kelownabomberfan

I will have to watch it again on Saturday afternoon to psych up for the game Saturday night. At least it's not on too late for me, 9:00 pm start for Winnipeg must suck a bit. I forgot that was O'Shea's first game. I remember the controversy - will he wear shorts or not on the sidelines? He did. And no one died as a result.

I still have his first game in 2014 on my PVR. Not because it was his first game, but because we kicked Toronto's butt in that game. It was so sweet. Willy looked like a young Tom Clements in that game.

I was in one two years ago - didn't go in last year as I didn't have the time to devote. I will go in this year if there is interest!

Andrew Harris for me too. Thanks.

try watching the idiot Don Lemon for five minutes, then ask me that question again. He is beyond biased. Just the worst.

like CNN or MSNBC?

I am still rooting for the MSM's choice for Democratic leader, Michael Avenatti. I think he can beat the charges, and still grab the the brass ring.

yup, Riders sign Andrew Scheer's brother in law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html

only issue with that ending (very well done BTW) is that I would have a hard time with believing that Jaime could kill Cersei while she is pregnant with his child.

"Where were you when we were brainstorming this ****?" David Benioff

so here's where we get into the definition of "hate" again. Hamas has called many times for the death of all the Jews in Palestine. It's safe to say that that is pretty hateful. And yet Hamas has a presence on Facebook. Why were they not banned? Should they be banned? If so, does that prove that it's not just "loud-mouthed white guys" that are banned for "hate"? Or is Hamas "hate" different than loud-mouthed white guy hate? It's so confusing.

that's pretty offensive to bananas.

no, it's not evidence.

I'm pretty offended by this. But yes, to avoid me wanting you banned for spreading hate, I can go to PM.

oh but I say that you do engage in all kinds of hateful behavior. Do you actually? Does it matter? I have decided that you do. So therefore now you can't say anything. You've lost your right. That's how it works when the lines get blurry. Understand now?

yes, that's definitely is proof all right. Just wow.

NO I obviously don't. But I do see you participating in a lot of behavior that seems to defend, deny and deflect, so there is that. I find a lot of your views incredibly repugnant, and your posting style to be beyond acceptable. So can I censor you because of that? If not, why not? You are engaging in hateful behavior. In my opinion. As for the First Amendment, here's a guy who I guess would now be lumped in with "white men" who are "unable to humanely articulate a message". This turned out to be his last speech before he was assassinated: Is free speech antithetical to racial justice? Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been surprised at the suggestion that the pursuit of racial justice requires censorship. On the contrary, he understood as well as anyone that the First Amendment was crucial to the civil rights movement. King spoke passionately in support of the First Amendment on April 3, 1968, the day before his assassination, in what turned out to be his final speech. In Memphis to support a sanitation workers strike, he proclaimed: This, he continued, was the cry of people “determined to gain our rightful place in God’s world.” But the struggle for freedom and justice faced resistance, including an injunction, and this is where the First Amendment came into play: The speech moved to other topics, coming finally to its famous conclusion: King’s vision of the Promised Land included equal rights for all, and those rights included freedoms of belief, speech, press, assembly, and protest. First Amendment rights, in his view, were crucial for reaching this land long promised, and part of what makes it the Promised Land. The Promised Land, then, is not simply a “safe space.” Social justice is not achieved by eliminating “microaggressions” or requiring “trigger warnings.” Student activists, whatever their cause, should recognize and insist on intellectual freedom for all.

you said this did you? OK - so I decide that your narrative is nasty. Do you now lose your right to say these things? If not, why not?

I'm just going to say that I disagree with this comment 100%. I also don't know why "white men" and "white nationalists" have to enter discussions about such basic concepts as free speech. It really is baffling. Is this what they are teaching in schools these days? It would be interesting to sit in on a lecture where a prof is pooping on free speech, as I'd like to have a solid debate about it and why they think this right to say what you think is "disingenuous", and only valued by "white men". Also, don't "women" value free speech? If not, why not? This just nauseates me, that something so basic a freedom that so many have died to protect, is so easily just dismissed as something unimportant or only exists to protect those who are incapable of "articulating messages humanly", whatever that even means. Who decides what a "humanely articulated message" truly is? And at what point does that become so blurred, that even those who support such nebulous and vague interpretations of what speech is allowable, suddenly become the enemy. What then?

if you saw this scene in context, what Carrey's character is doing is standing up to the US government who at the time were destroying people's reputation in Hollywood for their apparent beliefs and participation in Communist activities. I thought it was really a great scene, as their actions were truly an abuse of the First Amendment, to not allow these people to have their own views, and to destroy their entire careers over it. A truly dark time in American history. I really dislike communism, but I support 100% your right to talk about it. Ha ha yeah that was in the Extras section of the DVD. Carrey's commentary was hilarious.

and if they follow this advice and blame everyone but themselves for the loss, they'll lose again. Whoever wins, be it Joe or Bernie, has to stump in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Leave Jayz and Beyoncé behind, and go do some real electioneering. They also need some policies that American voters can get behind. What policies are there out there other than "Orange Man bad". Not that isn't a huge weapon, but they might not want to rely on that as their only platform plank. Like who? Warren? Booker? Harris? Klobuchar? Beto? Buttigieg? Castro? Gillibrand? Hickenlooper? Inslee? Ryan? So the Dems were nearly wiped out and they didn't seem to change much if anything. Do you really think the Republicans will change anything? I agree that they need to be kicked really hard in the pants before they change anything, but will this be enough?

I think both Stephen Harper and Obama deserve a lot of credit for what they did to get North America out of the glue. That was some tough sledding, and it was good to see Canada and the US working together to solve the problem.

ummm...what?