Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

JM_

Members
  • Posts

    52,426
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    104

Everything posted by JM_

  1. true, but i wonder if they feel like the could surround him with players that can compensate for that? hard to say, I don't know that there's going to be a big market for PK.
  2. You know, all this talk about representation has got me thinking. Our system makes concessions for providing MPs and Senators for rural areas that is out of proportion with what people in the city get. So if its not fair to try to represent women proportionally, heck lets do away with bending over these for rural folks. Its dudes from the city from now on
  3. Andrew Scheer has never had a significant job outside of politics, fyi. In Regina, Scheer worked as an insurance broker, a waiter, and in the constituency office of Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Scheer#Early_life_and_career
  4. wow, well OK. The RCMP, Justice Department and an Admiral all lying for Trudeau. If you want to believe that thats fine, but that really stretches reality from my pov.
  5. thats where you and i differ. There are many people in government that can fill those positions, and i think the benefits that come with equal representation are well worth it. I don't see it as losing anything in terms of quality of candidates and we ensure that our society is represented in cabinet.
  6. Rob thats not political interference. Political interference would have been him guiding the prosecution and outcome. There was a leak, the RCMP investigated, the JD took it on, the defence chief made his decisions. All of them say there was no interference. Why do you doubt those three sources?
  7. I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground that women would like to be represented in our government. We're taking here about ensuring that our society is properly represented. I don't presume to have the lived experience of women, and i wouldn't want to be in the position of making decisions that effect their lives without their input. by what criteria would they be "better"? If you're really thinking about that idea, then we must have 50% women in cabinet because there's no other way to ensure that we have people with the right experience to represent 1/2 our country. By definition they are better qualified to be 1/2 the cabinet.
  8. but that assumes that "best interests" shouldn't include the perspective of 1/2 our society. I think thats pretty hard for you to prove. It also plays on the best person fallacy that often goes along with this topic. The way cabinet positions are designed there are many people qualified to hold the position.
  9. yes there currently are fewer women in politics but they make up 1/2 our society. Why should 50% of our country be under-represented in cabinet? If we're ever going to raise the number of women running, we can make sure the opportunities are equal to encourage that.
  10. but you're just making up numbers. I can say the exact opposite and it proves nothing. On the logic of it, how is a balanced cabinet discrmintaory to either group? we have 50% men and 50% women in our society so it creates an equal opportunity for both.
  11. Yeah but at least it made sense sometimes. I don't think i'll ever forget "1st line Megna"
  12. I would love to hear the explanation of how balance between men and women in cabinet discriminates against either group.
  13. I'm not defending him per se, I'm point out the red herring of the article. There's lots of reasons to be pissed at JT, but this just isn't one of them based on the events and facts.
  14. I'd actually be excited to have him here, but there's about 10 teams that can outbid us for him, assuming we don't want to burn youth (which I hope and am 99,999% sure Jim doesn't want to).
  15. have you been to Shanghai or Delhi? they have to find ways to reduce emissions if they don't want to choke to death.
  16. this is a meaningless red herring of a tack. We have to act regardless of pissing matches over "cause". We know we can have a significant impact on emissions. We know we need to better prepare our coastal cities. These sorts of rabbit hole debates are just about delaying and doing nothing, which isn't acceptable anymore.
  17. there's +'s and -'s for sure, but focusing on the +'s the contract is 3 more years, he doesn't need expansion protection, he'd be as good a producer as any of the current free agents in all likelihood. -'s: 9 mil... but we can afford it and it disappears when we're looking at cap issues down the road. On the personality thing, I'd leave that to Benning and Green, they know what they want and what the fit would be. Edler-PK Hughes-Tanev ^ thats certainly better than what we've seen for a while now. But we don't have the pieces to make it happen - this article covers the best trade partners and we don't have the assets:https://thehockeywriters.com/pk-subban-trade-destinations/ Nylander for Subban might be a thing.
  18. sorry if I was a little harsh, its just players like Boeser are rare.
  19. from everything I've read I'm on the same page. Close enough to BPA at 10 vs the other 2 or 3 potential picks, and fits need, and is proving himself in a mens league. I don't see enough separation between that and the remaining F's available at 10 to shift that.
  20. If this were true, why would the top military commander in Canada say there was no interference? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-norman-decision-mine-1.5140897 Why would the justice department also say there was no interference? There's nothing whatsoever to back up the idea that Trudeau directed anyone to do anything on this. -- What I'm interested in is why the CPC cabinet members let Norman swing in the wind for nearly 3 years?
×
×
  • Create New...