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

6of1_halfdozenofother

Members
  • Posts

    2,613
  • Joined

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nothing to see here
  • Interests
    Laughing at ridiculous trade proposals.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,462 profile views

6of1_halfdozenofother's Achievements

Canucks Regular

Canucks Regular (9/16)

2.5k

Reputation

  1. I can think of a word that is just as offensive that has alternate meanings of "slit", "crack", or "gap", and rhymes with "rink", used to describe people who share my heritage. The "N" word is bad, but it's nowhere near the "single most offensive", because anything involving racial undertones is just as bad.
  2. If not for Burrows and his shorthanded goal against Carolina that basically saved Vigneault's bacon, he wouldn't have even had the opportunity to get to the '11 SCF. I'm also firmly in the camp of the team making it to the finals in spite of (and not because of) Vigneault. He was still doing the "more of the same, maybe it'll change the tide" approach, when it was actually team creativity (and Kesler carrying them on his back against Nashville) and Luongo's clutch saves that propelled them into the SCF; they'd still be defending the 0-0 tie if it were up to Vigneault. So yeah, if Burrows hadn't scored that goal, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because Vigneault would've been fired either before or during the '09 offseason. It's just dumb luck that he had a saviour in Burrows.
  3. I don't often agree with you, but I fully support this statement. Good job.
  4. I was torn between upvoting your post and the "haha", but every time I read the line "And get a proper haircut!", my mouse kept moving over to the "haha", so "haha" it was.
  5. From https://www.gg.ca/en/procedures-dissolution-parliament-and-calling-election The Queen's representative does not need to accept the suggestion, as it is "a royal prerogative exercised by the governor general".
  6. I would actually contend that accepting the suggestion to dissolve parliament would be a dereliction of duty on her part (or at least very irresponsible in the context of her constitutional role), as there was no impasse or other constitutional crisis requiring a reshuffling of the deck. The more prudent, responsible choice would have been to examine if there was a genuine need to put the decision to the electorate, and thensend him back to Parliament because (based on what has been disclosed so far to the public) there was no need to call an election. If there was an impasse or a pending impasse, it would have been stated already in the Liberals' platform, identified during their rallies, or disclosed in the debates. Instead, it's just been hot air and arm waving so far - no clear or specific Parliamentary reasoning to drag the electorate out to vote, other than "because we think it's time" (paraphrasing). As much as I disagree with the Tories and their platform/philosophy, it's looking very likely that their speculation of cover-up for the issues related to the national lab in Winnipeg is pretty close to the truth. This also seems to fit a pattern for the Rt. Hon. too - anytime things get too hot in committees, he either prorogues Parliament (SNC Lavalin/ethics committee) or calls an election (if the Speaker's lawsuit/national lab document disclosure is in fact the reason).
  7. There was no non-confidence vote. The request by the Rt. Hon. was just to dissolve Parliament. She would have been doing her constitutional duty by saying, "I don't accept your suggestion. Go back to Parliament and work things out."
  8. That's exactly what I suggested some 40 pages ago. I should note @JM_ pooh-pooh'd the idea then, but is strangely silent about the idea now.
  9. I don't think you're getting the point here. I'm talking a bit more further into the future than just simply increasing the share of EVs on city roads; I'm more pointing out what happens when EV tech eventually is favoured and perhaps even mandated on the roads in favour of eliminating combustion-based vehicle technology. Once that happens, the rural folk will really be up $&!# creek. Their options will be to pay exorbitant fees to get gasoline/diesel into their localities (with the threat of that production eventually stopping altogether), deal with EVs that don't meet their needs/ill-suited for their applications in rural settings, or move back to something like horse and buggy. And because of the way city folk have greater buying power (both in terms of numbers and in terms of $$$), the city folks' influence will eventually drag rural folk into having to choose between one of these three undesired options.
  10. Sure, but the economics of it would suggest that oil companies would eventually find it too expensive to continue to produce for a numerically small, physically/geographically dispersed contingent of people who may not necessarily be willing to pay the higher prices involved in getting that reduced output to them in relatively hard-to-reach areas. So in that way, they'd be dragged (unwillingly, it would most likely appear) to the EV world at some point, where the vehicles generally speaking most likely won't be a good fit for the applications that rural folk would need them to meet.
  11. The practicality of the matter though is that if you push city folk to EV platforms, then fuel demand drops; once fuel demand drops, it becomes impractical to continue to produce fuels for internal combustion or diesel engines. This is the desired outcome for all intents and purposes, but it also neglects the fact that there are infrastructure obstacles for the people who don't find EV platforms practical or usable for their needs, who will need combustible fuel that is no longer produced for their engines, and who will be left trying to figure out how they're going to get to their medical appointments in the nearest town, or get to their work camp and back where there's no infrastructure along the way to facilitate charging EVs. That's the reality of the situation, and although you may think of it as a "divide", in a way it's a divide that the rural folk have no (or very little) ability to affect, because the larger influences are coming from urban habits and trends.
  12. I don't follow that many sports, but I would say that even though today's players could probably skate circles around the players from the 70s and 80s (because many of them are built for lower-body power and speed), rats like Marchand and goons like Milan Lucic or Ryan Reeves would probably be drilled to the ice by enforcers of yesteryear. However, today's goaltenders wearing pads of the 80s? They'd get lit up like doobies at a 420 party.
  13. No official criminal charges laid against him yet, so the courts don't have the ability to restrict his movements.
×
×
  • Create New...