Fateless

You cannot take Gaudette out with how's he has been playing. It would be terrible optics for the prospects in the system to see that even if you're having a stellar season as a young player, you still get sat in favour of veterans who aren't producing.

Look, I actually agree with a lot of what Lehner has to say (not all, but a lot). However, using Hitler as your analogy really just baffles me. Some people do not deserve a second chance, no matter how earnestly they seek one. Actions and words have consequences and while most things in life can be forgiven and moved past, some cannot. As a lawyer, I often see Court cases where someone who has committed a crime feels honest remorse about their actions after the fact. That does not mean they get a second chance and avoid the consequences for their actions. We'd have anarchy in the streets if the a Judge threw down their gavel and let a murderer walk free because felt true remorse after committing the crime. Sometimes change isn't enough.

Probably deserved it too. Not that I condone violence from coaches, but it is Avery after all.

Looks like @Twilight Sparkle ghosted the thread after setting our hopes high on validation.

Intent to injure doesn't get any more obvious than that. Should have been a 10 game suspension at minimum. Just think, Hathaway got three games for spitting on Gudbranson. Apparently an extremely dangerous and malicious cross check on a defenseless player is almost equivalent to that? What kind of joke is this league?

The irony in this thread is so hilarious. So many Conservative leaning Cherry supporters are so offended that Cherry was fired for his words that they've turned into the special snowflakes they've always criticized Liberal leaning supporters for being. Too busy dropping inflammatory comments and name-calling with "SJW" and "thought police" that they haven't even realized that Cherry's firing is simply the free market at work just like Conservative leaning politics has always promoted. Cherry is and always has been a bigoted dinosaur. He got fired because he no longer represents the demographic that Sportsnet is targeting, nor does he represent the average Canadian. The world has moved on from Cherry and his ilk. In fact, he should have been removed a decade ago. Get over it.

Yup, I wish he did too. But people make mistakes. Maclean made one and apologized for it. I'm prepared to move on from that one.

You're expecting too much. He's apologized in multiple media formats. Any of course he put it on Cherry. Cherry was the one who said all the dumb sh*t. Had Cherry kept his mouth shut, Maclean wouldn't be in trouble. I'd be pissed at Cherry too if I was Maclean. Good for him for throwing Cherry under the bus.

Which is fine, but what he said was clearly inappropriate and hurts Sportsnet's brand. So its natural that he would be fired. Cherry is not entitled to a platform.

Disagree. MacLean owned his complicity and apologized. He dealt with it like Cherry should have. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if MacLean didn't even realize what Cherry had said. I can imagine its difficult to sit next to Cherry and never zone out and pretend like you were listening to the blowhard.

If we were going for equality, Cherry would have said that more Canadians should be buying poppies. Instead he only went after immigrants. That's the problem. Particularly when he had no evidence to substantiate his position.

Stop moving the goal posts. You said Cherry was misinterpreted and Jimmy pointed out why he was not. You then say he should not have caved. If he actually meant all Canadians rather than immigrants, then caving should not have been a problem. The fact he did not apologize or even offer a clarification just supports the position that he was being intentionally anti-immigrant. Cherry screwed up. Whether he did it knowingly or by accident is irrelevant. He deserved to be fired either way.

Actually, he never referenced age. Instead he referenced "you people from over there" which is a clear reference to immigrants. But don't let facts change your narrative.

But it doesn't matter if you think words should not have this much power over people. All you can control is yourself. If you know we live in a culture where words matter and words hurt people, then if the majority of people are good and understand that, then they should be content to be mindful of their words to avoid hurting people. And the "idiots" should understand that they're free to use words to hurt people, but that those people are going to lash out when they get hurt.

Why the hell is it such a big burden to be mindful of what you say? Just don't say divisive things and you won't get hate. If you want to save divisive things, go for it, but don't get butthurt when people call you out for it.

No one is being "thought police". Don's words were crystal clear. "You people" come here and take "our milk and honey". Don clearly created a segregation between people like him (read: non-immigrant Canadian) and people not like him (read: immigrant Canadians) and suggested that it is the immigrants who are not supporting our veterans and buying poppies. 1) There is no evidence to support his claims. 2) The comment is clearly racist. If Don didn't mean what those words clearly say, then he should have been fired anyways because you can't just say sh*t on national television without being mindful of your words. It doesn't matter if Don didn't mean to be racist (which I doubt because he's been racist and misogynistic countless times before this). What Don said WAS racist. And you get fired for saying racist sh*t on national television.

Rebel Media is the Breitbart of Canada.

Hopefully this is a learned lesson for the young team.

Oh captain, my captain.

Feel like you missed the point of my comment. I don't feel any extra sympathy for Brashear as compared to other Timmies employees. Many people that find themselves working at Timmies at Brashear's age have gone to hell and back through their life. However, most of those people did not have the opportunity that he had. To pretend like Brashear should get more sympathy because he lost millions is ridiculous. I have much more sympathy for the single Mom working three minimum wage jobs to make sure her kids can eat three meals a day because Dad walked out and doesn't pay child support. She never had the opportunity that Brashear had. She deserves more sympathy than Brashear. Sure, Brashear has a sad story, but I don't feel bad that he's at Timmies because his life choices have brought him to that. He had life by the balls and he let his grip slip. Now he lives like the rest of us mere mortals. I feel much worse for the people that have never had an option beyond working at Timmies.

I think you're underselling Stecher. Statistically he was our best defender last year. The guy is absolutely a 3/4 defenseman and can fill in on the top pairing if necessary. In my view, our defenseman currently shake out like this: Top Pairing Calibre - Edler, Hughes 2nd Pairing Calibre - Myers, Tanev, Stecher 3rd Pairing/Fringe Calibre - Benn, Fantanberg, Juolevi If we need anything, its either a top pairing defenseman (in case of injury) or more depth guys who can play 3rd pairing spots. However, we do not have the assets to pull in another top pairing guy, nor do we have the roster spots for another depth guy. So the point feels moot.

I agree with you. Particularly since the point of the article is about how far Brashear has fallen. The sad part is that no one feels sorry for the thousands of other Timmies employees that have never had the opportunities in life that Brashear did, yet we're supposed to feel super sympathetic for the guy. I don't get it. The guy blew his chance at a cushy life and now he lives like the vast majority of the population. Welcome to the real world, Brashear.

The law says it's up to the homeowner to figure out the intentions of the criminal because the law views the taking of human life extremely seriously. As it should. Life is far more important than a couple CD's getting stolen out of a vehicle or a diamond ring being stolen. You're also mischaracterizing the law. The law isn't asking you to determine exactly what they're going to do. It asks you to act reasonably. If someone is rummaging through your pop cans, the natural reaction should be to yell "hey, what are you doing on my property" first, rather than shooting them. You say "Of course not.", but in your earlier posts you stated the exact opposite by advocating for a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach on ANY property trespass. If there are circumstances such as someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night by your child's room and they charge at your kid with a weapon, you're going to be clearly within your legal rights to blow the guy away. That is a proportional and reasonable response in the circumstances. There is a reason the law is the way it is. It is designed to maximize human life over issues like property ownership. Sure tweaks can be made, but overall it achieves exactly what the Criminal Code should do which is prioritize human life. I do agree that criminals while committing crimes should have fewer rights than they currently do, but to say they should have no rights is silly. That makes the rest of us no better than them.

Exactly. The definition would need to be a "reasonable person in similar circumstances as the accused" rather than the standard "reasonable person" test. That way it allows the Courts to consider the differences between someone living rurally with no RCMP assistance versus someone living on Hastings Street where there is a cop on every corner.

Yes, it does. The moment there is a legitimate threat of serious bodily harm or death. If Maurice was all the sudden charged by trespassers who were already in the process of stealing from him, then he has legitimate grounds to fear for his bodily safety and has a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death. Sure, he might get taken to Court to explain his actions, but he'd likely be successful in the circumstances. As he should be. But that is a very different set of facts than shooting some random trespasser who wasn't going to do anything to harm a homeowner.