Amazon HQ2 thread

[JManc]

Canada never invaded the United States...that would be the Brits. There was no Canada. No Rush, no Nickleback, Don Cherry, no Tim Horton's and certainly no Amazon.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

Canada never invaded the United States...that would be the Brits. There was no Canada. No Rush, no Nickleback, Don Cherry, no Tim Horton's and certainly no Amazon.

Only the latter sentence is correct.

Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec) did in fact exist, and had substantial self-government at the time.

Though yes, they were British Colonies.

Further, British regulars were largely otherwise occupied by the Napoleonic Wars during the first couple of yeasrs; it was a mix of local civilians and First Nations (Indians to you) who did most of the heavy lifting on land.

We are way off topic.

I simply felt the need to correct an erroneous statement.

I would appreciate if people would stop making those, and I will happily stay on-topic for thread hereafter.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

I simply felt the need to correct an erroneous statement.

I would appreciate if people would stop making those, and I will happily stay on-topic for thread hereafter.

LOL get used to it on this site, it never ends, everyone thinks they're an armchair expect.

[JManc]

They were British colonies...an extension of the British Empire led by British generals and officers...with the Upper and Lower Canadian colonies fighting on their behalf. It's not the same as if Justin Trudeau unilaterally droned everything from Detroit to DC and then invaded and occupied the eastern US and deposed Trump.

That latter part is not a bad idea though....we'd even give you Amazon.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Canada:

Current Amazon HQ's: 0

Future Amazon HQ's: 0

United States:

Current Amazon HQ's: 1

Future Amazon HQ's: 2

/Thread

[10023]

Not to go off topic, but “First Nations” is such a silly euphemism.

[WhipperSnapper]

How so? I think it's a pretty straight forward definition to describe the many indigenous people that have a degree of self governance in Canada. A silly euphemism would be to continue to call them Indians.

[Nouvellecosse]

They were quite literally the first nations that existed on this continent. A euphemism is generally a term used to avoid an exact name or literal description.

[10023]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

How so? I think it's a pretty straight forward definition to describe the many indigenous people that have a degree of self governance in Canada. A silly euphemism would be to continue to call them Indians.

“Indians” is obviously erroneous but at least reflects an interesting historical misunderstanding.

“Native Americans” is essentially correct (at least if “native” is understood to mean extant for thousands rather than hundreds of years).

“First Nations” is based on a fallacious definition of nationhood, and the people and cultures that it refers to would not have understood themselves as such before modern times. Nationhood is basically an 18th century European construct. They were the first human societies in what is now Canada, but not really nations.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Sure, why not when you have the United States to protect you.

A normal, sensible amount of spending is necessary, but colossal overkill not so much. It's strange enough when Americans fail to condemn their government for wasting billions of their tax dollars to enrich the military industrial complex and risk the lives of US service members, but when they actually claim that other countries are somehow benefiting from this waste as if the US was somehow shouldering a necessary burden and spending money that "needs" to be spent, it's completely confounding. At best, much of it is unnecessary and being wasted. At worst, it's fueling instability and making everyone - including Americans - less safe.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 10023

“Indians” is obviously erroneous but at least reflects an interesting historical misunderstanding.

“Native Americans” is essentially correct (at least if “native” is understood to mean extant for thousands rather than hundreds of years).

“First Nations” is based on a fallacious definition of nationhood, and the people and cultures that it refers to would not have understood themselves as such before modern times. Nationhood is basically an 18th century European construct. They were the first human societies in what is now Canada, but not really nations.

Actually, they perfectly match one of the definitions of nation. They weren't modern nation states, but that isn't the only definition - or even the first definition.

[Doady]

"Nation" refers to cultural boundaries. "State" refers to political boundaries. "First Nations" is correct.

"Native Americans" cannot be correct, unless Canadians can be "Americans" also, and "America" is the continent and not just one country.

[mhays]

Canadians ARE Americans, to whatever extent they want to use the term.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by 10023

“First Nations” is based on a fallacious definition of nationhood, and the people and cultures that it refers to would not have understood themselves as such before modern times. Nationhood is basically an 18th century European construct. They were the first human societies in what is now Canada, but not really nations.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Actually, they perfectly match one of the definitions of nation. They weren't modern nation states, but that isn't the only definition - or even the first definition.

Nation as a term referring to a tribe, a people, a cultural or ethnic group, or a group descended from a common ancestor, has a long history of usage in the English language. For example, the English term "nation" is used for various tribes or groups in the Near East in the biblical times.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation


"c. 1300, from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem

...

Political sense has gradually predominated, but earliest English examples inclined toward the racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to North American Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder)."

[jd3189]

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. It will be a shame it will all end once Amazon decides HQ2 or presents a plot twist.

[twister244]

Guys, seriously, get back on topic before this thread gets locked again......

One has to wonder if stories like this will impact Atlanta's bid:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/delta-nra-georgia-tax-cut.html

In Denver news,

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/24/amazon-headquarters-colorado-incentives/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...eco-devo-corporation-preparing-data.html

Nothing crazy news-worth in those articles, other than most cities are finalizing their "second" round of documents to send to Amazon over the next week or so. We have 8 sites proposed (redacted from public). However, I can't help but wonder if land down by Elitch Gardens in the downtown area is one of the 8 sites. The city has recently begun scoping out a long-term vision for redeveloping this area:

https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/de...a_Plan_Amendment_public_review_draft.pdf

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not to go off topic, but “First Nations” is such a silly euphemism.

The word "First Nations" was a bit of a fad for a while as Canadian English tried to settle on what to call the first people who lived on this continent, after "Indian" became unacceptable. Increasingly, we're settling on the term "Indigenous Canadian", sort of like how Americans seem to be pretty settled on the term "Native American".

[bnk]

As far as airports

Those that want to read into this they surely can

Originally Posted by bnk

Where did this come from


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-city-hall-story-20180223-story.html

Chicago, airlines nearing $8.5 billion deal to dramatically expand O'Hare

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago’s airline carriers are in the final stages of negotiating a blockbuster $8.5 billion deal to dramatically expand O’Hare International Airport with a state-of-the-art global terminal, dozens of new gates and several additional concourses, the Chicago Tribune has learned.

The eight-year plan would be the single largest and most expensive terminal revamp in O’Hare’s 73-year history. The goal is to vault the airline hub long known for its gridlock and delays into the 21st century by growing its sluggish number of international flights and creating more room for its domestic carriers.

...

All told, more than 3.1 million square feet of terminal space would be added — a 72 percent increase over the current 4.3 million square feet.

...

The amount of space for planes to park at airline gates would increase by 25 percent, and the total number of gates would jump from 185 today to roughly 220 upon the project’s completion in 2026, Aviation Commissioner Ginger Evans confirmed in an exclusive interview with the Tribune.

...

Emanuel declined an interview for this story. Privately, however, he has told business leaders and confidants that the O’Hare overhaul would be a “game changer” for Chicago, a move he has predicted could become one of his top achievements as mayor.

...

The airlines’ incentive for the big spending? More business and better customer service.

United and American, for example, would be located in the Global Terminal with major international partners Lufthansa, All Nippon Airways, British Airways and Japan Airlines. Some “spoke” carriers like Delta, for example, would relocate to what’s now international Terminal 5, where customers easily could connect to KLM, Air France, Korean Air and Aeromexico.

“The non-hub airlines get their own space in Terminal 5, their own entrance, their own hotel, more club room, more paid space, they will be closer to the city. They love that,” said a source familiar with the negotiations who was not authorized to speak about them publicly. “And American and United essentially get a better internationally connecting complex, because to send passengers over to or from Terminal 5 is a pain in the ass. Nobody likes that.

“So, in the end, American, United and the other non-hub airlines all agreed,” the source said. “It gives everyone sort of what they want.”


...

In the airline industry, having domestic and international airlines in the same terminal is known as a “global alliance hub,” Evans said, pointing to London’s Heathrow Airport and Tokyo’s Narita International Airport as the standard. O’Hare would become the first such global alliance hub in the U.S., Evans said.

“My boss, the mayor, has this thing: ‘I don’t just want O’Hare to be bigger, it has to be the best,’ and this is one of the ways we’re going to leapfrog over the other U.S. international terminals,” Evans said.

...

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I think it has more to do with the fact that we have higher taxes on other things, like sales taxes.

This is a point that is often lost in this discussion. Canadian consumption taxes are lot higher than American sales taxes. Sales taxes vary from province to province but in every province except Alberta they're in the double digits; in Toronto, you pay 13%; in Montreal.. 14.975%.

Excise taxes on gasoline, alcohol, and cigarettes are also a lot higher in Canada as well.

More of the tax burden in Canada is on "ordinary people", so to speak, but also the vast majority of spending is also on "ordinary people", too. Taxes overwhelmingly go to health, education, and the social safety net.. a lot less to defense as mentioned, but also a lot less to corrections as well (we have a much lower incarceration rate as a result of lower crime and more lenient criminal sentencing)--this last one is a point that is not typically discussed in cross-country fiscal comparisons.

One thing for sure.. Liberal Americans need to stop thinking of us as some sort of utopian version of America. We have our problems too, even of the political shitshow variety. (Google "Patrick Brown" for a taste).

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The word "First Nations" was a bit of a fad for a while as Canadian English tried to settle on what to call the first people who lived on this continent, after "Indian" became unacceptable. Increasingly, we're settling on the term "Indigenous Canadian", sort of like how Americans seem to be pretty settled on the term "Native American".

I fully expect "indigenous" to be phased out at some point in the future as well. I'm only 22, and I've already seen the term go from Native to First Nations to Indigenous throughout my time at school. Don't know why it would stop now, though I don't think it's a huge deal either way.