Schedule

November 23, 2018

On 11/19/2018 at 2:58 PM, Jimmy McGill said:

There are just too many good things like life to allow yourself to be jaded. I do get a little pissy and uppity from time to time but i blame that on a liberal arts education.

I can't complain about my *personal* life--I'm gainfully employed at a job I don't mind, I have a nice place to live, internet/TV, etc. That's all well and fine.

However, when I look at the big picture--the state of humanity and the world, it's disheartening. Like the DJ I cited in my first post, I also think things are getting worse and will get worse still.

While it won't happen in my lifetime, I think the world is headed towards serious calamity for those who are still young now, to the point where today's infants will live in a world that's going to look like a combination some of the dystopias presented in today's fiction. I honestly do not believe humanity will be around in 500 years, never mind make the next millennium; and on our way to extinction, life will be increasingly miserable for those experiencing the slow decline.

And for that, I'm grateful that I'm too old to be around to see any of that transpire.

November 19, 2018

2 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Would like to preface this thread with apologies to any/all who might take offense. I have no outright agenda vs any particular special-interest group. Basically consider myself apolitical(will get into this later).

At 50, guess I'm smack-dab, firmly ensconced, within good ol' middle age. I have no problems with this..kept myself healthy(long distance sports, for hobby). I woudn't want to be under 30 today, with the world as I see it unraveling. I'm curious if any of you gen-X(of that vintage) posters hold similar views? Would also appreciate insights/thoughts from people older & younger.

Tired of so many things I observe. Cause/effect..where does it begin & end? Little, niggling matters that burn your bacon..or outright, egregious, blatant corruption, which downright p*sses you off!!! Have at 'er folks...

(PMO) P*sses Me OFF!

(FJ) Just Feel Jaded. are perhaps, good sub-categories? Perhaps you might include...

(PS) Possible solutions?

Aah, there are so many I'm not sure where to begin? Want to post this thread now(gotta head out)..guess I'll give one example to start out:

FJ: People who are purposefully rude to others on this site. Why insult others when you're typing at a pc? Would you be so bold if in person? If so, you might be an even more inveterate *$$hole! So tired of the bullying sort. This life can be a tough slog, & I thought we were supposed to help one another along?

PS: Exchange with others as you might with a stranger at the donut shop(big, island table). Or a person you see there occasionally. It's not so tough, eh?

I'll preface my rant-in-response with this little sidenote:

Back in the mid-90s, there was an album by DJ Krush called "Milight" and interspersed among the tracks were thoughts about the future from the various artists Krush collaborated with on the album. While most of them were rather optimistic, one DJ named "Shawn J. Period" said, "...a lot of things are getting worse and they'll still get worse... I just see a lot of people getting caught up in the wrong things...."

That was very prescient of Mr. Period since here we are in "the future" (from the perspective of the mid-90s) and things are indeed worse than before and a lot of that is because people are indeed getting caught up in the wrong things.

So to answer the question in the thread title, yes, I'm more than jaded. We have all this great technology at our disposal--computers more powerful than we could have imagined twenty years ago--our phones can do more and faster than a top-of-the-line 90s desktop with a (original) Pentium processor. And most of those tools are wasted on social media, online gaming and other trivial things.

I'll probably get slammed by the younger generation over this statement, but I totally think social media is one of the worst things ever for multiple reasons. It's created a entire culture of narcissism and fostered the current political environment of populism and tribalism. Old entertainment media (network TV, major-label music, big studio movies) was bad enough when it came to pandering to the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't even compare to what social media does: social media gives a megaphone to dumbest and/or worst people in the world.

I used to regret not having kids when I was in my mid-40s. Now, I'm grateful that I don't because I wouldn't want to have kids (or grandkids) having to grow up and live in the world that's coming.

October 8, 2018

On 10/6/2018 at 2:41 AM, skolozsy2 said:

I agree with your perspective completely. People often forget that there are more than just their own fanbase and that ANY call one fanbase complains about, the other side would've complained if it hadn't been called.

Fans are ALWAYS complaining. I'll use a few examples directly involving Vancouver....

Last year Gudbranson was suspended one game for boarding a Penguins player I believe. On national message boards the overall consensus was that it would be between a fine to 2 game suspension...and he ended up getting 1 game. 29 fanbases thought the suspension was just about right and 2 fanbases complained and whined about it...Pittsburgh fans and Vancouver fans. One felt the suspension was too short, one felt it was too long. So did the league get the call wrong, or were they right and two fanbases were just looking at the play with way too much bias?

A few years back, Alex Burrows was ejected from a game for a hit on Paul Gaustad. The league looked at the play, but did not suspend Alex. Naturally fans here thought there should be no suspension and the league FINALLY got it right, but did Nashville fans think that? Nope, they were sh**ing their pants that Burrows wasn't suspected at least 5 games using phrases like "clear intent to injure", "knew exactly what he was doing", "tried to end his career!"....I'm sure you get the gist. So in this situation, we've got fans complaining....means the league must've got the call wrong, right? The call was obviously wrong, otherwise fans wouldn't be complaining, right?

So, yeah, be aware of two rulebooks...

....but be FAR more aware of the biased, irrational, and embellished views of the emotional fan.

Having friends who currently live in other cities with NHL teams and having lived for years in other NHL cities in the past, I can say from experience that every fanbase feels aggrieved with the officiating, DoPS and head office in one way, shape or form. And it's nothing new.

In Montréal, many fans, especially francophone fans, feel the refs/league is biased against them in general and that's a feeling that goes all the way back to the Richard Riots.

In Toronto, people who are old enough to remember 1993 still believe Kerry Fraser's missed call on Gretzky's high stick on Gilmour was a conspiracy to bolster the American market through Gretzky and the Kings, in spite of the fact that the game in question wasn't an elimination game. Fraser himself has written extensively on that particular incident--essentially admitting that yes, he did miss the call--but the notion of an anti-Toronto conspiracy still prevails in the minds of many.

What's more, there are some Leafs fans who view the entire salary cap system as a systemic attack from NHL head office against Toronto.

Every time Montréal and Toronto play against each other, BOTH sides think the refs favoured the other side.

If you ask my friends in PHI and DC, they'll swear up and down the league favours Crosby and the Penguins; feelings that are no doubt bolstered by Pierre McGuire's sycophantic adulation of the Pens on NBCSN's coverage and the amount of public whining the Pens do in general. One of DC's TV analysts (Alan May for NBCSN-Washington) believes referee Kelly Sutherland has it in for the Caps. And Caps fans also believe the league and the refs have it in for Tom Wilson.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's even a section LV fans now who think they got jobbed by the refs at the SCF last season when the refs stopped giving the Knights the benefit of the doubt after being caught for embellishment multiple times (something that I remember being noted by both NBC and HNIC broadcast crews).

October 1, 2018

On 9/30/2018 at 10:16 AM, Ihatetomatoes said:

Ya they've definitely given up on Gaunce. It's too bad as I see him as a good cheap 4th line player. Sure he doesn't score but he's good at keeping the puck out of his own net and that's what you want out of a 4th line player

I don't know if anyone still remembers this but when Gaunce was drafted, he was touted as "the best 2-way centre in the OHL". However, taking him in the first-round was panned widely because 2-way forwards at the junior level usually don't have enough offensive skill to translate at the NHL level and usually, teams' first-round picks look for a much higher offensive ceiling than what Gaunce projected, even back then.

So really, one can't be surprised at how his career trajectory turned out. I think a lot of people expected more from him as a first-rounder, but really, that was more of a botched pick than anything else.

September 28, 2018

A friend from the US sent me this. It's pretty funny:

August 28, 2018

~~Jabba the Whut~~

Feta Bobb

August 10, 2018

1 hour ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Firstly, Lastname's a funny surname. What's Lastname's first name, or nickname? If some no-name with one game, can go first-line, with no face-time, or stat-line?..

Well heck..do we all really need this?

Lastname... do we really need him?

:bigblush:

August 10, 2018

15 hours ago, Mattrek said:

Because that’s where my beliefs belong: paying more to help others less fortunate, investing in the future by spending on education, jobs training programs that take into account the new robotic/ai world soon to be replacing workers, arts and theater programs being funded and rewarded, looking at a universal benefit income, making sure no one gets left behind, protecting our environment, working to better people’s lives and an equal and just world that treats everyone the same. Those are not conservative ideals, those are progressive ideas. I want us to move forward together so that we all succeed in life.

Upon reflection, it's fair to say that if you're basing things on today's current environment, I'd have to agree that progressive ideas have been abandoned by today's conservatives who, for the most part, simply oppose those ideas for the sake of being contrary to "the left". However, it wasn't always that way.

Myself personally, the view I take is that NONE of the things you listed are left vs. right issues in and of themselves. What would have fueled left vs. right debate in the old days would be the questions of how do we achieve those things and who is going to pay for it.

August 9, 2018

10 hours ago, Mattrek said:

I’m firmly on the left because the issues I support align with their ideas. I have studied the issues and while not perfect most of the time the left has the better solution. I think the biggest problem is the echo chamber that tells you what the other side believes. Go ahead and ask me what I support as a progressive (no I don’t support banning all guns, no I don’t like abortions, no I don’t support spending money we don’t have unless the return on the investment is justifiable, no I don’t think the left is perfect, no I don’t think fossil fuel production should be shut down immediately, no I don’t agree with open borders as a few positions that the right says the left supports).

But most would rather be told what the other side believes rather then asking (no I don’t believe all conservatives are evil or racist as an example). The biggest issue is this. We’re taught to hate another person because of their views and thanks to the tribalism of putting your team winning over doing the right thing for all people we don’t ask the simplest of questions like: what do you believe?

I’ve found common ground with pro-gun absolutionists, anti-abortion stalwarts and anti-government types. There is ground where we can agree, but it has to be a WANTED solution and both sides have to be willing to engage respectfully, earnestly and honestly, which quite frankly is very rare. Most prefer to hurl insults, assumptions, deflections, whataboutisms and basically every excuse in the book to avoid it (I’m not unguilty of this either).

I agree people need to get some tougher skin, but here’s the thing for either side: if someone tells you they’re offended believe them and apologize. Why is it so hard for people to admit wrongdoing? Criticism should also be welcomed. How is anyone ever to learn without making mistakes? The whole thing has changed to “I’m right, you’re wrong and nothing you say can change my mind” rather then explaining “these are the facts that support why I believe this”. Why not be open minded that you could in fact be wrong?

I support equality and caring for one another. If that makes me a SJW, libtard, snowflake or whatever pejorative people come up with so be it. Being a decent person is now a problem with some apparently *shrugs*

EDIT: Forgot to mention another big problem. Hating the other side so much that you are willing to ignore facts/data/research/science in order to create an opinion opposite to what the people you hate believe. Now we have basic tenets of society breaking down because of this. “Breaking the law is bad”, “education is good”, “facts matter”, “science matters”, “being compassionate for others is good”, “racist remarks are bad”, I could go on, but you get the idea. Because of this hatred ideas of our society once mostly agreed upon are not in an effort to distinguish themselves from the other side they hate regardless of the factuality and merit behind said position.

Well, here's my simple question to you (and anyone else): why pigeonhole yourself as 'being on the left'? Why should anyone "pick a side"?

We, the general public, have been manipulated by the political parties to "pick a side", in the hopes of bolstering party loyalty and reinforcing authority, as opposed to actually being informed on issues and making decisions based on that (and it wasn't always that way). And for the most part, the general public has played along because it's EASIER than making informed decisions.

Currently, I find most political discourse, especially on the internet, to be as ludicrous (but less comical) than the "Left Twix vs. Right Twix" commercials.

August 8, 2018

9 hours ago, Kragar said:

When part of what defines fiscal conservatism is responsible spending, especially by the government, fiscal mismanagement definitely does make one less conservative. That doesn't mean your other options aren't possible.

Edit: additionally, creating more avenues for government spending also makes one less conservative.

I think we both agree that responsible spending is a basic hallmark of true fiscal conservatism. But I don't agree that 'mismanagement' in itself makes one less conservative; the other part of the equation is what that money is wasted/spent on and why. Neither irresponsible spending, corruption nor incompetence is left/right, liberal/conservative thing--when governments of either stripe do it, it's just plain wrong.

August 7, 2018

4 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

We can agree to disagree on interpretation of our environments and that cartoon. It doesn’t eat me alive to think you may have your own opinions.

Now that you’ve twice expressed your opinion concerning mine, I hope that you’re satisfied and don’t mind my having not returned the favour of inferring that you are also a racist, by proxy, or ended this post by questioning your intelligence.

Well, here's the thing: no one forced you to post that cartoon, you did that of your own free will. Saying after the fact that you "didn't say anything" doesn't make you own posting that any less, especially since you posted it again. So who's actually inferring you're a racist? I'd say by posting that (twice), you are the one who's inferring that you support racism. The little intellectually dishonest 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' attempt at providing an tenuously innocuous interpretation of the cartoon doesn't change that.

As for questioning your intelligence, you don't provide a lot of options: If you genuinely believe your interpretation of that cartoon, you're a fool. If you think you're fooling anyone else with your interpretation of the cartoon, you're a fool and insulting people's intelligence at the same time.

However, the nonsensical and irrelevant tin-foil-hat rant that you followed up with banished what little doubt that might remain about whether you're a bona fide fool or not.

You complain about "victimhood culture", yet exactly two sentences later, you literally say the side you support as being "victimized"--both quotes are your direct words. You whine about alleged "free speech infringements" without the simplest understanding that free speech does NOT mean or include unopposed free speech. The rest of what you wrote sounds like random samples of political jargon strung together nonsensically without any actual understanding of what the words actually mean.

August 6, 2018

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Actually, I didn’t say anything.

It would appear that you are now convicted of projecting, which is always a telling, leading indicator of one’s perceptions of their environment.

I find humour in that picture in that where the hippy, the guy opposing The Man, now supports, The Man.

When you (or I or anyone else) posts something, we're "saying" something--just the same as we do in person in real life. And what we say are reflections of ourselves.

If the point was the transformation from anti-establishment to pro-establishment, from hippie to post-yuppie, then the man on the right would be wearing a suit and his sign would say something like "DO NOT Question (MY) Authority", without attaching a specific issue to "the left".

That isn't what's in that graphic. By mentioning anti-racism specifically, it DOES attach the issue to specifically the "left" and "authority", with all three being portrayed as negatives.

Your declared interpretation of that picture sounds like a disingenuously obtuse excuse to post a pro-racist cartoon, but perhaps the bolded nonsense sentence above indicates you're genuinely that dim.

August 6, 2018

11 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Reminded me of a this.

Funny because it’s true.

That's so nonsensical on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

What are you trying to say? That only those on the left are against racism? And since the left are presumably uniformly and categorically a bad thing, is being against racism also a bad thing? That there is no racism among those in authority?

August 6, 2018

19 hours ago, Kragar said:

I never said they were liberal. Just less conservative.

Bush, Trump, and Republican Congress had/have little intention to make meaningful cuts, and the debt continues to rise. How often are Trump's small proposals to cut thwarted by Republican Congress? Trump wants to spend more than Obama did on infrastructure stimulus, which aside from the interstate system is generally outside of the fed's jurisdiction (as are Education and ACA, for that matter). Almost every politician loves to be seen spending money, one way or another.

When we start to see programs and departments disappear or get hit with consistent significant reductions at the hands of Republicans, and reasonable attempts at reducing the debt, that will be a sign of restoring our parties' places on the political spectrum. Until then, both sides are driving the bus towards the cliff, finger-pointing as they go.

Fiscal mismanagement doesn't make the Republicans (or other conservative governments/parties) "less conservative". It simply means they're incompetent and/or corrupt.

August 4, 2018

11 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Left ? Right ? Those are 2 labels that seem to be thrown around by people who have no idea about human nature. How do you define a left leaning person as opposed to a right leaning person ? Not their political views but rather how they treat others first in their own communities and then their attitude to others in the greater community and the planet itself.

Is that a general question or a personal question?

If you're asking in general terms, left/right strictly refers to positions along the modern, post-WW2 political spectrum, so it's impossible not to include people's political views. The political spectrum itself has collectivist statism at the extreme left and plutocratic libertarianism at the extreme right. In more general terms, the left believe citizens and society benefit most with more government involvement, whereas the right believe too much government interferes with the prosperity of it's citizens, especially when it comes to the free market. Most centrists/moderates basically seek a workable balance between the two sides.

Left and right are also relative, comparative terms: for example, in the US, the Democrats are on the left compared to the Republicans, but along the political spectrum itself, the Democrats closer to the centre-right, not the left at all. That is why the "centre" in the US is not actually in the centre of the the political spectrum itself; with the Republicans moving towards fundamentalism and the far-right, the space between the Democrats and Republicans is solidly right of the political spectrum. In Canada, things are similar to a lesser degree--the Conservative party shifted much further to the right than their predecessors in the Progressive Conservative party, while the NDP on the left softened from it's hard-left, socialist-statist position to a more centre-left position (it's impossible to say where the federal Liberal party stands except somewhere vaguely between the two--the truth is that they rarely stand for much of anything).

Generally-speaking, MOST people define left-leaning vs. right-leaning relative to which party they support. For example, in the US, Republican supporters will deride Democrat supporters as "left-leaning", in spite of the fact that the Democrats are technically NOT on the left of the political spectrum.

---

If you're asking me how I personally define a left-leaning person vs. a right-leaning person, the answer is that my standard is the political spectrum itself. I consider myself centre-right because I believe in the old conservative axiom of "fiscal responsibility leads to smaller, more efficient government, which further leads to a freer market and less taxation".

My criticism of current conservatives is based on how they've strayed from that axiom in a number of different ways, ranging from including social conservative causes into their platforms (it's more than fair criticism to say that it's hypocritical to claim want less/smaller government interference while at the same time, trying to legislate Christian-based "morality laws" on a secular society) to being completely fiscally irresponsible when they've been in power. But perhaps my biggest criticism about the current conservatives is that they no longer accept criticism--today's conservative parties have become authoritarian and autocratic, stressing party loyalty above all else.

August 4, 2018

16 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Great point. For nearly 3 decades I have questioned what is right and what is wrong. I hesitate to use the word subjective,but out of 171,476 words currently in use of the English language it seems to be the best word to describe what right and wrong are. I was reading an article by June Marshall about this, to quote from this, "there are no universal laws of right or wrong.Each different society reaches an agreement about what is right.Murder,for example, is one of the most world wide agreed upon wrongs.Yet in most societies murder,in wartime conditions, is approved or promoted. Right and wrong are subjective in how they relate to suffering.It feels bad to suffer.If we have empathy,we do not want to impose suffering on others,including animals.We don't want to have the memory of making someone suffer.It feels wrong,therefore is wrong.It feels bad to do wrong things and these feelings,how strong they are depend on the individual.Pyschopaths do not have these feeling of right or wrong.They do not feel empathy for the beings they harm.They also have no feeling of love or compassion for themselves,in that sense,too,right and wrong are entirely subjective.Feeling bad when we do wrong things is what keeps people in line,even more than being punished by the society that makes the rules". I used to believe that it was a mix of nature and nurture that made each person what they essentially are, my views about the mix of this were really shaken when I learnt about the sort of people my biological relatives were. After watching a doco about this guy who used an MRI machine to study the brains of 250 pyschopaths,then 250 kind altruistic people my views on this were shattered.Even a person like myself could see the brains were "wired" differently. The area of the brain that is responsible for compassion and empathy, the supramarginal gyrus is not as "connected" to the parietal,temporal and frontal lobes as the people who are considered altruistic. I have always struggled with how our societies define right and wrong. As that article pointed out in one situation society defines murder as wrong but in another situation it is considered right and is promoted.

TBH, I wasn't really talking about 'right/wrong' in the grander moralistic/philosophical context; I meant it more in the political context (and the context of the thread) regarding the discussion of policy and issues, and how dogmatic both those on the hard left and right are, and how they refuse to either compromise or recognize that an idea from the "other" side has merit.

There's currently there's this notion, especially among conservatives, that if you stray from the hard party line, you are disloyal to the party or 'cause'; that to be a "true" conservative (or liberal), you MUST agree to EVERYTHING the hard left/right subscribe to and that everything the other side says is "wrong" simply because it's the other side. That is part of the alienation of centrists/moderates on both sides of the spectrum; centrists and moderates view the world in varying tones of grey instead of the simplistic black/white fundamentalism that hardliners take.

August 4, 2018

9 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

I was having a political/ historical discussion a few days ago with members of a lodge I was staying in.The person I was having the discussion with was calm and reasonable, we had different ideas about defence spending and immigration,but I could feel the fury building in a guy standing on the other side of the room. He eventually exploded, shouting his opinion)abuse.I stayed calm and reasonable but he kept on getting more angry, eventually I went and offered him my hand and said we are all brothers and have to live together but he abused me and stormed off. After I left the room the guy who I had the discussion with stated to my friend that he really respected the fact that I did not raise my voice and that I did not react in a negative manner to being abused. When I got home I was discussing this with my girl who has is a linguist,she has a masters degree in languages and teaching. She made the point that the most effective, rational, reasonable arguments contain not many adjectives especially "colouful" adjectives. It has gotten virtually impossible to have a reasonable, logical, rational conversation without getting abused either by words or memes. This I believe is the real sign of the breaking down of the societies we live in. It's not that far of a leap from hurling insults to actually physically hurting others,especially now where the ideological divides seem so deep.

That's because too many people on both sides of the divide are more concerned about WHO is right, instead of WHAT is right.

Discussing WHAT is right allows for the concession that the other side might be right. Standing for WHO is right does not.

August 3, 2018

16 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

The right has historically been, and continues to be, on the wrong side of every major issue affecting our society.

Free trade, which led to NAFTA and all the other global major trade agreements, was originally invented by the right (Mulroney/Reagan) and initially opposed by the left. (And yes, the irony that Trump and the Republicans are now anti-free trade is not lost on me.)

Conversely, look at the failed attempts by the left to nationalize industry, whether it was the original Petro-Canada here, the Labour party's attempt to nationalize mining and everything else in the UK during the 70s, or more recently, Venezuela's botched attempt to nationalize their oil industry.

Most of the other stuff you cited about "the right" in that post are hardline conservative positions of the Conservative/Republican base; they do not reflect the centre/moderate right position at all. Believe it or not, there once was a time when "conservative intellectual" wasn't an oxymoron.

August 1, 2018

13 minutes ago, taxi said:

Is social conservatism a new thing? It's always fallen under the umbrella of conservatism with fiscal conservatism. What is considered socially conservative changes over time.

Homosexuality was legalized in Canada on June 27, 1969 (so technically in the 1960s). However, debate about it's legality continued, and protection under the charter didn't occur until June 20, 1996. That was just an example.

My point is that views aren't becoming more conservative. Compared to what exactly? The 1950s? Are you going to argue that modern conservative movements are less conservative than the ones in the 1950s? The point is that we are in a phase where there are fewer people gravitating towards the middle, and politicians now need to pander towards the extremes to get elected. The typical argument about some phantom enemy on the other side is what is motivating many towards these polarized attitudes, and that argument is nothing new.

Social conservatism in itself is not a new thing. What IS new is that it's the focal point of current "mainstream" conservative identity and following that, agenda and policy; whereas before, social conservatism was barely acknowledged on conservative planks. Perhaps in social conservative circles, the debate about the legality of homosexuality might have been discussed past the 70s, but it was never a thing in mainstream political discourse until conservatives began pandering to the religious right.

The Progressive Conservative party I used to support self-identified themselves as the "party for small business and free enterprise". Their central focus was fiscal conservatism: their philosophy could be defined as soft social libertarianism--they were social progressives who believed we could achieve those aims without spending piles of money on questionable government-run programs (unlike the Liberals, who seem to love making a government program for everything). The conservatives from that era were unquestionably less socially conservative than the ones from 1950s and today's conservatives with the current backswing.

I disagree that politicians need to pander towards the extremes to get elected. In the case of conservatives, they've been counting on party loyalty from moderates to carry them at election time. But with the increasing hostility towards moderates/centrists from the conservative ranks, I don't think they can count on that anymore. Moderates tend to be more conscious of actual issues and policy than the hardline base. And myself personally, I'm one of those moderates who WILL put country/society before party EVERY time.

August 1, 2018

2 hours ago, taxi said:

This line of thinking is very dangerous IMO. If you think the centre has become far right, then you haven't been around very long. Society's attitudes towards homosexual marriage, abortion, drug use, mental health, etc...have all changed dramatically towards the left. For example, 30 years ago the debate wasn't about whether gay marriage should be legal, but whether being gay should be legal and what kind of punishment should be associated with homosexuality. Now the centre has generally accepted that gay marriage is legal.

What has changed is that the amount of people on the centre has become smaller, as more people lean towards the extremes. The most common rationale for heading towards the far left/right seems to be that the rest of the world has become to far right/left, so I need to counterbalance them.

Utter nonsense. What you describe as "society's attitudes moving to the left" is basic social progress which both sides used to work towards. That's what the "Progressive" part of the old Progressive Conservative parties used to mean and it is quite fitting that the current iteration of the federal party has dropped the word from it's name.

The legality of homosexuality was NOT debated 30 years ago--30 years ago, it was 1988. When homosexuality was decriminalized in the 1960's, Pierre Trudeau wasn't even Prime Minister; he was the Justice Minister when he uttered that famous line about "the state having no place in the bedrooms of its citizens". At the same point in time in the US, the South were still trying to preserve racial segregation of blacks. That was over 50 years ago.

It is social conservatives that are the ones who destroyed moderate conservatism. It used to be that it was a given that moderates on both sides agreed with secularism and the pursuit of equality for all. Now secularism is considered is viewed as 'anti-Christian', equality is viewed as 'political correctness' and both are considered positions of the "left".

July 31, 2018

5 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Noticing more and more the radicalization of pretty much every societal issue by the extreme and right and left wing political agendas. You are either "one of them" or you are "one of us" with no ability to embrace a bit from both and then ask for compromise on other items. The extreme left want nothing to do with individual accountability, want environmental programs void of scientific reason, open borders, economic policies that remove all incentives and instead distribute all wealth equally and so forth. The extreme right don't believe in privilege by birth, believe people in bad situations (health or economic) are their by choice (laziness typically cited) and think government's role in society should be kept to maintaining infrastructure/military.

Where is the there room anymore for people who simply want:

fiscal responsibility by government that doesn't mortgage the future for the present

fair taxation that has sufficient incentives to promote success/innovation (e.g. keeping options taxed lower) but is void of excessive loopholes to benefit the very few (offshore shelters)

taking care of those who cannot take of themselves but having a hard line on those who simply "expect" a living from society

health care that has access to all who need it but can also accommodate a parallel process for those who wish to pay more (and that doesn't take away from the societal access system)

environmental management that balances human activities, science and avoids extreme agendas - and avoids NIMBY policies/politicis

balanced economy with removal of the hypocrisy of society demanding one thing and then making that thing impossible to deliver - e.g. don't embrace the concept of "Walmart" if you want fair wages in countries where kids make shoes for you

has immigration/refugee programs that are fair, transparent and predictable

a judicial system that treats crimes that harm society with commensurate sentencing and is both colour and economically blind

The list is clearly longer but more and more, depending up on the audience, people who strive for things like those noted above are either noted as "right wing" by people on the left or "liberal/left" by people on the right.

The US seemingly desperately needs a third party now that one has been hijacked by the loonies at the extreme right but the leftards seemingly have the other party well in hand. Canada is a curious case as the furthest "Right" party is probably what the Democrats in the US used to be and the Liberals in Canada have taken over the left agenda - leaving the NDP where exactly is hard to know. Germany doesn't have anyone in the middle.

Is there room? I think someone offering the above would be a massive problem for the extremists at both ends and would lead to long-term, stable majority governments.

I think you're only half-correct. What you haven't taken into account is the fact that the definition of where the centre is and who a moderate is has changed over the last few years. Today's "centre" is more on the right and a "moderate conservative" is what used to be a hard-right conservative; what used to be a centrist position is now considered to be on the left.

Myself, I used to be considered centre-right (as a former "Red Tory" Progressive Conservative voter). These days, people would consider my views to be "hard left" as a "social progressive" even though my views themselves have not changed very much. I mean, just look at how Conservative voters viewed Michael Chong: he and his supporters were lambasted for being "fake conservatives" (never mind the many racists in the party who simply didn't like the fact he wasn't 100% white). For me personally, that was the last straw when it came to the Conservative Party--it was clear that people like me were no longer welcome because I'm a "fake conservative".

IMO, all this lies at the feet of today's conservatives. It started with the introduction of "wedge politics" by the US Republicans of the 1980s, which in turn was embraced by conservative political parties across the Western world, including Harper's Conservatives. And now the wedge has been driven so deep after all these years of it, that we have the divided society we have now. That wedge has dumbed down political discourse from being a nuanced discussion of issues to blind cheerleading for one's party, especially on the conservative side.

I'm also from the generation that used to be taught: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government." I used to honestly believe in that but I don't anymore. The notion that there's no one worthy of voting for has never been more true than it is today. These days, IF I vote, it's "negative voting" whereupon I'm voting to keep someone unpalatable out of office and the irony isn't lost on me that in the last federal and provincial elections, I voted against so-called 'conservative' parties.

July 19, 2018

On 7/17/2018 at 6:20 PM, nzan said:

180 - 61 = 119 games ... I know you're not making specific comparisons, but I don't think Goldy has a season and a half to become a hockey player. I'd say he's got about half a season to at least begin bridging the gap between "intriguing prospect" and whatever he's going to grow into - hopefully it'll be that break out you speak of!

On 7/17/2018 at 6:54 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Why is everyone in such a rush?

I don't think it's necessarily the fans who are in a rush to see if Goldobin develops; it's more a case of him being under pressure to do so from the younger players who might push up from behind him. I remember late last season during a broadcast, Garrett pointed out (correctly, IMO) that Goldobin did have an advantage of being ahead of some of the other young winger prospects like Dahlen and Lind, or even Pettersson should the Canucks start him off on the wing, but unless he can prove that he belongs as a regular, the younger players could overtake him on the depth chart.

So I think @nzan's quite correct with his assessment that Goldobin has half a season to prove he's ready to be an NHL regular. If he doesn't, it's more than possible Dahlen or Lind might show enough in Utica that they'll earn chances to take his spot.

July 13, 2018

12 hours ago, J-23 said:

I overrate him, but Motte. Are you serious?

Didn't mean to make Motte a direct comparable. Only meant to say that he and the others I mentioned are likely to be scrapping it out as 13th (and possibly 14th) forward(s). If you want to say Motte is guaranteed to be with the Comets, I wouldn't really argue.

12 hours ago, D-Money said:

Seriously?

3 goals and 9 points in 14 games. Before getting prime time with the Sedins for their swan-song, Gagner was on a 25-game goaless streak.

The caveat to that (and an argument about the sample size) is that he got 3 of those 9 points in a single, albeit outstanding game. Basically, my personal recollection of his play was that he impressed early with that aforementioned game but never came close to duplicating that effort. He was okay, probably better than Gagner, but now the lineup is a lot tougher to crack than late last season.

July 13, 2018

6 hours ago, higgyfan said:

Kind of over-rated around here. 14 games isn't much to go on when predicting consistency during an entire season.

Yeah, I don't get why people are so high on him. He had a few good shifts here and there, but nothing that made him stand out above Motte or Goldobin or even Gagner. Another guy who's gotta prove something.

July 11, 2018

9 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

Where is all this trade talk coming from?

I would be heart broken if we traded him.

With all this junk going on with the league getting smaller and faster, Jake is exactly what I want to see.

A big dude, who can hit like a truck, and is just as fast as the little fellas.

In a couple years, Jake is going to be an absolute beast who can pot you 20 goals, kill penalties, and can blow up the crowd with a massive hit or wicked snipe show.

He will be the perfect 2nd, 3rd line guy.

What trade talk? :huh:

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Blogs

Gallery

Posts posted by Undrafted