17to85

The problem is that it's a low skill easily replaceable job. You won't do it for 8 bucks an hour? Ok fine we'll hire some high school kid who is desperate for a paycheque to do it for 8 bucks an hour.

It is possible that their plan @ #4 has been Jordan Yantz all along and that the battle for a QB position has been between Marve and Portis. Keeping a qb you're not giving reps to? That just seems a dumb idea when trying to develop a player. But that's just the point. If you've decided to make him your 4th QB already, then you have to make a decision on the other 2 QBs..which one to keep.. How? By splitting their reps and seeing how they do. Yantz gets his work in practice and his development, as a CFL-ready QB, may not be as far behind as some think. Is it a dumb idea, or forward thinking? It's a theory. I just don't see it as a good idea at all. There is no benefit to a canadian qb so why decide on a guy who is likely behind the others in terms of development anyway and not give him reps? What if it turns out he's a terrible qb at this level? Wouldn't it be better to figure that out now than in the event they ever get that far down the depth chart? If they made that decision it's a bad decision. Yantz because has a strong accurate arm & good football smarts ... could develop into a Russ Jackson Portis and Marve because of their physical attributes could develop into *insert HOF qb here* blah blah blah blah. Giving people jobs without having them face off against their peers is just a bad idea all around. It's just giving a guy a job because of his passport which does nothing at the QB position. I don't want a feel good story at qb, I want the best players at every position unless there is a ratio reason for it.

When people were looking for a country with a similar population and oil reserves to Alberta to talk trash about Albertans.

This implies that people who are smarter or who work harder are the ones who get ahead in our society. A hallmark of advanced society is the ability to feel empathy for your fellow human. If not, then why have things like socialized healthcare, education, and social assistance. Without those, those who are "smarter and harder workers" could gain even more advantages. Not all by many of them do. I have empathy for my fellow humans, but let me tell you about my situation... I work a job that pays very well. Most people in my peer group aren't in a financial position I am. I'm not rich, far from it but I never have to worry about money and have a nice savings going. The reason for that is that I have stayed in a job that is very volatile and unpredictable and requires long stretches away from home and makes having a real normal life difficult. I have made sacrifices to be in the position I am in financially, why should I be equal to people who can not make those same sacrifices? I'm not trying to boast about having a lot of money here, I'm simply pointing out that not everyone is willing to do the same things when it comes to earning money so equality should be right out the window just based on that. One of the things that makes Canada a great country is that you do have the opportunity to better yourself if you are willing to sacrifice and work at it. A lot of people though are content to coast through life. Why should those people be equal to the ones with the drive and willingness to sacrifice? Yeah we should help support the people who are incapable of supporting themselves, but not the people who have the means but not the will.

I just don't see it as a good idea at all. There is no benefit to a canadian qb so why decide on a guy who is likely behind the others in terms of development anyway and not give him reps? What if it turns out he's a terrible qb at this level?Who is behind whom in terms of development though?The guy who has played Canadian football his whole career? Or the 3rd choice amongst our QBs, whose had at least 2 years to learn and develop his game and has not developed? And as to the 2nd part of your question, just how many QBs have we've seen and hoped would turn out?...and they were terrible? Too many to even mention. We're talking about the 4th person development position here, and to me, taking that decision path is no different than keeping Joe QB-Star from Turn-'em-out University who will not play Pro ball at any level. But doesn't that just prove how hard it is to play quarterback in the CFL? Why hand a guy a position when he is likely less talented than the other qbs you have? You shouldn't be giving people jobs without letting them showcase themselves against their peers.

I would argue that keeping everyone at the same level is a worthy goal. Wealth and income inequality are not things a country should aspire to. but people aren't equal. Once this silly idea is purged the less we'll have to hear about what a noble goal this is. Some people are just flat out smarter than others or harder workers or better athletes or whatever. Some people are lazy lumps who are happy to accomplish nothing, why should they be equal to someone driven to succeed?

Taxes aren't objectively bad - just because you don't want tax doesn't make the NDP bad fiscal managers. Your post is full of right wing talking points that aren't backed up by any evidence. You should examine your preconceptions more critically. Just look to the Nordic countries for what a higher level of taxation can do for a country. Norway has a huge heritage fund that they created by responsibly regulating the oil industry (taxation) that Alberta could learn a thing or two from. Norway also has one of the best health care systems in the world. All of them have made far more progress on environmental issues than Canada has. No one would argue that they are stagnant. Do you know what the tax rate on the people in Norway is? It's ******* HUGE. Easy to save all that oil money when you tax your population out the ass. Alberta may not have a huge oil fund (though they do have one and it's not exactly tiny) but we also enjoy a pretty low tax rate (which is going up now thanks to the NDP) The Nordic countries are exactly what I want to avoid here in Canada. Obscene tax rates. Yeah you're taken care of cradle to grave but you're paying out the ass for it and forgive me for not thinking the government is the best at spending money efficiently. Those countries also have stupidly high costs of living. They might be socialist paradises but it comes at a cost that I want no part of. I'm not opposed to taxes, I am opposed to excessive taxes. There are some things that governments should be taxing people for and paying for, having people be totally dependant on the government though? No thanks.

I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without.

It is possible that their plan @ #4 has been Jordan Yantz all along and that the battle for a QB position has been between Marve and Portis. Keeping a qb you're not giving reps to? That just seems a dumb idea when trying to develop a player. But that's just the point. If you've decided to make him your 4th QB already, then you have to make a decision on the other 2 QBs..which one to keep.. How? By splitting their reps and seeing how they do. Yantz gets his work in practice and his development, as a CFL-ready QB, may not be as far behind as some think. Is it a dumb idea, or forward thinking? It's a theory. I just don't see it as a good idea at all. There is no benefit to a canadian qb so why decide on a guy who is likely behind the others in terms of development anyway and not give him reps? What if it turns out he's a terrible qb at this level? Wouldn't it be better to figure that out now than in the event they ever get that far down the depth chart? If they made that decision it's a bad decision.

No I know what the post was saying, but the point remains the same. People want to be able to watch tv without paying for tv.

It is possible that their plan @ #4 has been Jordan Yantz all along and that the battle for a QB position has been between Marve and Portis. Keeping a qb you're not giving reps to? That just seems a dumb idea when trying to develop a player.

Absolutely one of the top 50 players on the OL in the CFL.

But I'm damned sure going to try. If I can save even one soul it's worth it.

I didn't see my complaint about the NDP to be praise of any other party in this area, as what I meant (and obviously didn't really explain very well) is that one of my main issues with the NDP is their hypocrisy when it comes to dissent and free thought. They criticize everyone else for not being free on dissent, yet they are the worst offenders when it comes to this issue. Anyway, I wouldn't call my dislike of the NDP "blind hatred", I would call it well-informed disgust. I watched Howard the Coward run Manitoba into the ground in the 1980's while allowing the unions to just run the province (that's democracy?) and I watched the NDP in BC run our province into the ground. I watched Bob Rae run Ontario into the ground into the 1990's. I "debate" (it's tough to call it debate) NDP zealots on other forums and it's always the same mantra "We are great and can do no wrong". They don't want to admit that there are any issues with their ideology, and the only reason they feel they don't win elections is because the voter is either stupid, or swayed by "attack ads". They don't want to change, and anyone who proposes change is shouted down (this per several people I know who left the NDP). It's our ideology or nothing, and if you don't like it, get lost. As I said, I just find the NDP to be extremely hypocritical, on this and many other issues. They point fingers at JT and Harper and say that they don't allow dissent, but the NDP are the worst for this. The day I see an NDP actually finally question some of the garbage they are fed by their union masters, like that bogus article Raging just linked to, I will probably keel over in amazement. Agreed absolutely. The left likes to take the moral high ground and paint the right wingers are the intolerant ones but holy crap the left is the worst for trying to silence people who disagree with their position. No one tries to ban left wing media out lets like the left tried to ban the sun news network as an example. Not just disagreeing with an opposing viewpoint, trying to censor it! When has the right ever tried to outright censor opposing views?

Yeah they cut him the other day and it never got a mention at all.

OK but should breaking the rules be considered the players deciding the game? I mean it's easy to cover someone when you maul the receiver. Should that be better for the game than penalizing that illegal contact? Teams and players know what the rules are, it is entirely within their power to not break the rules and not get flagged. As long as the refs are consistent in what gets called and what doesn't get called.

This is a stupid post, TSN is part of the basic cable package everywhere is it not? This is just people whining about not wanting cable and that sort is entirely screwed up in their thought process. I want to watch TV but I refuse to pay the price to get tv channels so I can watch TV. Netflix won't last as it is forever, content owners are already looking at ways to have their services themselves. Netflix itself has even stated that it's goal long term is to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix. They are putting a lot of emphasis on their own original content rather than getting bent over trying to get other content providers to license them content. It's going to be cable packages on the internet rather than TV in the future and that's a damned shame.

Especially when they are the GMs own personal pet project.

My thoughts are getting anyone for under a million is a good value. Maybe it's an arbitrary benchmark but anything under a million for a guy who can play even a little bit at the NHL level is just a no brainer deal to make.

There's really no evidence to support that position. The NDP actually have the best fiscal record of the major parties at the provincial level. This is straight up cold war style ideology and it hurts political discourse in this country. The country is already stagnant, the NDP literally couldn't do any worse. Oh please not this nonsense. Worst talking point ever. I ain't talking about balancing budgets which is all you are referring to because quite frankly simply balancing the budget isn't what I'm looking for out of a government. I want a balanced budget WITHOUT having to tax more to do it. I want the government stream lined and cuts made AND a lower tax burden on us the tax payers. I am not interested in having my finances raided just so the idealists in the NDP can fund whatever half baked program pops into their head. Being highly taxed stagnates an country. There is a reason why both the Conservatives and Liberals agree that taxing people isn't the solution to the country and are in favour of lower taxes for the most part. Promotes investment in the country and if people have more money in their pockets at the end of the day they have more to spend which keeps the economy going. The NDP would have us all be utterly dependent on the government for everything.

I call BS on thisI read it on Twitter. Yeah but it was from Drew Edwards. He's a big time Ticats homer and cuts down Winnipeg whenever he can. Yeah the Hamilton narrative is that their stadium is better than IGF so take all shots you can.

LOL. I just don't like the NDP, and see them as the worst option possible. I also see a lot of people use excuses like "stagnation" as to why they should take over power, and I don't get why we need to needlessly waste billions of dollars on absolutely no positive value, just so that we aren't "stagnant" in some peoples' minds. The tax and spend philosophy of the NDP is a surefire way to stagnate the country, at leas the Conservatives and Liberals agree that you need to entice businesses to actually operate in the country. The NDP views corporations as their own private money stash for half baked social programs.

at least you can plan around a guy who stays healthy. What good is a guy being better if he can't play? You're still dipping into your depth while he's on the IR and it throws the rest of the roster out of sync when you have to shuffle things around. I guess the question is whether you'd rather settle for guaranteed mediocrity or take a risk on someone talented. But you've never struck me as much of a risk taker so I get where you're coming from. Nancy. Yes I would rather have guaranteed mediocrity than a guy who breaks easily. It's a dumb risk to take. Unless a guy is light years better you don't put up with that and sorry but Neufeld is not light years better than anyone.

yeah cause the NDP always reviatalizes things... yikes. I fear for this country if the NDP get in federally. full blown constituational crisis because they just won't be able to keep their dirty little fingers out of provincial territory. That Alta. election had a lot to do with the undecided vote...and once again it is up for grabs and contrary to your statement demographics did play a part in the result...You fear the NDP...yikes...re-electing that bunch of crooks, who now hold power in Ottawa would be a more worrisome horror story...Guess we'll see in a few months how it all plays out and the real poll is conducted, that being the actual election....IF it were held today....Mulcair would most likely have a minority govt....we shall see. Keep parroting that line about shifting demographics, it's not true. It was obviously the undecided voters that played a role, you know what the biggest cause of being undecided was? "I really want to kick the PCs out but I dunno who to vote for" NDP captured peoples attention and rode the momentum in but that's all it was. It was a "**** you Jim Prentice" vote nothing more. Contrary to popular belief Alberta has never been the backwards social conservative place people like to think. The PCs were the very definition of a big tent middle of the road party. They were all encompassing which is why no one could threaten them. They drew from the right and the left equally. Alberta has always been a pretty progressive place, we just like our money out here and we like our governments to be responsible with it. The total disregard that Redford and co. showed for the tax payers was the straw that broke the camels back. Running deficits while being as entitled as that is a sure fire way to get the voters against you. Then having the new guy tell Albertans to look in the mirror is the push they need to stop voting for you. You think there will be no scandals and crooks if the NDP win? That's just a fact of forming government. There is always back room deals and money going places it shouldn't. It's a nice dream to have that government will be responsible but it never happens. I quite frankly don't trust the NDP. They have too many silly ideas about what to do with money. got a deficit? Just raise taxes. No thought to cutting the fat and lessening the tax burnden on people, just tax and spend, tax and spend. That's a sure fire way to stagnate a country.