Eternal optimist

Storytime: Of similar hilariousness, I remember two uncles at Christmas arguing about what would happen if a pingpong ball was put into a microwave (days before google); Uncle A: Due to the manufacturing process, the ping pong ball contents would explode due to them being somewhat pressurized. Uncle B: The ball would puncture, then the contents inside the ball would cause it to collapse in upon itself, sort of imploding. After about 30 minutes of arguing, they of course decided to put it to the test. The result was actually neither, it just smoldered into a little shell of its' former self and was nowhere near as exciting as either posited theory. Also, the smell was absolutely rancid... I remember my aunt being so ticked because it ruined her microwave. tldr; don't microwave a ping pong ball.

I just want to see more of Simonise personally.

Obligatory "budget will balance itself" comment.

What how could you, none of those players are 'Riders... didn't they (and their fans) tell you already that they are clearly the best team in the league? Haven't you been reading all the other threads on this site?

Are you seriously arguing over $12 a month?

Either such a tax leaves the poor out in the cold (by hurting them on essential services), or the tax is levied more on the rich, it can't be both. As I mentioned before it is still an avoidable tax, as even with essential services (groceries, for example) if the carbon tax weight were so substantial alternatives would emerge or become more viable - such as buying groceries locally, instead of mandarins shipped from China.

Oh good then, glad that's settled! The government already has this tax break specifically for people living in remote areas of the north, it is called the Northern Residence Deduction: Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-255-northern-residents-deductions.html Also, the carbon tax implementation is supposed to have a rebate portion, specifically so the poor that would be paying carbon tax on necessities, get a corresponding tax break on those necessities. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-carbon-tax-plan-trudeau-1.4874258

Let me see if I understand you here - you're against a carbon tax because it will disproportionately affect citizens living in colder or remote climates due to the increased costs associated with transportation and basic necessities. Can I posit this question to you - if the government were to offset the costs for those citizens, thereby only curbing excessive pollution only by those that could afford it (without putting the same burden on the poor) - would you still be opposed to the carbon tax?

According to Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, extreme estimates state a carbon tax would increase costs for Canadian households that use the most carbon (that is, those that are the most wasteful) by $1,141 for your average Canadian household. For starters' that's less than $100 a month... for the upper-class... and secondly, the people you're referring to (the poor that wouldn't be able to afford it) wouldn't be in this realm, since if they're that poor they wouldn't be consuming carbon (or other items) at such a high rate to begin with. (source https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/carbon-tax-canadians-cost-prices-1.4753664) As for it being a tax on essential services, they already implement environment levies on all sorts of items to encourage responsible behavior. The best example I can think of is the environmental levy on car batteries - you pay the levy up front, then when you return the old car battery (for recycling) you get your money back. If you didn't have that tax, there would be a lot car batteries in landfills. Lastly - aren't all taxes taxes for essential services? Isn't that the whole idea?

This is no surprise, most politicians are older in terms of age... this rift isn't helped at all by my apathetic millennial generation, the majority in office are less eager to do so because imposing taxes generally is political suicide. His proposal is a consumption tax, you know what's the best part about that? It's avoidable, similar to tobacco tax (which adds about 50% to the cost of cigarettes) and taxes on alcohol... if you don't like it, don't buy stuff subject to carbon tax. A carbon tax would nudge people's tendencies and actions in the right direction, you'd see less SUVs and shiny new trucks on the road. As for not making a difference, his point is that it needs to be a collaborative global effort - someone has to take the first step. Might as well be us.

While I will agree the hit was certainly dirty and illegal, I love how you guys are dragging Willis through the mud on this thing... you guys know he was a Rider at one point, right? It's all sunshine and lollipops when it's a dirty Rider ("anything to win", "it's not cheating unless you're caught"), but as soon as it's against a man in green...oh boy.. And don't give me that "well yeah but Willis was a Bomber at one point too", yeah he was, and had poor locker room attitude and we shipped him off to crazytown Regina for some draft picks.. His first order of business - DUI. Sound familiar? ... too soon?

> Boasts about the statistic that the Riders' D have 11 defensive touchdowns > Says he doesn't care about other stats. Pick one.

First time Alouettes surpassed 30 points this season... it's actually pretty amazing they managed to get 3 wins with that lack of offensive production.

On the plus side, at least the regime saw the writing on the wall and torpedoed him instead of letting him continue to be unproductive for the Bombers.

Still can't believe we managed to trade Adarius Bowman for anything... he has done absolutely nothing in Montreal.

(1) You are so out of touch with reality if you think every football player on every CFL team is 100% healthy right now and that no players are playing through pain. (2) As for a CFL head coach who made a public announcement that was a lie - How about Chris Jones announcing Hughes would play against Calgary on October 20, 2018.... https://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/cfl/riders-charleston-hughes-to-play-saturday-despite-recent-dui-arrest-1.4869460 ... then completely doing an about face after the public backlash he received for the decision: https://www.620ckrm.com/2018/10/19/chris-jones-addresses-reversal-of-charleston-hughes-decision/ Seriously, do you even follow your own team?

I would like to happily nominate this thread to be locked as it is no longer relevant.

Basically, it'd determined based on how the team(s) that are tied played against each other. Gets a bit more complicated when you have 3 or more teams tied. Assuming we were to tie BC at the end of the year...From CFL website: When two or more member Clubs are tied in the final Division standings at the conclusion of the regular season schedule, preferential ranking for playoff purposes shall be determined on the basis of the following descending-order priorities and shall be awarded to the Club that: has won the greater number of games played against all member Clubs of the League, then, (season series was split 1-1) has the higher winning percentage in all games played against all of the other tied Club(s), then, (against each other, BC/WPG are tied 1-1, both have .500 win %) has scored the higher net aggregate of points (i.e. points scored for less points scored against) in all games played against all of the other tied Club(s), then,<- we are here has scored the higher net quotient of points (i.e. points scored for divided by points scored against) in all games played against all of the other tied Club(s), then, has the higher winning percentage in all games played against all member Clubs of the Division, then, has scored the higher net aggregate of points in games played against all member Clubs of the Division, then, has scored the higher quotient of points in games played against all member Clubs of the Division, then, has scored the higher net aggregate of points in games played against all member Clubs of the League, then, has scored the higher net quotient of points in games played against all member Clubs of the League, then, has won a coin toss against the other tied Club. Note: If two Clubs remain tied after other Club(s) are eliminated during any step, tie breaker reverts to step a).

I think it'd be better to play Stamps first, then Riders in the West final for the sole reason that Calgary has more to gain by having that extra bye week with how injuries have decimated their roster of late. That said - either way, we're in tough for the Western Semi-final.

I agree with your assessment here... I also thought he was playing hurt. The real question though, why would our coaching staff rush him back, especially when we had a very serviceable backup in Streveler?

HH to the fans for hitting 100 procedure and time count penalties caused at IGF.

If there's a man that could strip-sack a major intersection... it's Bighill.

It's not possible for us to face BC in the playoffs (best we can do is 3rd, and if we finish 3rd, BC has to finish 4th, if we finish 4th we crossover to the East), so weather will definitely be a factor... at least from the Bombers perspective.

Thankfully, just because of the way the math works out, there is no way for us and BC to face each other in the playoffs (the exception being in the Grey Cup). Which is good... BC looks like the hottest team right now at 6-1, and have been absolute dynamite at home (7-1) this year. Could make some noise.

Wait wait wait... if BC hosts the WSF, who would they host?