The Unknown Poster

Read The Coming Global Superstorm. it's a good book about climate change leading to a new ice age. It was entertaining. Oh and Young says Canada has the "dirtiest oil on the planet", eh? We should shut down our oil production and make deals with Iran. Im sure they will have our backs.

Slightly off-topic Jesse Ventura quote aside, with the Jets all but eliminated from Playoff contention do you cheer for them to win every game or do you nervously watch them hinder their own draft positioning by winning meaningless games?

Looked great on his Seadoo in his wetsuit. That was nearly 14 years ago. Time flies. Exactly what I was thinking!

Stockwell Day was underrated.

So venice is flooded? So? Guess what, the ice caps will melt. One day, there will be an ice age. And maybe one day we will have the technology to do something about it. If I come to Manitoba during an unseasonable warm and dry summer and I build a house on the banks of the red river, who do I blame when the naturally occuring water level rises and floods my house? Im all for being good to the environment. I believe man has contributed to current CO2 levels. I dont believe man triggered Global Warming. I dont believe man can trigger an ice age. We should all be responsible. We should not let crazies like David Suzuki dictate our lives. And Canadians should not be held responsible to sacrifice so that NOTHING changes while China polutes with impunity.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/SourcesThe-NFL-Prepping-HUGE-Offers-to-Buy-the-NHL-and-MLB/1/59062 Ok, not sure what to make of this, but I have been hearing about it for the last month or so and feel I must at least report on it and put it out there….so at the risk of assured hatred and mockery... here goes. The NFL is in the final stages of preparation of major offers to buy the NHL and the MLB. (there are some who say the NBA and possibly even the MLS could be next.) The success of the NFL and it’s meteoric rise are unprecedented. They are printing money. And this has been in the works for three years. Leaving MLB aside…lets talk about what the NFL buying the NHL would mean for the NHL…. According to one source in New York who is VERY familiar with the situation, “The NFL has always known the money is in the merch and the brand. And the NFL owners want to expand their brand and options. They want to have more days where the TEAM BRANDS are playing than a few Sundays in the Fall and Winter.” Team BRANDS? Yes, as ridiculous as you heard it… It is the brands (aka team names) which are driving all of this…..or put another way by a source at the NFL, “In your Philadelphia you have the same fans for four different entities. The Eagles, Flyers, Phillies, and 76ers. That is what we are used to of course, but look at the colleges. The Michigan Wolverines play football, basketball, hockey, etc, and the Wolverine has become a great and identifiable marketing icon. If the U of M hockey team was called, “The Flyers” it wouldn’t nearly hold the same cache as the Michigan Woverines. So why shouldn’t the Philadelphia Eagles be the name of the football, baseball, soccer, hockey, and basketball team.” My response would likely be yours.…. “BECAUSE THE FLYERS AND PHILLIES HAVE LONG STANDING BRANDS!” “That is of course something we are sensitive to, but maybe Philly is a bad example. Would fans in Miami rather see the Florida Panthers play hockey or the Miami Dolphins,” my source continued, The NFL has a much bigger following and could offer those franchise owners serious compensation and all they would need to do is change the name and colors. We already have 32 franchises and the NHL is ready for 32 franchises.” So, all stupidity aside, how much money are we talking about? Depends who you talk to, but I have herd the NFL could offer up to $100 Billion for the NHL and the 30 team naming rights and 300B up to half a TRILLION for the MLB. Still ridiculous right? Well, remember these are the NHL owners investments and the “NHL” isn’t its own entity but rather an organization solely made up of it’s 30 owners…and what if all those owners would need to do is approve such a sale by 2/3rd majority? But wait! There are NO NFL teams in Canada? I asked that question as well and was told the following…hope you are sitting down! “Of course we would honor Canada, the country that gave birth to this sport,” my source said, “And it is a blessing actually since there are NFL cities without current NHL franchises. Cities in the south who may not be able to even support those franchises right away. So the thinking is, as a start, to have “sister cities” in the states for these teams. For example there is a great French culture and tradition in New Orleans, so the Montreal Canadiens could become the New Orleans/Montreal Saints or the or oil rich town like Edmonton and Houston could get together. I mean it wasn’t long ago they were both called the Oilers for years anyway. It wouldn’t be a stretch the call the hockey team The Houston/Edmonton Texan Oilers. Also the Seahawks and Canucks already share a fanbase as it is, right?” Yeh. I know. NOT A STRETCH? And what if the Canadian owners don’t exactly go along with this plan? Well one source implied that while the 7 Canadian teams couldn’t block the sale, the NFL would understand their concerns and allow them an out. “Then, they could start their own league like the CFL did. The CHL. In fact they should merge the CFL with their CHL and do what we are doing. Allow fans in one city to have one mascot to buy jerseys and hats for.” I simple don’t get it, but 3+BILLION per NHL owner is a lot to get…I suppose.

Do you watch hockey. The coach held back the Ducks for two periods so they could over-come a 2 goal deficit? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA thats tremendous strategy. Gee man...just stop. Jets are NOT a glorified AHL squad. Get a clue. I'm all for reasonable criticism and interesting discussion but if you want to be negative just to be negative I can point you to a different Jets forum where the mod is a proud homophobe and every other thread is about Kane being a cancer and how Ladd is a poor captain.

I've always agreed with you on that point but... - Paul Maurice has the team playing better (generally) than Noel. Noel was being tuned out. No dis to Noel but his time had come. - Pavs' stats are bad. Every other bad team in the NHL has better goaltending. We can shrug off the stats and look at reality and say 'gee Pavs has stolen a game here and there or made a crazy save here and there' but the big picture body of work is of a goalie under-performing. Montoya plays for the same team and has much better stats (with a smaller body of work). More depth will make the stats look better. A better goalie would make the stats look better too.

Good story by Lawless about buff and what I was most curious about was the assertion that Buff is enjoying playing forward. That *might* change my mind about trading him. And I think Kane could go. Not due to lack of talent or whatever. But if this team wants a certain identity that he doesn't fit into then trade him. We would get a significant return. We still need another top six forward and a 3-4 d man.

Its funny how the mainstream media's idea of balanced and fair reporting make the non climate-change alarmists look like wing nuts. And they always seem to insinuate that warming temps are ONLY man-made, have NEVER happened before and are IRREVERSABLE. Like come on... Temps have been rising since the 50's? Weird about that Ice Age scare in the 70's & 80's eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/30/world/un-climate-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Your forecast for the next century: Hotter, drier and hungrier, and the chance to turn down the thermostat is slipping away. That's the latest conclusion from the United Nations, which urged governments to address the "increasingly clear" threats posed by a warming climate before some options are closed off for good. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that taking steps to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions blamed for rising temperatures could buy more time to adjust to a warmer world. Cutting emissions now "increases the time available for adaptation to a particular level of climate change," the report states. But it adds, "Delaying mitigation actions may reduce options for climate-resilient pathways in the future." "In many cases, we are not prepared for the climate-related risks that we already face," Vicente Barros, the co-chaiman of the IPCC working group behind the document, said in a statement accompanying the report. "Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future." The summary for policymakers was released Monday morning in Yokohama, Japan. It's the second part of the IPCC's benchmark assessment of climate change, a document released every six years with the input of nearly 1,000 scientists. Without checks on emissions, the impacts of climate change will be more severe, more likely, and possibly irreversible, it concludes. Monday's report underscores "that we have committed to a certain amount of warming," said Kelly Levin, an energy and climate expert at the U.S.-based World Resources Institute. "Over the next few decades, we are going to lock ourselves into a climate change commitment that is going to paint a very different world, depending on what we choose today," Levin said. "The choices we make today are going to affect the risks we face through the rest of the century." As a result, "Adaptation is emerging as central area in climate change research," Levin said. But adaptation -- steps such as building sea walls, conserving water and designing cities for warmer climates -- has its limits, she said. "The report suggests some options are going to be too resource-intensive or too expensive," she said. An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other emissions have driven average temperatures up by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) since 1950, the IPCC says. The first part of its report, released in September, concluded that even a best-case scenario would result in an increase in global average temperatures of 1.6 C; the worst-case scenario estimates a rise of 3.7 degrees Celsius (6.6 Fahrenheit). The idea that carbon emissions are changing the Earth's climate is politically controversial, but generally accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists. And as emissions continue to rise, driving up CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the impacts will be more severe, more likely and possibly irreversible, Monday's report states. The summary of the full document -- which is more than 1,000 pages -- will be the premiere guide for lawmakers. It breaks down the expected impacts by continent and by categories such as marine life, agriculture and flood risks. And by diving into the specifics of the report, policymakers will be able to see what risks their specific locations face, as well as what adaptation and mitigation techniques could prove fruitful. "The real highlight is how many impacts there are, how widespread they are and how pervasive they are around the world," said Heather McGray, who studies adaptation at WRI. In most cases, climate change will exacerbate existing problems, such as the availability of fresh water in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors conclude that glaciers will continue to shrink "almost worldwide," affecting water supplies downstream. Animals have begun shifting their habitats in response to a warming world, and key crops have been affected already, they wrote. Colder climates may see increases in crop yields from longer growing seasons and milder temperatures, but the negative effects are expected to outweigh the positive, the report states. "In this report, the finding is the impacts of climate change are already widespread and consequential," McGray said. The impacts won't be the same for everyone, and as usual, the world's poor are more likely to be hurt. "Climate-related hazards affect poor people's lives directly through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields or destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity," the report states. Positive effects on the impoverished "are limited and often indirect." For those people, the effects "will be catastrophic" unless emissions can be reduced, McGray said.

I want Pavs to be great. I really like him. But Im at the point where he must be better or he must be replaced. Period. Year after year, his stats are simply not good enough. When you're 40th in a 30 team league, thats bad.

Maybe if you knew nothing about them and just looked at then you'd say Joey has that QB mentality, a big arm, athletic. And hall is nothing special. But in reality, Hall is simply a flat out better QB.

Sometimes teams play bad and hang their goalie out to dry. And you need the goalie to steal one. Pavs doesn't steal anything. If we trade with the islanders it might be mlre likely involving Pavs. I would t be surprised to see us make a play for Reimer. My only question in that would be does Reimer just need a change of scenery or is he maybe not the answer? Would the jets dump inconsistent Pavs and pin hopes on inconsistent Reimer? I never thought we'd use a compliance buy out but you never know....

Sometimes Westwood plays devils advocate. He generates discussion and I can appreciate that.

I've always defended him. Always been a fan. Always felt he'd rise to the occasion on a better team. Always felt as the jets improved he'd be the guy. I've kept the faith. Someone tell me why I shouldn't lose faith in him...

Joey Elliot better than Max Hall??? Come on. I was a huge Joey guy but Hall is light years ahead of him.

We've had an NDP government for too long also. And their method of governing sucks. Taxes are high, roads are crumbling, transfer payments are up and yet we're in a deficit every year. Like come on.... Then again it's all Gary Filmon's fault. He even killed 12 babies according to Selby this week. Sorry, off topic.

You dont think crowds of 25,000+ are sustainable? What? Come on man As for the NDB subsidizing the program, the Bombers are owned by the public. It was the responsibility of the government to provide the team with an upgraded or new facility or sell it. The team is kicking in tens of millions of dollars (and dont tell me 'it will never be repaid' because thats speculation and an argument for another time). Its a good deal for Manitobans. It doesnt matter who was in power. You think the PC's would have let the team "fold" when CIS eventually collapsed? Not a chance. The ONLY issue I have now with the stadium is that it doesnt *really* feed into the local area economy. Ofcourse, the bars and restaurants around Pembina HWY will benefit on game day but the Stadium is sort of an island unto itself. At least until the UofM does more development. But unlike the Jets, with only 10 games a year, the Bombers werent really going to be acatalyst for local development anyway. So I guess I dont have an issue. See, I worked through that logically and now Im happy...try it.

Come on Nate. It's not "obvious" the builder laid down a poor stadium at all. They rushed to complete it. Were their issues. Sure. Show me a Project of this magnitude that doesn't have change orders and issues. It's a great facility. They left out a few things to get it done and get it done "around" budget. Upgrades are being done and can be afforded. Asper didn't trick anyone. No one can say (at least not accurately) that Asper didn't truly, deeply want to build a stadium and own the bombers. The guy bleeds blue and gold. He really is the one that brought the stadium issue to the fore and kept pushing and pushing to get it done. I know it's your gimmick to be critical of everyone but that's OB-ish. And I agree with the people complaining about the complainers. Most of the whiners don't like sports and won't go to IGF and are just a bunch of whiners. I remember people calling I to CjoB so angry it was being built in south Winnipeg because CIS was closer for them. Uh yeah but far for me. Now it's close. You can't have a stadium in everyone's back yard. It's like what Bryan little said today "only in Winnipeg would people complain about the birth of a child". Whinerpeg is right.

As was Garth Buchko.Buchko essentially became the face of everything that was wrong with the Bombers and IMO that was unfair. The Bombers, Province and City needed their scapegoat and that's where he came in handy. I disagree with this. Garth was never front and centre unless it was a good news story

Yup, give us Okposo, Strome and the 1st round pick and they can have Kane & Buff.

I wouldnt say he has zero offensive ability. He has 10% terrible puck luck and 90% zero finish. But he's a good guy to work hard, hustle, get into the corners and get the puck out, hopefully to someone else.

And why, prey tell, should the 'Peg be punished in that way? Jokes aside, its good for Winnipeg and its good for SK fans. Its an injection of revenue and taxes into the city for a weekend. Its a no brainer.

Bogo played off-side with a rookie D at the start of the season which could have contributed to his spotty play. The Jets' D as a group seems to impact individuals. Bogo will be fine.