Standing_Tall#37
-
Posts
5,979 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Standing_Tall#37
-
-
6 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:
Smyl stands out as substantially above Bure when it comes to whether anyone should ever wear his number again on a Canucks jersey.
I dunno, Bure was 3rd all time for goals per game in nhl history. His scoring clip is higher than ovechkin’s even. Had he not had only 1/2 a career, his stats would be vastly higher and his legacy in the NHL would be much more respected League-wide.
I think there should only be 3 numbers in the rafters and arguably only 2 in GM place. 33,22 and maybe 10.
we have the same amount of retired numbers as teams who had players that were instrumental in winning them multiple cups
-
18 hours ago, Warhippy said:
I actually started watching the Bolts Flames series from 2004. As much as I hated the Flames and Oilers the finals in 04 and 06 were great to watch
The one I remember was the 07 playoffs Anaheim vs Ottawa. I was only 3 seasons removed from playing Jrs and I was having a bbq and people/old teammates over for beers. And we were cheering for Ottawa of course.
But one of our buddies was pretty upset, that’s when we realized his Brother was in the Anaheim organization. Played for either Portland or Rockford? At the time
-
1 minute ago, Warhippy said:
And they should. Again, at days end everything rests on the consumers. But there is no real consumption, no travel no large status purchases. Just wealth transfers.
The numbers make zero sense to me at this point. I am FAR from an intelligent or learned person in the markets but numbers always tell a broader story and they just don't add up
This may be the one aspect where our thinking is almost identical.
I’ll tell you one thing in my personal experience from 2 nights ago. At work we were kind of discussing this and there was a lot of talk from people (who are still on pace to make 90-125,000 this year), that even when restrictions lift or if they do, they won’t be spending a dime on travel or luxury, as they feel there could be further hard times and they want to build up some safety funds for mortgage and truck payments etc.
One of the young guys was even talking of trying sell some of his toys and extra vehicles just in case.
-
3 minutes ago, Wilbur said:
Not completely. It serves the rich too well (and they serve the people in power too well). Just look at China and the States, they'll sacrifice health, the environment, infrastructure, education, etc before they'll sacrifice the stock market. I'm sure there'll be the odd sacrificial lamb to ease mounting debt pressures, but most of the ultra rich will be fine.
Very good points.
-
1 minute ago, Warhippy said:
To be honest, my background is statistical marketing. I never used my degree because ti was boring but i learned to look at numbers. NONE of the numbers make any sense anymore so I can't even begin to guess. I figured this week would be an utter route, but instead everything is essentially up again.
As stated earlier the US Fed just dumps money on to every problem and it's an absolute mess. When? Tomorrow, 2 years from now? Who knows. By all metrics the Q1 reports should have been enough to tank it, the 30 million unemployed in the US should have tanked it, the oil shock should have tanked it. ALL of that happened at once and really, nothing happened.
Because the US just threw money at the issue
I completely agree with you. I just have no idea why it hasn’t collapsed either. It’s a form of inflation? I would think that these most recent bailouts would make it even more unstable.
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
I refuse to accept my tax dollars in Canada being used to prop up failing multi national corporations or the market. Let the US do it instead.
But yes I am familiar with that expression. It will blow up sooner than later. There is no question because at days end it all rests on the consumer and the consumer is utterly, completely broke
I agree. I’m waiting for the other foot to fall, but when do you think this will all take place? My thinking is that once restrictions are lifted and people don’t spend, because they either have no money, or are fearful that this will happen again and would rather build a financial safety net.
-
39 minutes ago, Wilbur said:
Yep, a lot of that which hasn't served any other function other than making the stock market look good.
Do you think it’s going to crumble?
-
Does anyone have a good app to recommend to watch things on the TSX?... I’ve just been using the standard one that comes with the phone, but I don’t really like it.
-
But I’m going to leave this alone. His actions are bad as are his friends and I hope people criticize the words said and this one incident and that’s all I’m going to say about it. This thread has upset me too much.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:
People who are calling him racist are highly unlikely to be anti-Semitic. I know it's hard, but use some common sense.
I don’t understand why you’re sticking up for them? Perhaps if your Bubbe has gone through what mine did 80 or so years ago, you’d understand how wrong that is
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, The Lock said:
Maybe read the below statement you made earlier. It says something very different than what you just said. I'm not harping on you or anything. I'm just pointing it out. It's not what you said.
Yes they both allude to the fact that calling him a loser and a racist from one incident is highly anti-Semitic. And I just hope that the people that have this bias NEVER display it with Quinn Hughes either. I though that ideology went away in 1945
but I guess not. My Bubbe would be weeping in her grave if she heard this. 
-
1
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:
Guys... he is trolling us. When you realize defending Leipsic is like asking for self-harm, but you're too embarrassed to admit your failure, so you resort to trolling.
@everyone Just ignore him, folks.
I’m definitely not defending his actions. What he said is deplorable and awful. What I’m saying is that people calling him racist and trash and slinging personal insults at him and those defending the people doing that should be ashamed. That is all. It is okay to discuss the incident but please don’t condone the personal attacks.
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:
You're the one who brought religion into this.
There’s people saying some things that could be seen as a bias against him and seen as an attack against people of my heritage. I see this response that you’ve posted as defending that attitude towards my personal heritage which is completely unacceptable.
I don’t mind people calling his actions names and talking about the situation but when people start personally attack him to the manner that I’ve seen in this thread, I can’t think that there’s a deep seeded bias.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:
Just because his sir name is or was connected to a religious belief or area of land doesnt mean that person is practicing or following in good standing.
Drugs, booze, sexism, racism, body shaming, NSA sex, trash talking others.....
If he is practicing any religion, he is not.in good standing.
His family name has zero to do with his words.
I feel that you’re making an anti-Semitic assumption based upon his last name only and I’m personally offended by it.
https://thehockeywriters.com/brendan-leipsic-named-jewish-athlete-year/
-
1
-
-
I can’t help but feel that some people upset with Brendan Leipsic are being very anti-Semitic. I don’t understand how someone coming from his personal background would be racist. I think some of the criticism in this thread from posters comes from some of their sick dislike or prejudice of his personal heritage.
-
1
-
5
-
-
2 minutes ago, The Lock said:
Oh god, don't get me started. I went to Kelly Road and I swear half the people thought they lived out in the country.... on their half acre lots....
Yea the Hart is just awful.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Where do you live?
It’s the most awful place in BC, a bunch of rednecks that think they’re sophisticated, just because there’s a city of a bunch of backwoods hillbillies in central B.C.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, The Lock said:
So if someone shoots a gun out of carelessness and kills someone, should he be given a pardon at that point in your opinion?
Is carelessness something that shouldn't be considered and that fact that he "didn't mean to" be the end all be all?
Definitely not. I personally feel that if anyone is caught with a gun and they aren’t in the military it should be an automatic 25 year jail sentence and tripled if a person does harm intentional or not.
-
2 minutes ago, StealthNuck said:
I think we're at the point where:
- Nothing posted online should be considered truly private by anyone. Everything can be hacked eventually.
- Everyone should be prepared to face the consequences for what they say online.
That’s actually a very good point. That leads me to kind of an interesting point. What if somebody said something 10 years ago and they’ve grown as a person or they’ve become tolerant and grown with society and changed. Should they still be crucified for a text they sent maybe 10 years ago? I’m a big believer in people becoming better as they age.
-
6 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
There is no longer a place for racism and misogyny in this world...never was. And to feel that it's somehow acceptable IS the narrow view.
True, they are things that should not be accepted or tolerated. It’s a bad example on my part because of the content of what they said and the attitude they have about it.
I don’t know... really bothers me both what they were saying and on the flip side the lack of privacy(if that makes sense). But maybe we’ve reached that point in society where no one should be allowed to have a private conversation in case the seeds of horrible ideologies are planted.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:Yes, really.
I have a real problem with that. Not to say that I’d agree with the content of what they were saying. But the fact that they might be intoxicated or drugged up and maybe they’ve joked like that for years in what they thought was a private safe place.
I don’t know I guess the big cities this” I’m offended”culture is leaving the real world behind. I absolutely hate that, I don’t think anybody has the right to tell anyone how to think and speak in their private life. I mean should you have to change your private life because something that you joked around with in your private life with some of your friends after a glass of wine offends me? I think it’s non of my &^@#ing business what you do in your private life, because it doesn’t concern me.
Or am I and people of my region and their ideologies geographically out of touch? Should every one have to mandate their thoughts and speech within a very narrow range to be sure that we don’t offend anyone else of the 7.4 billion people on this planet, if they should happen to be eavesdropping on our private conversations?
I don’t know... I guess I support free thought and the right to privacy, but that’s long gone me thinks.
-
9
-
5 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
Nope.
This is totally inappropriate talk in this day and age. If you don't understand that, you probably should try harder to. I hope you're young and that explains why you don't get why this is not ok.
Most real people don't talk like this. It's offensive and hate fuelled.
Really?
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, DonaldBrashear said:
This is probably the best news the bars/pubs have ever heard. Imagine if hockey starts up in October with empty arenas? That's 18,500 fans that will probably flood pubs and bars and restaurants to watch the game. It could be like the golden age again
I would think if people aren’t allowed in arenas, then pubs and restaurants would probably only be allowed to have 1/4 to 1/3 capacity for social distancing.
-
23 minutes ago, qwijibo said:
He clearly loves his cocaine as well.
Well he is a pro hockey player...... that’s like saying “dolphins love the water”
-
2
-
Naslund's Jersey Retirement
in Canucks Talk
Posted