• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

243 Good

About Wonder__Bread

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Budapest, Hungary

Recent Profile Visitors

2,001 profile views
  1. If you look at what started both world wars you can draw a lot of parallels as history often repeats itself. I don't think it'll happen as soon as everyone is thinking but if nothing improves in the next 10 years then I could see a major conflict happening.
  2. I don't disagree with the dense urban population vs sparse rural ones but it doesn't apply as the US has the same issue. Also, in this day and age there should be no excuse for not being able to communicate with people. Especially considering the large majority of our population lives in dense urban population. Even for the minority of people living in rural areas, at the least they have a phone. A population 9x as big applies to those in rural areas as well as those in urban areas, frankly it's irrelevant in this case. It definitely has it's drawbacks, like any job. Being a politician isn't for everyone which is why the pay should hold around $100k to only attract those passionate about the job. We're seeing the same thing with doctors now a days. It's hard to find a good doctor who's passionate about their job. It would seem as though a lot of them got in it for the money, or were pushed that way by their parents because of the salary. Do we really want the same thing for those running our country? I disagree that any regular Joe can make $100k, try half that. Any regular Joe can earn $50k. Some tradesmen can get up to $100k with some hard hours and lots of extra schooling. I know welding can be lucrative but it's a very tough field and if you get your more advanced certificates you can break the $100k barrier with plenty of OT and some tough hours. I think for what an MP or MLA does, $100k is plenty.
  3. See the thing is I think we disagree at a fundamental level. If we use "what do we want from government" as a starting point, our answers vary greatly. I want my elected officials to directly represent my interests as well as the interests of everyone else in my riding. In our version of a democracy, the voter gave up his right to a forum in exchange for a vote. That vote being your voice (an elected official). We vote to pick someone who represents our interests and shares our values who can then relay that in parliament. Lately it seems like I'm voting for the lesser evil because none of them come close to representing my interests. The more I talk to people about this, the more I realize they're doing the same thing. Maybe it's our system I have a problem with, but that's a whole other discussion I'd rather avoid (don't feel like writing an essay this morning lol). My point is that working backwards from that question doesn't lead me to believe we should increase their wages, it further reinforces my point that they should be in it for their passion of it, not for the money/power. They are public servants, not public masters. They are essentially administrators who take in opinions of the riding and relay those opinions to the rest of the country in order to have those opinions turn into action. I'm not saying they shouldn't earn a decent income. They should definitely be paid an above average wage but let's keep it in line with the rest of the country. According to a few articles I quickly googled, the highest median salaries on average goes to physicians who make on average $212k per year. It quickly drops down to $130k for pharmacy managers after that and there are other jobs hovering around that $130k mark (finance managers, software development managers, etc). I just think MPs and MLAs should be paid anywhere around $100k. I'm fine with that. Earning a $100k, plus they get an expense account and they get tons of tax write offs, you're looking at a very well paid individual. The incentive should be to change their country while earning a comfortable living. I studied with a lot of very intelligent and bright individuals who wanted to become MPs or MLAs purely because they wanted to change the country for the better so I don't believe for a second that offering higher wages will attract better candidates. They're already among the highest paid in the country/province, but so far all we've seen is well educated idiots. There are the rare exceptions but for the most part all we've seen are individuals that are completely out of touch with the realities of the everyday Canadian family. How can they know what Canadian families are going through when they're living like the top 10%? The policies they bring in for the most part reflect who they live with/see on a daily basis, only benefiting the top 10%. What a coincidence...
  4. IMO, I think you're looking at that in the wrong way. We shouldn't want our so called "best and brightest" to become MLAs and MPs for the money, power, etc... It should solely be out of a sense of duty and/or an ambition to change our country for the better. I think that restricting their salaries to a lower number would attract people who are genuinely passionate about the job. Also, our best and brightest don't accurately represent the majority of Canadians. We're a representative democracy however I don't feel represented and I'm sure a lot of Canadians feel the same way. I believe that we should be looking for representatives that actually represent the people living in that specific riding. At the very least there should be requirements for them to have grown up in that riding or have close ties with that riding. No matter how intelligent you are or how educated you are, if you didn't grow up in that region or spend a significant amount of time there, you won't know its people. As an example, John Aldag is the MP for Cloverdale - Langley City. He grew up in Saskatchewan. He actually only lived in the Langley area for about 10 years. Granted 10 years is a long time and definitely enough to get a good grasp on an area and it's people, however, he spent the large majority of his life elsewhere. He was raised with the values and problems of his city. I'm sure he's an intelligent fellow, and he did work for Parks Canada for over 30 years which was of great service but I don't believe he will be able to represent the interests of the people in his riding properly due to the fact for the majority of his life he's been elsewhere. I don't want it to sound like your place of birth is the only factor that's important cause it's definitely not. My point is this, say we have two candidates: one was born and raised in the riding and got his education and experience in this riding (or nearby), but the other candidate was raised across the country, gained his education and experience across the country but worked in this riding for 10 years. Which one do you think is more in tune with the issues in this riding? Which one do you think will best represent the majority of people in said riding? I'm with Warhippy on this one. They are public servants. If they wish to make lots of money they should go into the private sector. We don't want people becoming politicians purely for the money and power. We want them to become representatives of our people, not representatives of their own self interests or the interests of corporations. Giving themselves a raise proves as much.
  5. Wouldn't it be nice to decide if/when you get a raise. How greedy are our MPs. You're already making $170k! I think we should dramatically lower how much they earn. They're on par with what American congressman/congresswoman make although we have a far inferior population. Seeing as MPs are the voice of a region of people, shouldn't they make a lot less than an American congressman/congresswoman who is the voice of a far greater amount of people? On average a congressman/congresswoman would have to represent the interests of roughly 9x more people than an MP. Why should we pay our MPs the same as congressmen and women. In my mind they should be making 100k at most. I understand the reason they're well paid is to ensure that they want for nothing so they're less likely to be corruptible however we have to set a line in the sand here. As well as their salary they use tax dollars to travel, stay in hotels, go out to lunches/dinners, etc... So it's already a pretty cushy job. I also understand there isn't much job security as you need to be constantly re-elected but all in all, $170k is already excessive yet they're still getting raises. Why don't we give them raises based on performance like the rest of the world. Why don't they donate half their salaries to certain public sectors that need it? Rant/
  6. I accidentally read the words under your username as "Designated Hitler" instead of "Designated Hitter". I was laughing way too hard at that along with the bolded. Okay... I'll leave now.
  7. Easily more than 6. Quote me on it.
  8. Work was extremely slow haha
  9. You'll only be convinced if he does well with the group and starts winning in a year or two. He did pretty well with what he had in Utica. If anyone remembers his first year with Utica, He coached a team of spare parts into the playoffs. I'm hoping he has a similar effect up here. An ambitious/clever coach mixed with a team that wants to prove itself after a bad season can be a great combination. I fully expect the Sedins to be at least 70 point players next year, and with the growth of our younger players I think we'll do a lot better than last year, which kinda sucks cause I want Dahlin.
  10. You're not wrong but you're definitely not completely right. Yes, players care about the Stanley cup and they also obviously care about money. But what I think is actually a make or break deciding factor when signing with a team is job security and the quality of the people in the organization. What everyone seems to forget about the NHL is the human side of it. Every player has a family, and that family doesn't like being moved around every year or two. Especially the newer families with kids that are only a few years old. Players are trying to plant roots somewhere for the sake of their families. Also, how many times have you heard a GM say they made a commitment to the player so they're not trading them after recently signing that player to a contract. Sign and trades rarely happen for that very reason and if they do, it's with player consent and they depart on mutual terms. The NHL is a very small community that's extremely hard to get into, so word goes around quick. Of course the NHL is a results oriented business and money matters but you'd be naive to think about players as robots who only care about winning and money. Look at the Sedins for example, they are going to be Canucks for life because of the roots they've planted here. There are countless other examples. Signing Rodin to a sympathy "show me" contract is highly beneficial for our team. It would cost us no more than 950k for 1 year against the cap. Very little risk, high reward. Rodin could've cashed out in Sweden after the season he had yet he chose to give us another shot. Injuries happened which is unfortunate but we should definitely give him another chance to prove himself. If it works out we get a solid top 9 forward who helps the powerplay. if it doesn't work out, it shows the Canucks are a classy organization which is never a bad thing.
  11. Yes we have young players coming in but we're not just going to give them spots. Rodin put in his work in the AHL for us and was his teams MVP in a professional league, he's above our prospects in the pecking order based on that alone. I say we sign him to a contract no matter what because he showed faith in us by signing here, I think it's time we return the favor and give him the chance he was supposed to have this year but for the injury. It'll send a message around the league that we show loyalty to players who give us a chance. As well as that it'll create healthy competition within our forward group. Nothing but positive things can happen by offering him the same contract again.
  12. Yeah I'm paying 50 at my rec centre gym so chances are we might see each other in the near future and not even know it cause elevation fitness sounds great. What sold me is the turf area, as a soccer player it'd be extremely convenient to have a place to work on my agility and do some sled pulls along with other more dynamic exercises. I also checked out their website and they have sport specific programs which would be great if the cost isn't too high (have to inquire about the price unless you know anything about it?). Thanks a lot for the write up man, it's greatly appreciated.
  13. Starting a new job and won't be able to work out till primetime (5-6 PM), how busy is elevation fitness around those times? To give you an idea of the equipment I use I'm basically doing incline bench, deadlifts, squats, some dumbbell exercises, pullups, rows, and HIIT bike at the end of every workout. My main concern is getting the bench, the squat rack and the pull up bar, how many of those does elevation have? I'm currently going to the community center gym in Cloverdale and it seems like no matter when I go someone is using the bench/squat rack. Also, any one have any experience with anytime fitness? Specifically the one in Cloverdale?
  14. He's basically the LD version of Tanev. Tanev is arguably better but Alzner is a hometown kid who's hasn't missed a regular season game to injury in 7 seasons and boy could we use that. I can't think of a better replacement for Tanevs minutes (although Tanev is RD and Alzner LD). 3.5 million was a typo, meant to write 4.5. He could easily get more but I believe that he'd be willing to come home for 4.5-4.75 as long as the term is good. Alzner at 4.75 for 5 years, Top 15 1st, A-B prospect > Tanev. That's how I look at it. But that depends on what Tanev can actually get and if we can sign Alzner to a decent deal (decent being nothing over 4.75 and no longer than 5 years).
  15. 3.5 was a typo, meant to write 4.5. Alzner could get ~5 in the open market but I know some people close to the Alzner family and I'd think he'd take a bit less to come home (not the greatest of sources though so only take that with a grain of salt). I wouldn't mind signing Alzner to a 5 year deal as I think he'd be worth his contract even in his early thirties. At the very least he'd be relatively healthy, and I don't think we can say that about Tanev. I'd take Alzner at 4.5, even 4.75 for 5 years along with a top 15 pick and a decent prospect (both with the potential to help us when we're competitive again) instead of Tanev. As much as I like Tanev and see how important he is to this team, we need to get better with our asset management. We're in a place right now that it's fine to overpay a little for players.