Wanna-B-Fanboy

I know, it's pretty weird to see the mention of climate change by the government. .. Surprised that it wasn't given it's own ministry, given the gravity of it. Or... were you being sarcastic? Can't tell.

So it's cool to call Harper every name under the sun, but if its an organization that you like then you can't call them names? Is that what you are saying? I really don't like the Sierra Club. Sorry, but I don't. And peddling "zero-energy" is just a huge lie. Kind of like saying that Harper cut $36 billion from health care spending. First off, those people that love Harper should not be marginalized or denigrated either- they fall under the passionate clause. Secondly, you call out leftywing nuts all the time yet you HATE it when people do that about other things... if you hate it so much and think that it is such an arsehole thing to do, why do it yourself? Are you "fighting fire w/ fire" or just using it as a convenient excuse to justify your denigrating? Either way, smacks of hypocrisy to the ninth degree. Thirdly, Zero-net energy is not a lie. You would understand this if you even bothered to read the definition. Manufacturing of materials do not factor into the idea. When up and running, you put back in to the grid what you use, though renewable energy sources. And lastly, the 36 billion dollar health care cut is misleading. Technically it is a reduction in the increase of health care spending... -If you are annually increasing the amount to healthcare spending it is an increase. BUt if you are increasing it on an annual basis to cover rising costs and offset increasing inflation and so on by a certain amount EVERY year, then cut back on the amount of increase... that my friend IS cutting back on healthcare spending.

I am all for making the residence more energy efficient, but I have to laugh whenever the eco-loons talk about "net zero-energy" house. Ok - so how do solar panels and wind turbines get built again? Using fairy dust? Not sure where fairy dust comes into the equation... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building I still don't understand why you need to always denigrate those people or ideas that you don't agree with? Seriously... eco-loons? Lefty-wingnuts and so forth. People who are passionate about specific things shouldn't be dismissed and marginalized for their beliefs.

Bah to hell with all the robins not named Damien Wayne!

I think its soon. But why isnt it a good idea if naming of other Airports after PM's is okay? Because it's Harper.

If you provide a link to a news station's website where they have created a write up of the exact thing you mentioned... does not mean that is already a story? Or do you mean that this news item has the possibility of gaining legs and drum up an anti-trudeau movement because he is spending tax payers hard earned cash on his cushy new digs? Or the fact that a 10000 square foot mansion is not good enough for Justin? Or do mean there is a possibility that Sun news will launch some ridiculous headline like: "Rock Star trudeau, has rock star excessive taste, mansion not enough!" He's Teflon right now... not going to happen (other than in hard right rags). Besides, that link seemed more of a sympathetic mews item.

Just saw Dope, good movie- I recommend it.

Yup, very American way of doing things. I remember from the West Wing, they called them "Christmas Tree" bills, because everyone gets to hang a decoration on it in order to lend their support.I believe you are thinking of a different type of bill- these omnibus budget bills were very unilateral, and very partisian... the majority government would just tack on anything and everything even if it had no business being in there:Navigable waters changes Retroactive immunity to RCMP for illegally destroying gun registry (seriously wtf is that about?) Old age pension Public Sector sick leave (should be at the barganing table with unions instead) Generally used to curtail discussion and debate- which is essential in a democracy. But Omnibus budget bills in a minority situation is usually the "xmas tree" bill you are talking about. Lots of give and take in that scenario to ensure most people are happy to let it pass. Personally, not a fan of the last 4 omnibudget bills, too much of a work around sound decision making. Also, the time table and enormity of the bill makes it difficult to see any possible unintended ramifications, due to the lack of scrutiny.

With the old guard tossed out and a new one taking over I thought I would start a thread for civil discussion here as was suggested by Noeller. So have at it: - with Trudeau and the Liberals in a majority, will we see most of all the "hopey, changy" materialize? -what happens to the Conservatives? Will they become like the PC of old or lean more towards their Reformer roots? -will Candians be better off? -what happens to the NDP? Will they wilt back to stay in 3rd party status until the next Layton? -will we see more of "Angry Tom" or more of "Smeying Thomas" (I so hope for the former, the latter scared the gravy outta me) So once again have at it and try keeping away from the personal attacks, that includes making dumb assed comments which elicit (sometimes justifies) the personal attacks.

No cuss, when I heard about that it immediately brought this clip to mind:

How much film was on Jennings before the last game?

Fixed for accuracy. It's hyperbole, not hyberbole. So much for accuracy, you can't even spell. Apologies, fat fingers. Hyperbole, nonetheless. Back away from the cliff and discuss rationally.

Fixed for accuracy.

He had a free challenge and considering the situation I think he should have thrown the flag. It was late in the game. What was he saving it for? I don't know... maybe for an instance where he has proof? So you want him to just arbitrarily throw a flag because it was a long catch? Let's say that he did that on another play and was unsuccessful because it was a legit play,he did what you proposed he should do (Toss a flag on a long play even without evidence) and I don't think you would be here defending that. I seriously doubt you would be defending that. So why bring it up and blame him for it? Serious- some people -damned if you do, cussed if don't.

True but at the same time the team did fight back to get close. It doesn't matter when the points are scored. Just that they are scored and the refs significantly hurt our chance to tie the game. That argument is pure hogwash they hadn't lost the game at that point but they were behind. The bad call didn't cost us the game. It may have contributed but it wasn't the sole reason why we lost. just wasting my time. Haters gonna hate no matter what and the logical will always win out in the end. And logic says that they significantly hurt their chances to win when they only put up 25 yards to Calgary's 137 in the third quarter and spot them and 11 point lead in that time. They kept fighting and that is great but you simply cannot nap for a quarter in professional football and expect to win. That's too is logic. That's absolute BS. Who cares what quarter the points are scored. The reality is they did score the points which put them in the position with the ball at the end of the game and in a favourable spot to at least tie the game. So who cares that they did nothing in the 3rd quarter. What if they scored 30 points in the 3rd but the Stamps scored 31. Would you use the same argument? The fact is that at the end of the game they had the chance to tie or win. That you can't argue. This is kind of the point. If that incorrect call was made in the 2nd quarter, then people wouldn't be blaming it as the reason the Bombers lost the game. Yes it was a horrible call. Yes it probably cost the Bombers points and potentially cost the Bombers the win or a chance to go to OT. But it wasn't the only reason why we lost. It was not the only reason we lost- absolutely agree. As with any game plays are left on the field, mistakes are made, and the other team just out plays you. But this no-end penalty was someone else's cuss up that took away our chance at tying up or even winning the game. Also I am not sure you can move the timing of that bad call- the timing of that bone-head phantom penalty is at the crux of the matter and actually magnifies that phantom penalty .

True but at the same time the team did fight back to get close. It doesn't matter when the points are scored. Just that they are scored and the refs significantly hurt our chance to tie the game. That argument is pure hogwash they hadn't lost the game at that point but they were behind. The bad call didn't cost us the game. It may have contributed but it wasn't the sole reason why we lost. just wasting my time. Haters gonna hate no matter what and the logical will always win out in the end. And logic says that they significantly hurt their chances to win when they only put up 25 yards to Calgary's 137 in the third quarter and spot them and 11 point lead in that time. They kept fighting and that is great but you simply cannot nap for a quarter in professional football and expect to win. That's too is logic. That's absolute BS. Who cares what quarter the points are scored. The reality is they did score the points which put them in the position with the ball at the end of the game and in a favourable spot to at least tie the game. So who cares that they did nothing in the 3rd quarter. What if they scored 30 points in the 3rd but the Stamps scored 31. Would you use the same argument? The fact is that at the end of the game they had the chance to tie or win taken away from them by a third party. That you can't argue. FIFY

But you can't. All the " other plays and squandered opportunities" absolutely are the teams fault and they should wear it. The thing is, that game breaking incident wasn't the incompetence of the team, it wasn't the Stamps out playing the bombers, no bone headed coaching mistake- it was 100% on the Zebra on a bllusiht call. They gave that game to Calgary, that is what is infuriating about it.

Oddly appropriate given that our team falls like said house, in the face of adversity.

Came into this thread expecting a "please stop sucking" request and walking from thread with expectations met. Also, I Love the Bombers but lately (re: past decade) it feels like the unrequited sort from some John Huges movies...

Yeah, I tried that November 17, 2007... and look what happened... So, let me have free reign- it's my body.

Seriously... I am totally unable to comprehend this. Anyone have any idea why we are a perennially terrible team.

I think the fear is being the riders first victory... No one wants to be that team.

After the game, this what fans of both teams are going to be doing:

Huh? Where did that come from. I heard he was battling the flu, not the hung flu. Where did you hear this?? Is this some new form of self defence using projectile vomit? If so, sign me up!

You never have the "right" to be an arsehole.