The Unknown Poster

Buffalo fan on Armia: Before he was traded he Probably had the best set of hands in the organization along with Grigorenko. He has a great shot and can use size very well when he gives 100%. He had a really bad first season in N america. Then last season something clicked. He looked really good and I was sure he would get the call up and never go back. Then he got injured. I pretty much had him penciled in on the roster for 2015-16 before he was traded (before all the trades).

Rod Pedersen @sportscage Riders are OUT of the Henoc Muamba Sweepstakes. Made the inquiry, it's too rich, and there's little cap room So Riders suck and have no cap space?

I see what you did there. I figured Clitty would be hard to find.

Unfortunate for him. Im glad he got to sign that "career" contract and will be well taken care of.

Lemieux - Copp - Armia. Potential talented 4th line

@CJOBSports: Interesting line combo in aft at #NHLJets camp: Burmistrov with Ehlers and Perreault. Speed kills. Small though.

@GlobalNational: WATCH LIVE: http://t.co/86xaziQiL6Mulcair announces plans for universal pharmacare program #Elxn42

I missed the debate last night as the Broncos game was far more interesting. I did turn over to CPAC at half time, and caught part of Mulcair's interview (I can only watch about 30 seconds of that clown before my gag reflex starts kicking in) after the debate. He was asked why the NDP used $67 a barrel for oil in his platform rather than $45. You could tell he had no clue, and didn't know what to say, so he did the usual Mulcair thing and just channeled Pat Martin, getting annoyed and angry that anyone would dare question anything the NDP would say, instead of giving an actual answer. But what else is new. All three leaders in my opinion are pretty weak, but they are trying to govern a pretty schizo country in my opinion. If you pander to the West you piss off Quebec and Ontario. If you pander to Quebec you piss off Ontario and the west. There is no answer that will please everyone. But it was a good question in my view - why is the NDP using $67 a barrel? I think I know why. Because their total bullshit platform that is "costed and accounted for" is total bullshit. If they used actual oil prices they wouldn't even come close to a balanced budget. So they have to lie to try and make it look like they will. I think promising balanced budgets was a huge mistake. Ofcourse. They probably came up with a plan and said "what price of oil makes this work" and went with that number. Then, if elected, they can say "well gee, the price of oil really kicked the bottom out of our plan...its all the fault of those evil oil barons so we have to raise taxes on everyone else." Plus, they will blame Harper for the next 25 years or so. But I agree, that was a great question.

Not so much a threat since it almost happened in the recent past. And while the form of government allows it, its not what the voters intended and I would argue its not what voters would want. Even if people flip flop based on "their guy" benefiting from a coalition, we've had this tradition of government long enough that people expect that the party with the most seats forms government and if you dont like it, you try to get the most seats next time...not suddenly pal around with people you told us we should never vote for to become the governing power. I wouldnt support a coalition even if it was the Cons benefiting. Its shady. Actually if 2 thirds of the voters voted for 2 parties that are not in power and they work together that is closer to what the people wanted then 1 party with slightly more than a third holding all the power. Ideally in a minority govt the ruling party would modify their legislator to get the necessary buy in from other parties but if they don't, a coalition seems like a better alternative than another election. I don't think another vote is in the best interest of Canadians. I see your point but I disagree. And I find it disingenuous of two parties who campaigned against other fiercely to suddenly say hey we're buddies now and we should govern together. Ultimately this is our method of government and I think people generally look at it a lot more like the US where they are voting for the PM. So if the other two parties have more seats than the government, it still doesnt represent the will of the majority other than the majority didnt like the guy that became PM...but it doesnt mean the majority liked one person specifically. That is the problem with our way of voting. People have a choice to make between voting local and voting national and that isnt always aligned perfectly. How many people voted for the NDP provincially for years who didnt vote NDP nationally? A lot.

If the debate is experience its not so much age thats the issue. I think that's readily apparent. Wasnt Harper 46 when he became PM, probably 44-ish or so when he became leader (if not younger) so he equates to Justin on age. Its the experience. Harper had far more experience. And Mulcair does too What experience? how does sitting in the H of C give you experience? Ask Rob Anders. None of these 2 guys are ready. Harper wasn't ready when he took office. There's no job experience to help you learn to be a leader of a country. My previous post answers most of this. But its a ludicrous assertion that political experience, education, etc are irrelevant to being Prime Minister. Being the "leader of a country" isnt like Rambo being dropped into Vietnam and inspiring the locals to follow him. Its politics. And Harper was very experienced in various areas when he became PM. You dont have to like him to see he was experienced.

I think it might have to do with his last name more than making him sound like a kid. It also might be a psychological thing. For example, I saw a point made online about why Harper isnt addressed as "Prime Minister"...well probably because if you address him that way, it enters the minds of voters to equate "Prime Minister" with Harper (even though its accurate). So in a way its a disrespectful way to address JT without being really disrespectful. If you're voting for PM, you probably want a "statesman" not your buddy Justin from down the street. Obama didn't know where half the countries of the world were located on an atlas. I doubt if George W Bush did or Ronald Reagan did either before they took office. Reagan was a Hollywood actor before entering politics. What real job experience did Harper have before he became a politician? Worked awhile for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation? A policy wonk in university? In on the ground floor with the Reform Party? A sitting MP? To me, that sounds like Harper wasn't ready either when he became PM. Every leader of a country has to learn... The job itself teaches them. Harper has a masters degree in economics lecturer at U of Calgary became politically active in High School (liberals by the way) at 24 was Chief Aide to MP Jim Hawkes at 28 was Chief Policy Adviser to the Reform Party at 29, ran for public office in the 88 election Became executive assistant and Chief Adviser to MP Deborah Grey Became MP at 34 Became Vice President of National Citizens Coalition in 97. Became leader of Canadian Alliance in 2002 (age 43) Leader of official opposition at age 45 PM at 47 Trudeau: Bachelor of Arts Actor hosted a farewell party for Cretien, age 33 chaired a Liberal Task Force on youth renewal, age 35 MP, age 37 Leader of Liberals, age 42. So....yeah, experience isnt everything but lets not pretend Harper isnt infinitely more experienced than JT. By the way, Regan was politically active long before becoming President. He wasnt an actor who, on a lark, ran for President and won.

Not so much a threat since it almost happened in the recent past. And while the form of government allows it, its not what the voters intended and I would argue its not what voters would want. Even if people flip flop based on "their guy" benefiting from a coalition, we've had this tradition of government long enough that people expect that the party with the most seats forms government and if you dont like it, you try to get the most seats next time...not suddenly pal around with people you told us we should never vote for to become the governing power. I wouldnt support a coalition even if it was the Cons benefiting. Its shady.

Wow, are they out to lunch. And we talk about defensive & offensive coordinators not being able to adjust in just a football game. This is a federal election & the Conservatives are dropping the ball. Im no political expert. But it might not be based on public polls but on the seat race. They might see the Liberals as bigger threats in key ridings whereas the seats the NDP will win, they will win. Even in polling where the NDP was ahead, some polls shows seat predictions with the Cons well in front of the NDP. And it might also be that they see Justin's best attribute his charisma whereas they think voters will turn away from Mulcair for his plan. Or...maybe they feel there is a lot of undecided around that center position and feel the Liberals are more likely to get them than the NDP so they go after Justin as a way to sway undecided back to them (Cons). Wow, are they out to lunch. And we talk about defensive & offensive coordinators not being able to adjust in just a football game. This is a federal election & the Conservatives are dropping the ball. Im no political expert. But it might not be based on public polls but on the seat race. They might see the Liberals as bigger threats in key ridings whereas the seats the NDP will win, they will win. Even in polling where the NDP was ahead, some polls shows seat predictions with the Cons well in front of the NDP. And it might also be that they see Justin's best attribute his charisma whereas they think voters will turn away from Mulcair for his plan. Or...maybe they feel there is a lot of undecided around that center position and feel the Liberals are more likely to get them than the NDP so they go after Justin as a way to sway undecided back to them (Cons). Yeah, who knows? I just think calling an election during the August long weekend as well as during the middle of the Mike Duffy Trial was beyond stupid. Especially now that the trial has been adjourned to the New Year. It was either smugness, stupidity & over confidence. Probably all of that & more. I dont know what the reason was to call the election during the Duffy trial but since they did it and they arent stupid, they had their reasons. I think it might have been to get all the focus and questions out of the way early. It was easy to say "out of respect for the justice system we cannot comment on an on-going trial". Then it adjourns and its old news because the media and opposition have exhausted themselves on the subject. If the trend continues and the Cons slowly creep up in polls, their strategy might end up being considered brilliant in retrospect. They also allowed plenty of time for the Liberals and NDP to hammer the Cons on the economy. Keep in mind, they called the election just as Canada was about to slip into an "official" recession. Cons let themselves get hammered on it...made economy the main topic. Let the opposition frame this election as "who do you trust to manage the economy" and then Cons post a surplus. Boom. If that was the plan, it was smart. it worked too. We'll see if it sticks though. I really cant say any momentum will stick at this point.

If the debate is experience its not so much age thats the issue. I think that's readily apparent. Wasnt Harper 46 when he became PM, probably 44-ish or so when he became leader (if not younger) so he equates to Justin on age. Its the experience. Harper had far more experience. And Mulcair does too

I think it might have to do with his last name more than making him sound like a kid. It also might be a psychological thing. For example, I saw a point made online about why Harper isnt addressed as "Prime Minister"...well probably because if you address him that way, it enters the minds of voters to equate "Prime Minister" with Harper (even though its accurate). So in a way its a disrespectful way to address JT without being really disrespectful. If you're voting for PM, you probably want a "statesman" not your buddy Justin from down the street.

I he might lose. But I dont think there has been a lot of flubs and erros. I think they've been fairly consistent. If anything I think they were pretty wise (if it was calculated) to let the opposition go after him on the economy and then come out with the surplus. That, to me, framed the economy debate (which seems to be the main issue) as one party in surplus vs one party who promises deficits vs one party that promises the moon and is prone to tax hikes. It was a win for the Cons in that regard. Likely a minority either way. It wouldnt surprise me to see the "change is good" people result in a surprising low amount of votes for the Cons. It would also not surprise me to see the NDP fall short of their polling as people think twice in the voting booth (much like the 'secret agenda' caused people to think twice before the Cons first came to power). Nothing would surprise me really.

Wow, are they out to lunch. And we talk about defensive & offensive coordinators not being able to adjust in just a football game. This is a federal election & the Conservatives are dropping the ball. Im no political expert. But it might not be based on public polls but on the seat race. They might see the Liberals as bigger threats in key ridings whereas the seats the NDP will win, they will win. Even in polling where the NDP was ahead, some polls shows seat predictions with the Cons well in front of the NDP. And it might also be that they see Justin's best attribute his charisma whereas they think voters will turn away from Mulcair for his plan. Or...maybe they feel there is a lot of undecided around that center position and feel the Liberals are more likely to get them than the NDP so they go after Justin as a way to sway undecided back to them (Cons).

That certainly shows you perception is biased. Thats the first place Ive seen anywhere that claimed Trudeau didnt shoot himself in the foot last night.

You're right. They should do nothing.

And right off the hope, they go with Ladd-Lowry-Little at training camp.

While I agree you will never wipe it out completely, there is means to educate and help people. The justice system isnt equipped to deal with it either. The usual means of dealing with "thinking errors" dont work with many FASD sufferers.

What he really meant - "I am confident that once all the facts are hidden from public view, I will be absolved of having done nothing wrong." "absolved of having done nothing wrong" means he did something wrong. It's like a double negative. He should have said "absolved of wrongdoing". That's what Madani was pointing out. When I heard his statement I thought it was truly bizarre. Did he just mis-read it? Surely his statement was vetted by lawyers. That was a very odd remark. Freudian slip? Public opinion being what it is, and we all speculate based on having almost no knowledge, but this sounds like one of those "where there's smoke, there's fire" scenarios. Being an immature drunk doesnt help his case either.

Well, bully for her. That makes it right. No offense but I don't agree. Im not saying it makes it right. But it makes it legal. And its not a justification for capital punishment. And while Im generally a tough on crime advocate, I also believe in rehabilitation and second chances. Some inmates can't or refuse to be rehabilitated & don't deserve a second chance. Not everyone is/was worth saving. Especially Clifford Olsen. Correct. I didnt say everyone does. What I mean is, we have to be careful about locking up prisoners and throwing away the key. The other issue (and this is really probably off topic) is FASD which is probably the largest driver of people to prisons in North America and is 100% preventable. And its disgraceful how little effort and funding go into education and prevention. Wipe out FASD and you empty the prisons.

Well, bully for her. That makes it right. No offense but I don't agree. Im not saying it makes it right. But it makes it legal. And its not a justification for capital punishment. And while Im generally a tough on crime advocate, I also believe in rehabilitation and second chances.

If prison was tougher, if sentences were longer, wouldnt that be enough? Like Fraser said, and this is my main point, until we can guarantee that no innocent people get convicted, we cant even consider capital punishment. Whats the expression, may a 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man convicted? The justice system needs an over-all. Cops too often file charges without investigation, kicking it up to the Crown to make a decision. Crown is bogged down with penny ante cases that shouldnt have even been filed. How many times do they plea down legitimate cases simply because they are physically incapable of taking them to trial due to the backlog? In the case of Karla, it sucks. But the Crown made a deal. And they have to live with it. And as far as we know, she has not re-offended.