TheAce
-
Posts
895 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by TheAce
-
-
On 1/20/2020 at 6:34 PM, Warhippy said:
Gold....honestly its looking like a very safe haven over the next 14 months or so
and silver..... most of my investing goes into these 2 physical assets . Gold and silver has stood the test of time
-
25 minutes ago, falcon45ca said:
Science did not teach those things, and it was science who refuted those teachings.
The geocentric model was the leading theory for nearly 1500 years before Kepler and Galileo came along.... and yes, science did end up refuting it but thats exactly my point. In 20 years from now some of the current scientific theories will be updated or found out to be wrong as new scientific info is learned
-
1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:
So you are saying we need to ignore Science... really ?
Are you also against vacinations ?
not at all, what im saying is science has a history of not always being correct. as new information comes out, theories will change. Is climate changing ? Yes.... Should we as humans be doing everything we can to limit the damage being done to this earth ? absolutely..... But ever since i was a kid ive been hearing about another ice age is coming or acid rain is gonna get us all, etc etc.....
-
41 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Believe whatever you want. I could care less. You should start to believe in Science though and get informed about climate change.....
The problem is that Science, especially this branch of science , hasnt always been correct . Science used to teach that little rocks fell slower than big rocks, science used to teach that the planets rotated around the earth, etc etc etc . And even now more than ever, science has become political depending on who is funding the grants as to which results get published.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:
I want Canada to have jobs and industry. I particularly want first nations people to be able to get out of the devastating poverty cycle. You seem to value vague notions of being a climate activist but all you're doing is giving more opportunity to the Saudi's and Russia to sell oil and have our own people hurt. Give your head a shake man, and think about the consequences of what you're talking about. And spare me the climate spew, if the Cree first nation is OK with the project you should be too.
careful Jimmy, you are starting to sound like a Conservative with posts like this
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, canuckster19 said:
They do this in Sweden too, deport people who have been here long, integrated into the country, have nice societal standing but were lost in the cracks of the system years ago.
But then they won't enforce deportations of criminal elements because of fears of what might happen to them, kinda sad really.
Even some who werent lost in the cracks..... i had a friend who came here from England on a work visa. Was here for 5 years with a decent paying job, paying taxes, never got in trouble with the law and was applying for PR and was denied, tried applying for an extension on his work visa and was also denied. The owner of his company wrote and called the gov't pleading to allow him to stay because he was such a valuable member of his work ( he ended up in the management ) but to no avail. Was given a date and sent home. Yet we have our RCMP waiting at known illegal points of entry to help carry luggage over and our country is paying for them to stay in 5 star hotels. Makes you shake your head at how backwards we have it....
-
Regardless of whatever political spin people want to put on this, over 70k people lost there jobs right before Christmas and thats a sad thing. I really hope our government can put aside differences and start doing things that will benefit the people instead of worrying about scoring political points.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
That's a HUGE thing people forget
10 years of Harper
16 years of business happy Libs in BC
45+ years of Cons in Alberta
But how many pipelines got built in the last decade prior to Trudeau?
Like none...
Without of course mentioning again the NEP which would have addressed literally all of this
I dont think it was much of a concern to most people because oil prices were good and business was rolling. Like anything, people only notice when things start to go bad. While I agree JT is getting some wrongful blame he didnt help himself out by giving speeches talking about killing the oil and gas sector in Canada.
-
1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:
https://www.tsn.ca/video/akim-aliu-lawyer-have-no-comment-after-exiting-nhlpa-offices~1840508
There. He hired a lawyer. Only thing lawyers do is go after people's money.
yes, normally there clients ....
-
On 10/30/2019 at 7:59 PM, Kanukfanatic said:
No. I am old. But your post was bad in that you called Edler useless...
...I figured only a teenager that doesn't know better would type something so dumb. Edler useless? Slap yourself in the face.
On 10/30/2019 at 7:59 PM, Kanukfanatic said:No. I am old. But your post was bad in that you called Edler useless...
...I figured only a teenager that doesn't know better would type something so dumb. Edler useless? Slap yourself in the face.
For someone who is old, you dont read very well do you ? I called him useless on the PP ! I then backed it up with how much better our PP has been with Hughes ever since he replaced Edler on the number 1 unit. If you want to throw a tantrum and insults, atleast argue the actual topic which was Edler on the PP
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, aGENT said:
And those posters, as always, are wrong.
He's a #2D. Always has been and continues to be. That doesn't make him a PPQB or even a PMD though.
He's a minute munching, 2 way, #2D with some physicality. I'll take that on my team any day. Too many people have been in a hurry to throw out the baby with the bath water because he's never been a #1D or PPQB/PMD. Tossing aside perfectly good players just because you lack other better or complimentary ones, is just plain stupid.
If you read my original post, I was talking about him playing on the PP. My comment had nothing to do with the rest of his play or how many minutes he plays
-
23 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:
Alex Edler. One of the best Canuck defensemen ever.
And you, the basement dwelling poster, call him useless??? Come on....
Actually several posters on here have admitted that Edler would be much better suited as a 3/4 d-man . He was thrown into a top pairing role because we didnt have anyone else. Canucks were 22nd in the league last year on the PP and it has been a puck moving D-man has been a huge need for this team. Our PP this year started off poorly and the only switch that was made was Hughes for Edler and there has been a noticeable difference.
basement dweller poster ? are you still in high school by any chance ?
-
Canucks first and 2nd fav is whoever is playing Calgary that night....
-
15 hours ago, -AJ- said:
Not sure what Edler you were watching, but Edler was fantastic on the PP. Put up tons of points. Hughes looks great too, but Edler was not a problem on the PP.
Our PP was struggling when Edler was on the point at the start of the season..... Its really turned around ever since Hughes was moved up to the number 1 unit. Edler , much like Ohlund, was kind of thrown in that situation out of a not really having anyone else. I find there to be a huge difference in puck carrying and not rushing the shot or play with Hughes as opposed to Edler who more times than not would bumble the puck at the blue line or blasting the puck into the defenders shin pads
-
On 10/26/2019 at 12:21 PM, Jaku said:
A big part of this is how useless Edler was on the PP. He was constantly thrown on the number 1 unit but doesnt have the offensive mindset that Hughes has
-
1
-
1
-
-
Will Edler ever be able to take a shot from the point and it doesnt go into the shin pads of the opposing forward ?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Treliving came out today saying that one of the reasons it was a shorter deal and for less money than expected was because Tkachuk " could not and would not " allow his contract to be the reason one of his teamates was traded off. There were lots of stories that Brodie or Frolik would have to be moved when Tkachuk signed but he made sure that wouldnt happen. With stories like that, its easy to see why he was given an A so quickly and is a well respected in the locker room
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:
I don’t think you can play that game. It’s not as simple as if we had tkachuk we would have had more points = better results.
There’s no saying that if canucks had tkachuk perhaps granlund doesn’t get the same opportunity to score 19 goals. Or baertschi doesn’t get the pp time to put up 35 points. It’s not just a simple addition. That move subtracts else where in realistically balances itself out.
Canucks didn’t finish that low simply because we were missing a 48 point rookie. Canucks finished that low because our goaltending was poor and we were annihilated with injuries. Tkachuk doesn’t change that.
Every move has a ripple effect that is impossible to predict. So trying to add hindsight doesn’t work in this situation. There’s no saying that canucks would have been better. Canucks could have just as easily been worse and ended up drafting Dahlin in 2018.
not to mention EP may not have been on anyone's radar. There were some serious concerns about his size. I believe Bob Mckenzie had him ranked 11th overall
-
1 hour ago, HKSR said:
We'll see...
Tkachuk's first 2 full seasons compared to Brock's first 2 full seasons shows that Brock is not far off... I'll give Tkachuk a slight edge due to age and toughness on the ice, but put Brock on a line with Johnny and Sean in their prime, and we'd probably see even a bigger gap offensively from Brock.
Anyways, I just don't think Tkachuk is $1M+ per season difference in a bridge contract. Especially with a $9M QO final season on the contract as well.
Tkachuk doesnt play with either of those players. He originally started on the 3rd line and worked his way up to the 2nd line.
-
1
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, Butters Stoch said:
Paul George just made OKC trade him to the Clippers because of Kawhi's decision. I hate the NBA sometimes and how their superstars always just decide to build their own super teams when they feel like it.
Or how after a trade they can force a team to buy them out so they can go play for a team of there choice . Why should a team have to give them money so they can go elsewhere to play ?
-
4 minutes ago, danaimo said:
If you place the value of the conditional 1st round pick as being worth 50 points per year then that seems reasonable. He has scored 161 points in the last 3 years in a 3rd line checking role, if there is no improvement in his play at all then he is definitely underpaid, by your own standards.
I drafted Miler in my hockey pool so I would watch Tampa games a fair amount. He originally started on a line with Stamkos and Kucherov. When they started to struggle the lines were shifted around but he played a fair amount of time on the top line and on the PP.
-
a team looking to dump salary and they still manage to snag a 1st round pick out of it......
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:
I'm about as anti tax as it gets mostly because I don't agree with the majority of places the gov't ends up spending the money. That's why I'm big in donating to charitable causes of my choice. I'd be much more inclined to set up a system where you get to chose which programs your tax dollars go (ie veterans, roads, healthcare). Also When the gov't is in control of where the money goes they have zero concern on efficiency and end up wasting a ton of money. Alberta is the perfect example, When it comes to healthcare Alberta is the highest per-capita spender yet we don't rank the highest, If we made smarter decisions (aka not https://www.cihi.ca/en/unnecessary-care-in-canada) we'd be able to spend billions else where. While many social policies have good intentions, they are easily abused and at a global scale, don't encourage competition/innovation and often end up spending a ton of wasted money.
People love to talk about the Scandinavian countries but often fail to realize that Norway has a lower top marginal tax rate to the US does. And the big kicker is that in Norway the people lower incomes on average have a higher income tax rate than US as well. They make most of their taxes on a similar system to like you propose. The more to spend/buy the more to pay in taxes. They do this through charging Value-added taxes (VATs) which does make every day items more expensive for all but it really makes it more fair to individuals regardless of your annual salary. Less opportunity to find tax loop holes and more focus on opportunity equality (not outcome equality)
On a side note, this idea that the rich don't pay their fair share is asinine. The top 20% already cover 87% of the total taxes paid do people really think that don't pay there fair share?. No offence but who is Jazz to tell people what is too excessive vs what is not needed. I'm sure many people in Africa would be appalled as what he deemed is reasonable (if you make over 34k you are in the top 1% income earners world wide). It's an emotional argument and it's saddening to think Jazz partied too hard in Uni and killed off all his brain cells. lol....just bugging you Jazz.
The idea stems from the claim that income inequality is a terrible thing and needs to be solved. My question is why? Inequality is a result of the individual choices and freedoms. You are free to make good decisions and bad ones. For example.. If you're taking for an exam, you study your butt off and that typically results in you getting a good mark, but if you decide to skip studying to go out an party all night, you likely get a bad mark. That's your freedom. So why should we punish the person who made the good choices to accommodate the person who didn't?
When people view the top 10%, they picture McScrooge who swim in pools of money in their secret rooms. People like to paint the rich with evil brush as if they simply screwed over others in order to get to where they are. That's such a misguided view though, as 99% of the time they get to where they go through smart life choices and lots of sacrifices. I just got out of a big business meeting last night where a dozen of the people there would be considered 1%ers. They are all under 40, highly intelligent, highly motivated people who've earned their way. And now they are looking to take that hard earned money and hopefully invest into the company i'm involved in, to make even more money.
I would like to see something like this when it comes to foreign aid. Im all for generosity and helping other however it should be an individual choice as to how much you give and to where you want to give it to. Its not fair that the government takes your hard earned money in the form of a tax and then gives it away to other countries only to turn around and then cry that they need to raise our taxes because there isnt enough for roads, medical, etc.
The government can set up a foreign aid charity and every dollar donated has a 1.5 dollar ratio deduction towards someones tax receipt . That should help encourage people to donate and allow Canada to continue to help.
-
2
-
Jim Benning
in Canucks Talk
Posted
totally agree... it was a complete shock to everyone at the draft that we didnt take MT. To make matters even worse, it was very well known that Calgary was trying to move up in the draft to take MT. Even if JB wanted a d-man, he could have swung a deal with Calgary to drop down a pick. I will absolutely give JB credit for his drafting of Boeser, EP and Hughes but at the same time he deserves to be critisized over this drafting blunder