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

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    9,306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. Unfortunate about the events leading to Rypien, but if true, Gillis deserves some credit for recognizing that Rypien needed help. I'm sure it must have been gut-wrenching to his teammates, including Burrows, that their friend was suffering so much. For all the faults Gillis had as a manager, I think he really cared about his players/clients.
  2. That's a nice change from the previous #18s we had... I have no doubt Dickinson will flourish under Green and this team.
  3. There are multiple groups of people with different motivations. I think it's important to know that a small group of people doing this doesn't actually represent the millions of people who live there, even it may seem that way.
  4. Wait a minute, the US started the war, did they not? Why would they be the first to leave? For a country that spends so much money on the military, they sure have difficulty keeping their own country safe The capitol riots, given the strong military presence, shouldn't even have happened. There should have been a crackdown the moment that people were going to storm the building. The point I am going with this is that the American military can't even protect its own citizens from themselves - why would they think they'd be able to control Afghanistan? And really, it's not the people there that are the problem; it's everyone else who's meddling, including the US, but also China and Russia. The way I look at it, the US is no different than China/Russia, in that they use strong-arm tactics to get what they want done on the political arena. Each country is equally guilty of corruption and greed. Each country is just as dirty as the other. Solely blaming Russia and China would just be ignoring what the US has done throughout history.
  5. Yes, I meant to say the defensive aspect of it. I still don't know who on the board has actually said his defensive game is Selke worthy. I haven't seen it. Bo's defensive game is competent; he doesn't cost the team games, and it seems like he works on every aspect of his game every year. We've seen him elevate his offensive game in the playoffs, despite the fact that many in the fanbase didn't think he was much of a playdriver.
  6. I don't know who would actually say Bo's game is overrated. Perhaps overstated, but not overrated.
  7. Married to Dahlen? It makes perfect sense, tbh.
  8. That's what I absolutely hate in these discussions. The same group of people out to 'prove' something are just blatantly ignoring this fact. Juolevi isn't a bad defenseman. He was just injured so much that he didn't turn out to be the best pick in hindsight. Of course, we COULDA drafted Sergachev or Chychrun, but there were enough question marks on them to make them be drafted later. Why else were they drafted well after Juolevi?
  9. "Logic" is out of reach for you. The guy blindly defending Dahlen, even accusing others of lying to save face, because you want to save Dahlen's face. A pair of writers for Sharks blog Fear the Fin, including Canucks writer Lachlan Irvine, caught up with Dahlen after his first game with the San Jose Barracuda. In that interview, however, Dahlen denied requesting a trade, which just raises further questions. Dahlen’s agent, J.P. Barry, confirmed that he did request a trade, so why did Dahlen deny it? https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/jonathan-dahlen-denies-demanding-trade-dials-in-on-development-2228145 Different players and agents have their own reasons why they do things,” said Benning, suggesting he didn’t really know Dahlen’s specific reasons. That in itself is troubling, but then he continued. “I find young players now, sometimes they don’t want to pay their dues in development time, they just want to be given an NHL opportunity right off the start,” he said. “We just felt that there was some development left in his game before he’s ready to be given an NHL opportunity and we felt he wasn’t there yet and I guess that’s kind of where the discrepancy on what they thought and what we thought where he was happened.”
  10. To be fair, Schmidt denied the use of PEDs, but he still got suspended anyway. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/27687452/knights-schmidt-seeking-revision-ped-testing "No one in the world can say that they don't care that people think they're a cheater," Schmidt told ESPN after a Knights preseason game last week. "If I'm the last guy it ever happens to, I'm OK with that." It was also notable for the pushback it received from the Golden Knights, who emphatically stood by their player and signed him to a six-year contract extension, and from Schmidt himself, who released a detailed statement vehemently denying PED use. Among the memorable defenses: an expert testifying that the substance in Schmidt's system was at levels so minuscule that it was "the equivalent of a pinch of salt in an Olympic-sized swimming pool." Schmidt also had a decent season prior to the trade
  11. Schmidt wasn't a signing. It was a trade. And to say that it wasn't an amazing trade at the time is being dishonest.
  12. And this is with a team that has this kind of record: I've forgotten just how good Phoenix was for two years, and the rest has largely been bad. Can you imagine missing the playoffs 7 seasons in a row? Or missing 8 playoffs in 9 seasons? Arizona has been Buffalo bad. In hindsight, Arizona REALISTICALLY should've started rebuilding after 2014-2015. But in that awful year.... a 23 year old OEL did this: A freaking defenseman had more points than anyone else.
  13. Fully agreed. I'm fairly certain we have some media members posing as 'Canuck fans' that have nothing good to contribute to this team. *cough* Squamfan/combover, among many others.
  14. Honestly, much respect to him for staying fit, despite being 'old'. He's still got it in him. His fitness would put everyone on this board to shame.
  15. The criminal didn't want to admit his crime, and that was likely the reason for it. What a weird choice for the defendant to make though. The lawyer must have tried to convince the guy to take the bargain, but he didn't budge.
  16. No, I said the war on drugs is treating the symptom, but not fixing the problem. Likewise, punishing the criminals achieves the same result. What is your end goal? Discouraging further criminal behaviour on the basis of fear and "tough on crime" approach? Guess what? It's not working. Saying that I was comparing drug addicts with serial killers/rapists is clearly an example of a strawman argument. I NEVER said it. I didn't get a chance to explain at all. I guess since you apparently had the great wisdom to know exactly what I was going to say, you said it for me. What's the point in me continuing this discussion if it's just you talking and not listening/reading? Re-read my goddamn post again. I never said a damn thing about drug addicts or serial killers. You did, hence, strawman.
  17. Did you seriously just strawman my post? Re-reads your comment. Yes, you did. I'm done here. Edit: I believe you have good intentions. I really do, but the bolded illustrates just how entrenched you are in your viewpoints, to the point you have lost your sense of reasoning. If you have to make up what the other person said (drug addiction was NOT mentioned at all), chances are, your position isn't all that solid.
  18. You are free to hold this opinion. I respectfully disagree though. I don't feel this approach is helpful, except to spite the convicted. If they cared about 'consequences', maybe they wouldn't have done it, would they? IF the goal is to prevent crime, especially violent ones, we must seek to understand as best as possible why it happens. We don't have to empathize with them. Far from it. We are UNDERSTANDING the roots of crime. Do you realize we still do not fully understand why crimse happen? Instead, we are burying our heads in the sand about how we should 'punish' prisoners, but it has little to no effect on fixing society. There is no guarantee that future criminals aren't born. The approach to punish is like the war on drugs. You are only treating the symptom, not the disease.
  19. That's not true at all. Being in jail and having the chance to redeem themselves (whether or not this is warranted) is not like having more rights than of the society. They did something wrong. They can get that chance - or not. There are no rights 'gained' from being a convicted felon. The loss of the victims may never be recompensated, but lowering the bar on rights is why prisoners may never get better, or if we throw the wrong person in, there are no checks and balances.
  20. These people are sick. It sucks to say it, but they are sick. Maybe they are beyond help, but acknowledging that they are sick people (whether that is good or bad) is the first step. What do we do with these people, and how do we prevent more of these people from coming up? No, sterilizing the convicted doesn't stop a serial killer who is completely unknown to society. This is not me saying that what they did was right, nor am I saying that serial killers/rapists/criminalists should be coddled by the society. But there may very well be a lot of circumstances behind WHY they do things. In order to prevent crimes from happening, we have to seek to understand (as best as possible) why criminality happens. Unless we install thought crime software/surveillance, we have NO WAY of preventing crime unless we address the roots behind it. We can only reduce it.
  21. And it's because of this context that they SHOULDN'T be involved in this process, for that would tamper how the process is handled. This should be handled by someone else was the whole point of what I said.
  22. Privacy should be maintained unless people waive it. Lawyers for the government argued the families weren’t pursuing public interest litigation but a personal pursuit: “Their personal motivation is to use the information sought to make statements to the parole board,” the government argued. McVeigh told the families to pay the government $4,000. “I was very surprised the government asked for costs — my clients have suffered enough,” Danson said. Even so, they will appeal the decision. “I think it’s going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.” I really have to agree with this. This isn't about 'justice'. This is about whining about a decision they don't like. Parole boards have oversight. If more is needed, then push for it and explain why. There's no reason for families to be involved in this process.
  23. Is this what you got from the article? She's not even mentioned.
×
×
  • Create New...