Comeback_Kings

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

132 Good

About Comeback_Kings

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

611 profile views
  1. 6 40 9 rule number one. if on the ice with #40. get the puck to Petey. hey #6 and #40 and #9 ... take the shot. especially EP40
  2. #6 not on tonight. Canucks didn't execute. Thanks Sutter for driving the net and Gaudette for taking the shot and tying this * _____ up.
  3. Marky played well, but the goal he gave up in OT will make #15's retirement reel.
  4. Coming back to where? The point of view that allows you to vote Narcissist x 2. Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder : - Grandiose sense of self-importance. ... - Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur. ... - Needs constant praise and admiration. ... - Sense of entitlement. ... - Exploits others without guilt or shame. ... - Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others.
  5. What is happening in the States? Divisive politics. It's already happening here. Sociopath for a PM? Narcissist for a PM? We already have that, just like the States. Trudeau is more like Trump than Scheer is.
  6. I would have preferred Ambrose over Scheer and interesting that a lot of people supporting the Liberals would prefer Freeland as leader, but Scheer is growing on me and I feel makes a more trustworthy, to be respected and nation building leader than Trudeau. I don't trust Trudeau and the Liberal party. Why not? Because they have already shown the kind of leadership and political environment they offer and nothing will change if they get elected. It'll be the same ol' smoke and mirrors and divisive bs politics and only now it will only be seen as increasingly hypocritical and not effective. #trudeaumustgo
  7. I have a question. With regards to the carbon tax, is it classism to offer carbon offsets? What makes this different than allowing private financing inside the universal health care program? class·ism /ˈklasˌizəm/ noun prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class.
  8. Canucks are a work in progress and I'm seeing some pretty good signs they will be a good team this year. I think Green's lineup would be working a little better right now if they had been playing with the lead. That said, I don't really want a defense first team and prefer an attacking style so probably good Green's lineup not working out early and causing him to adjust the team I think they'll figure it out with the personnel they have. They've shown a willingness to try things and sit guys. I honestly thought Green would send Gaudette down, but he's still experimenting which is good. I like the way the Canucks play as it is fun to watch, but mistakes do prove costly in this system and errant passes can really look bad and right now it's looking like they have to play the perfect game to win, mistakes are really quite few but glaring and have cost the team the first two games. That and they haven't been able to score. Baertschi > Leivo Bring back #47 and park #17. Team has enough big bodies. Brown's PP strategy not working so far. Bring back last year's top unit and have a completely different strategy for the 2nd unit. Green says he liked the line Virtanen Gaudette Sutter tonight, I agree. Predicting Virtanen ends up replacing Pearson on the pk within 2 weeks. Sutter > Leivo I think Pearson should get under 14 minutes a game. Pearson and Ferland and Leivo are not locks for this team's top 6. Loving QH. He is deserving of the ice team he's getting and will be racking up the points very soon. Got to give props to Green for playing him this much.
  9. So removing Burnaby North-Seymour candidate Heather Leung after homophobic comments wasn't the right thing to do? Why would you lose respect if it was the right thing for the Conservative party to do this? Also, abortion is a non-issue in this election and Trudeau bringing it up in the debate from his typical moral high ground preacher teacher position is just really bad form for him, especially for him, because, as it turns out, as of tonight, we likely already know Trudeau's days of occupying the moral high ground are over, finished. The divisive politics are one thing, the over the top hypocrisy quite the other. Canada can't afford a "leader" like Trudeau.
  10. Scheer and the Conservative Party are not climate change deniers and do have a plan of some sort that in the very least shows they are concerned about climate change. This plan doesn't include a carbon tax. Here's a link to their policy/plan https://arealplan.ca/ I admit that it could be more developed, but I'm also encouraged by their proposed National Energy Corridor. This National Energy Corridor has potential to battle emissions in a meaningful way and unite a divisive country. I like that they are proposing infrastructure projects and, perhaps I'm being optimistic, maybe it would be possible for Quebec to supply Hyrdo Electricity to the Albertan oilfields and then purchase their oil from Alberta instead of Saudi Arabia. They are going to burn oil, why not Canadian oil? At least it's not shipped from overseas. Something like this happening under the CPC government seems more likely than it happening with a Liberal minority government propped up by the Bloc. I think Canada does need to look inward and not rely so much on exports of raw oil, raw timber and especially the export of coal. We may not burn the coal, but we export it to China to burn and in that way our nation is complicit in this pollution. I'd like a future where our economy doesn't need to rely as much on the export of raw materials, especially coal. The parties that want to run deficits point to our GDP, but the gdp is the very indicator of economic growth. Realistically a lowering gdp would likely point to lower emissions. But to service an increasing debt, to pay for bigger governments and more spending our economy needs to grow. Meanwhile it's tough on citizens who have to pay more tax as well as help the country keep the economy growing. Tax in itself slows an economy by limiting the amounts of money that a consumer can spend in a local economy. If we had smaller governments, less services, more cost effective services, less tax, less debt to service (23.3 billion of the 332 billion in revenue collected in the last fiscal budget went to interest only payments on the nations debt https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2019/report-rapport-eng.asp) we could then afford to slow our economy and thereby lower emissions and find time to plan and transition our economy to be more and more environmentally friendly. So I find it wrong that people wrongly associate the parties that want more tax and bigger governments as the parties that will do the most on the issue of climate change and I think you can vote Conservative if you are very concerned with climate change.
  11. Good points. Yes, I find a lot of worthwhile and informed comments as well as honest opinions on CDC, including comments inside this election thread. In response I want to say that I am more than willing to pay my fair share of taxes, but I don't want to have to pay more tax. I don't believe in bigger governments. If governments are going to ask of me to do a better job of living within my means and be more efficient, make different choices, then I should be able to ask the same of government. Governments need to operate efficiently, within their means and probably get smaller by getting out of areas they are not operating effeciently in. In context to what you are proposing, higher taxes for good things, many believe that the carbon tax is a good reason to increase taxes on citizens. I don't. I don't believe we should be raising taxes to combat climate change. Why not? Increased taxes mean that I need to increase my earnings and be more productive. Yes, I get the point of this tax, to help me be more efficient, to change my spending habits, but I can choose to do these things on my own from an idealistic point of view. To me increased tax means I need to make more money and this is true of others as well. This means that this tax to combat climate change actually requires our country to grow the economy bigger, and, realistically, at this time, growing our economy bigger means negatively effecting climate.