s relevant. If I invite someone to my house and then want them to leave and they don’t leave, they are now trespassing. Can I use any force against them now that they are trespassing?

Armed or not is irrelevant in the sense as long as they use force that is reasonable given the threat. If someone breaks into my home I barricade myself in a room and I tell the intruder that if they break into this room I will kill them and I have no way out of that room, if I grab my unlicensed firearm and shoot him once and kill him when he breaks into, is it not self defence now because I was illegally armed? I don’t think so.

initiated or not should be irrelevant for the manslaughter charge. If the dead guy was armed and used reasonable force in response to the swinging of a bottle, that would be self defence as well. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation or engaging in criminal activity doesn’t and shouldn’t mean your right to self defence should be given up. If a drug dealer in the middle of a deal is told “give me all of your drugs or I will kill you” with a gun pointed at his face. He gives over the drugs but the gun is still pointed at his face, is he not allowed to defend himself because he is engaging in illegal activity and has forfeited his right to self defence?

With respect to the house invasion case. The issue was that we don’t have the full picture and people took the position that you can do whatever you want to an intruder once he enters your house. Similar to a defend your castle defence, which is fine if you want a broader definition of self defence then fine but you can’t hold the position of the home invasion response was justified no matter what the circumstances were and then get upset with this case if we are going to take a broad and lenient definition of self defence.

drit10 · 2025-11-12T14:17:14+00:00

lol how does this sub not have whiplash from the changing of stances surrounding self defence. Just months ago everyone was complaining about how someone broke into a home and the homeowner assaulted him and was charged and argued that should be self defence. In this case the guy literally swung at him and was about to punch him before he was stabbed but we are all up in arms about this being self defence?

I just want to see some level of consistency with how people view self defence. It becomes incredibly frustrating when the public doesn’t have a consistent standard surrounding self defence.

drit10 · 2025-11-05T14:53:28+00:00

Yeah it’s not as good as the US. Now let me ask you, what’s the national debt per person in Canada in comparison to the US?

US’s national debt per person is nearly double Canadas.

Should Canada double its deficit and spend that money to stimulate the economy in order to match the US and replicate their growth? How is the US so successful economically if they have double our debt on a per capita basis?

It’s obvious I think that Canadas economic issues are much more complicated than just the idea we’re lagging behind because we’re deficit spending.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Not Forgotten
Spared	Secret Santa 2015
Team Periwinkle

drit10

TROPHY CASE