blue_gold_84

You realize that not every player is versatile, right? Just because those two played CB and successfully changed to HB, it doesn't necessarily mean Frederick could.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/first-closeup-images-jupiter-great-red-spot-1.4201730 Some incredibly beautiful shots of the gas giant.

Mulumba would be a nice addition, especially when you consider Westerman isn't getting any younger (I still think he has a few good years in him, though).

There is ample information provided here to show what took place and why the settlement was paid, but it gets wilfully and easily ignored. Confirmation bias is a really unfortunate affliction.

More clueless commentary. Well done. I suggest you read up in the links provided in this thread and get a better idea of what's actually going on, instead of telling others to cool down.

Well, you just shot yourself in the foot with that comment. Medlock doesn't have a ring but you claim he's championship calibre. Meanwhile, Andrew Harris has a ring but you don't seem to think he's championship calibre. Same with Weston Dressler. I mean, Sam Hurl has a ring... Is he a championship calibre MLB? Julian Feoli-Gudino has a ring... Is he a championship calibre receiver? Your logic is flawed.

What a clueless assertion. Are you actually trying to say not a single player on defense is good? Westerman, Nevis, Leggett, Randle, Heath, Loffler... Six players off the top of my head that are all damn good.

Bingo. More or less similar to what happened with Maher Arar. Gov't officials mishandled things and as a result of that ineptitude, a settlement was paid and a apology was issued in an attempt to get closure by the gov't in power at the time.

True story. Bombers' O-line will need to return to 2016 form to give him the best chance.

Frederick plays CB, though. Not HB.

Good point. The appeal process for suspensions is ridiculous. I think it needs to change: appeals are only considered for suspensions of three games or more.

Yeah, that's your problem. You quoted my post, despite saying some time ago you'd just ignore me from that point on. So much for sticking to your guns, eh. And it's also your problem if you want to play games and ask pointless questions with zero basis in reality. I won't engage is such petulant nonsense. The question simply isn't worth dignifying with consideration, much less an answer. And it is seriously alarming if you think the words "charter" and "child soldier" are just affectations being used by apologists. Reality is simply lost on you.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/giant-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica-1.4200787

Be that as it may, he has never played HB. And Carmichael hasn't seen live action at SAM. Two needless gambles.

2 games would've set a solid precedent, IMO. One game seems like too little.

You can assume whatever you want, which seems to be how you operate here. Why am I not surprised you'd continue jumping to conclusions... And why you'd pose a question related to a made-up, silly what if scenario and then not explain why is pretty odd. It's completely pointless as it has nothing to do with reality, and that's why I refuse to play along and answer such a ridiculous question. Had you bothered to follow along in the first place, even though you're the one who started this thread, I don't agree with paying Khadr anything. I've stated as much more than once in this thread, along with the rest of my views on this situation. And it's got nothing to do with who decided to pay him. I didn't like it when Maher Arar got a similar settlement a decade ago from Harper gov't, either. Instances likes these speak to a systemic problem within the government itself, and it's absurd there are those who choose to use it as a platform upon which to spew partisan rhetoric. Maybe go see a doctor and get your gut checked.

Best post by a Rider fan I've ever seen.

Oh, the rich delusion of this comment. I expressed my views, no differently than you did. At no point was I even remotely rude, much less emotional or angry. I merely attempted to explain how I see things regarding this ugly situation that is attracting a lot of the wrong attention at the moment for our otherwise great nation. As you said, it's a forum. Don't jump to conclusions about people you don't know.

What's to be accomplished by playing the what if game? That's the better question. The optics surrounding this whole debacle are ugly enough without having to switch up the roles, anyway. Like I said, there's plenty of egg on the faces of many a gov't official at the moment. Nothing about this settlement looks good at all. But I also don't think being behind the 8-ball in court would've looked any better. Nobody thanked you. Again: try and pay closer attention next time.

Well said. He seemed to let his NFL "experience" go to his head and who he is now is a far cry from who he once was only a few years ago. A real shame when you consider the raw talent and football IQ he demonstrated early on in his pro career.

Nice to see someone here is capable of having a reasonable, thoughtful, and mature discussion. Much appreciated. I get what you're saying but don't really understand how that would work. I'm not sure how refugee "treatment" could be applied to someone who is a Canadian citizen. I also don't know if he was hurting financially to begin with, anyway.

Pay attention to what (and who) I'm quoting next time. The highest court in our country unanimously ruled a Canadian citizen's human rights were violated. An appeal was then unanimously shot down shortly thereafter. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2013 based on those rulings. So, what am I missing?

On your fifth point: he's a Canadian citizen. How could he be classified as a refugee? I agree on your sixth point entirely.

Solid rebuttal. How thoughtful and mature.

What part of a unanimous ruling by the SCoC are you not understanding? That ruling is why he received the payout. And way to make childish assumptions. Who's "you guys," anyway? I'm shocked you didn't label me a SJW again, albeit erroneously.