kelownabomberfan

I think teams have figured out how to defend the Jets. They are getting significantly fewer scoring opportunities this year. I agree losing Buff is big but Ehlers has hurt big time too. Big loss of speed and ability to stretch the other team's D. I am hopeful that Nikolaj coming back is the catalyst that gets this team back on track.

Anything to save the Liberal lifeblood, the Quebec vote.

I'd buy him one for closing Bighill, but he'd have lost his Timmy's gift-card by now. Coffee is for closers Kyle.

Stand on the sidelines waiting for Nichols to sail the ball over your head on a five yard out when we need ten yards?

his leads were weak...

Loffler hasn't been the same since delivering that walloping...

as long as Jade's mom is still on the board I'm happy. And Addison Richards' hair.

Thompkins - Milt Stegall 2.0. Calling it now.

not enough opportunity to get into bar fights with drug gangs in Winnipeg?

ok so we've got Logan Couture at center....fair enough. Hope that Geoff Gray is good enough to start. It really sucks that Goosen retired, I was looking forward to him pushing guys down the field again like in the WSF.

what is our O-Line going to look like now with Chungh and Goosen gone?

Just checking in. Losing Chung and JSK is a punch to both nuts.

Call me crazy but when Ehlers comes back i would like to see Connor Roslo Laine as a line.

LOL

This comment is right up there with the term "alternative facts". "Disingenuous questions". There is no such thing. There are "disingenuous statements", such as saying that there are "hundreds of billions of dollars" of clean-up costs in Alberta from abandoned wells. This is not true. Not even remotely true. Just like saying the FA in Fort Chip have high rate of cancer. Not true. And yet these comments were made. And no "enlightened" person even questioned these comments, other than Mark, who did the research. Questioning bizarre and false statements is not "disingenuous". It is just that. Asking questions. I will repeat my previous comment - why does questioning false statements make certain people so uncomfortable? Why? Is it because no one questions you? Are you just not capable of answering questions? and being a cowardly Orwellian NPC berating people for asking simple questions and calling out false statements looks really bad on you.

"watershed moment"? Really? That's your opinion, and that's fine, but that's just your opinion. World War 2 was a cataclysmic event that resulted in the death of tens of millions of people. To compare an unproven scientific hypothesis to that war is not only hyperbole, is incredibly disrespectful. It's virtue-signaling and dog whistling to her base. I've been reading a lot about how Trump started and how AOC is now starting, and it is horrifyingly similar. They both make outrageously silly statements, and outright lie as the WaPo pointed out, and yet their base just shrugs and accepts it. Then the other side goes bananas and calls the person all kinds of names, which just endears them further to their base. AOC = Trump on so many levels its actually kind of scary. yes, but there's been so many other blatant lies that have been just "shrugged off" by her base. It's really scary. oh man, and laugh I do. I love how the gender pay gap is "a complex issue", as is so many other invented and imaginary problems that are purely designed to create a victim complex of a sub-group, but yet, finding $40 trillion to blow on far left dreams and rainbows is simple. You just need to "shift priories" (sic). Yes, it's just that easy. I just burst out laughing every time I read this. I am glad we have free health care, as I will need to get some pain-killers for my sore ribs.

when I saw the effort in the first period, I knew we were going to win. Not giving up 2 goals in the first few minutes of the game really improves your chances of winning.

Just because I ask questions, somehow it's a "stretch" for me? Why can't I ask questions? Why is it always such a threat when anything is questioned? Why are people so scared of questions? LOL - whatever lets you sleep at night.

That's not what I said. I said that discriminating against a person because of their gender is wrong. And I said that misandry plays a role in that. And I don't see how it can't. How else do you deliberately tell someone that they can't get a scholarship and can't work for the RCMP, just because of their genitalia? There has to be something morally wrong with that stance, because all discrimination is morally wrong.

what you could say is that you are looking at something out of context, and because you have been told that JP is a bad man, you have just chosen to go ahead and accept that he must be some sort of racist. And that's just sad. I admonished "Senator" Sinclair because he is a Canadian politician, who is supposed to be representing all Canadians. He certainly is being paid by all Canadians to be a senator. This position comes with some responsibility, including understanding what he is saying and doing in the public eye. In this case, he was made to look foolish by the alt-left, and he didn't accept the responsibility he should have by fully understanding what he was doing. In this case, he was engaging in and enabling the slander of a fellow Canadian, one who has close relations with the Canadian FA community. It makes no sense. What was he trying to do? He isn't running for office. He is appointed for life. So why virtue signal like this, and get it so wrong? Why stake your reputation on something that makes you look like an idiot? It was poor judgement from someone who should be better than this. Stay out of the alt-left hate Senator Sinclair. It's already pretty full.

She also made some other points. One major one being - it's illegal to pay women less than a man. And so there is no gender pay gap. That's her point. And yes, it really is that simple.

No - I was talking about Jim Jeffries. I was quoting Bill Clinton? My bad. looking back on that interview, what really cheesed me off was Jeffries' use of "jump cuts" to show a bunch of comments by JP that were completely out of context. I get it, it's a comedy show, so you go for the laughs. I did watch the whole thing through, and I was glad that he also made that lunatic protestor look bad too, so at least there was some sort of fairness. Yes, that was good. Yes. It would have been nice to see the protestor do the same thing.

as usual, some random weirdness to deflect.... of course I do! Do you?

I think you should send this advice to AOC. Calling the man-made climate change hypothesis "Our World War 2" is hyperbole at its finest. It's eye-rollingly chalk full of hyperbole. And yet, if you call her on these kinds of crazy statements, you are "alt-right" or something equally nefarious. I am waiting to see how many crazy things she can say before someone in the media finally starts calling her out on this stuff. At least the WaPo started giving her Pinocchios, which was good to see. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-trillion-mistake/?utm_term=.be307a1b49a1 why not make it $50 trillion? $60 trillion? At that level it's just monopoly money anyway. And completely unrealistic. LOL- yes spending mega-trillions of dollars you don't have like Venezuela did and saying that maybe doing the EXACT same thing is probably not a good idea is a "Fox Talking Point". This made me laugh, hysterically. If you want "good discourse", then drop the deliberate obtuseness angle. Of course the DNC is going to destroy any chance that AOC will have for real power. They have extremely wealthy elitists to protect just like the RNC. The DNC has to protect them, that's who funds them. That's how politics works. Everywhere. And that's why the DNC isn't going to allow AOC to get past where she is right now. That's why they knifed Bernie in the back. And you know this, you aren't stupid. It's ok to criticize the DNC once in awhile, and question your confirmation biases. It's actually healthy.