Mark H.

I thought the slash was deliberate, two-handed just for good measure

If you really read the thread you know the answer. The narrative of "oh he was just running away" isn't accurate. Add in the warrants, the assault, the struggle over the stun gun....the bigger picture isn't as near and tidy as originally thought. In a perfect world the cop would not have shot the guy. The victims actions lead to the shooting. The cop made the choice to shoot. Honestly the worst thing the cop did was plant the stun gun. That's going to be the hint hole in any Defense even if he's innocent. And again by the law this ain't mirder. I was reading opinion. I'm still reading opinion.

I've been reading this thread, reading other articles, and scratching my head for the past few days. Running away from Police is a strange decision to make - sometimes people make strange decisions. Does that mean they should be shot? I dare say not. I get that some of you are arguing semantics and commenting on the rights of Police Officers in general - but why defend a cop who shot and killed an unarmed, fleeing suspect?

9 - 9 and playoffs...minimum

The last few playoffs have shown that goal-tending is not the be all and end all that it used to be. Good goal-tending helps, but teams of this era seem to generate more quality scoring chances. The days where the likes of Broduer and Hasek can control a series are over.

lol at not thinking Pavelec is a huge weak link on the Jets. Aside from 3-4 recent games, Pavs lets in a softie just about every game. It's amazing what the "recency factor" does to people's mindsets.lol

Because then the play by play people would try to pronounce it.

I was referring to that specific play. Stopping any kind of breakaway is usually a lucky guess by the goalie.

The technique is you cover the side of the net where the shooter is coming from. Bottom line is Pavelec and Byfuglien both suck. I hope they're both gone by next season.

Awesome clip - future is bright for the Bombers' OL.

Thing is on the game winner, it wasn't a breakaway. Byfuglien had him defended coming from one side. Pavelec didn't protect the area of the front side of the net that he needed to. I don't usually weigh in on these debates, but Buff clearly did not have him defended.

This post should be stickied as a reminder every day until the deal gets done. I'm bumping this post - simple negotiation tactics folks. I wish people involved in pro-sports wouldn't negotiate through the media.

How does anyone get off blaming the team that had a 2 - 0 halfway through the second? My point is it's a 'the chicken or the egg' argument. I'm not knocking Hutch. But sometimes a tired team needs the goalie to bail them out. Playing back to back road games all the way out on the West coast, coupled with the injury situation - to me it was obvious they would need some extra help from the goaltender. The way Pavs has been playing of late, I think he would've helped them weather the storm during that slump in the second. Just my 0.02

Interesting - you don't see Crawford steal too many games.

Another very viable solution would be to plant more trees. Young, growing trees actually consume more carbon dioxide than old trees. Also, some of the wood stoves being manufactured these days are incredibly efficient. I have seen a wood stove that was heating a several large houses via hot water heating pipes. It only needed to be filled once every 24 hours and it had a recombustion chamber that was so efficient you couldn't see any smoke unless you looked very closely.

Just to add to the problem: 1. Teaching on a reserve up North is referred to as paying your dues in the teaching profession. The good teachers who prove themselves will be hired in Southern Manitoba. Fly in Sunday night, fly home Friday afternoon, and don't stay there for more years than you have to. 2. Brandon University has been running a Teacher Training program for Aboriginals since 1972. But this program has produced very few teachers. In fact, those who graduate are usually middle-aged and have only a few years of teaching left. Guess what the younger people do if they earn a degree? Leave the reserve. Who is supposed to step up and lead them? That's literally a billion dollar question at this point.

How is locking a thread always some peoples' default position? Sometimes it's best not to block opinions and just let people learn from each other.

The land bridge is still a theory. A good theory, but a theory nevertheless.

It's more the oil than the potash. Sask has been mining potash for half a century.

No I'm not over simplifying. This is how the problem gets solved. I know full well what the treaties that were signed were and what the intent was. The problem is that they are legal documents that are guaranteed by the constitution of this country, and that's a huge problem and the #1 reason why most of these problems exist. When they were signed it was seen as the easy solution, put the natives out of the way and throw them a few trinkets every now and then and let them live their traditional lifestyle. Problem is that in todays society it is a terrible solution and completely unworkable. The best solution IS to stop treating them differently and make them all Canadian and treat everyone equally. When you have such a skewed number of impoverished people on reserves it is safe to say that the system is broken, but where's the push to change a broken system? You even bring it up and you're labelled a racist. Too much blame gets thrown at the feet of the government of Canada and they're expected to fix it, but they can't fix it unilaterally, self determination and all that, so basically it's just "give us more money because residential schools! abuse! ugly history! white guilt!" It's those treaties that are holding things back. The best solution is for white people to stop believing that they have a clue how to fix the problem. That's how we got into this mess in the first place Largest untapped work force in the country, 2 million first nation grads by 2020, assimilation has happened. The days of hunting & fishing for a living are over. The reserves will dry up because the young won't stay. People have had that theory about quite a number of unique cultures. The belief that economic reality will some how erase cultural identity is flawed. Old John A. Macdonald had a similar theory about our First Nations - history has proven him wrong.

Okay, I found some info I was looking at a few weeks ago. Check out some of the budget records, going all the way back to 1997. http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/provincialbudgets.html Go into Financial Review and Statistics and compare our Own Source Revenve vs. Government of Canada revenue. Example: the budgets in the late 90's drew almost 40% of their revenue from the Government of Canada.

I don't know what time frame you are comparing to, but is the change in percentage due to reduction in transfer payments, or increase in other taxes? I know that on a per capita basis, we draw way more money in federal transfer payments than all other provinces west of the maritimes. We draw almost double of what everyone west of Quebec gets. We draw more than Quebec. I find it all quite embarrassing. We need to be self sufficient. What offends me even more, is the cost of subsidy that we provide to the territories. Manitoba (per capita) $ 2,626 (2014-2015) Quebec $ 2,390 Yukon $24,901 NWT $29,412 Nunavut $40,352. I don't mind helping others get through tough patches and offering short term assistance, but we need to let unviable communities close and move rather than subsidizing the HE** out of them year after year after year. http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Manitoba No one is self-sufficient, not even Alberta. Given the differences in resource base, I'm not surprised our transfers are about double what Alberta's and Saskatchewan's are.

Apology accepted. Difference is that "revenue neutral" seems to always equate to "poor people get screwed". The end result is the government gets the same amount of money, but more of it comes out of the pockets of people who can't afford it. And as I write this I am amazing myself as believe me, I am not a socialist. In fact, I believe that socialism hurts the poor more than it helps them, in a lot of the policies they enact. The Carbon Tax is one of those policies. Even though I'm in the teacher's union and happy with what they provide, lately I've been wrestling with the idea of government and unions. Unions don't really represent the working poor any more. They mostly represent public employees and middle class trades people. I find that the idea of socialist governments supporting the working poor has become largely a myth. And it fits right in with the comment you made about Tommy Douglas in the other thread.

I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny with the wine and cheese joke - I like wine and cheese and sometimes I like whining too. I actually appreciate the way Iso acknowledges that there can be issues with any government, regardless of political stripe. Seriously: what's the difference between a 'transfer' and 'revenue neutral?' If people are still paying the same amount of tax overall, then that would seem to be revenue neutral, would it not?

Speak for yourself! Our carbon tax is the dumbest tax I've ever seen - just soooo stupid. A Gordon Campbell Special. Don't see Christie Clark getting rid of it. The sky high gasoline taxes on the Lower Mainland is pretty stupid. Why do voters allow the politicians to rape them everytime they fill up their vehicles??? It's a trade-off. "As for the economy, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since the carbon tax began. BC simply raised taxes on pollution and lowered them on income. Since 2008, the province has cut income taxes by almost $1 billion more than it has taken in carbon revenues –so taxpayers are ahead overall. B.C.’s personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada, making it an attractive place to do business." - The Financial Post Jan 2015 "The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs." - The Globe and Mail July 2014 Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too. The Economist July 2014 How dare you bring facts to a whine and cheese party?