[GDT] Vancouver Canucks vs. Vegas Golden Knights | August 29th, 2020 | 6:45pm PT, SNP | R2G3

[luckylager]

6 minutes ago, Whalespray said:

 

6 minutes ago, Whalespray said:

Stuff white Canadians say. 

I dont deny my privilege 

 

I was born a white male on Vancouver Island.

I acknowledge I'm one of the luckiest people alive.

 

But unless you're FN or a POC living in the USA, you can pretty much shut the &^@# up.

 

[RWMc1]

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by RWMc1

[GhostsOf1994]

18 minutes ago, Quinn Skates said:

You might hate Shapiro but if you're for looking for facts, this breakdown helps. Reason over emotion guys.

 

Huh?

[Kevin Biestra]

4 minutes ago, luckylager said:

I dont deny my privilege 

 

I was born a white male on Vancouver Island.

I acknowledge I'm one of the luckiest people alive.

 

But unless you're FN or a POC living in the USA, you can pretty much shut the &^@# up.

 

No, everybody is allowed to have an opinion and allowed to state it publicly.  White people have good opinions and bad ones.  FN and POC have good opinions and bad ones.  If you don't even allow certain groups to talk then good and bad opinions don't get tested against each other or against reality.

 

Keep in mind that your policy would have basically told Abraham Lincoln to just STFU during the Civil War.

[oldnews]

37 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

It's so ironic to bring up marxism now, as we see the sad state of capitalism under attack today. Cartels and lobbyists are the real danger to western democracy. Politicians are gorging at the trough selling out to the highest bidders. Hi NRA. I remember reading about 'Marxism' as the boogeyman of the west. But lobbyists and big oil and big pharma run the government now. And Trump is their front man. And he loves being front and center of this gong show. And now he's on the verge of wiping out voting rights? He's the master of creating havoc and distraction. The sooner he's gone the better for us all.

it's hard to argue with any of that - and at the same timel is there anything new about it?

the daily side-show might be a new development in the social media age, but otherwise...

 

whenever I'm inclined to waste some of my time surfing CNN or MSN, I can't help but notice the wall to wall pharma-push - virtually every commercial break - pharma pushers.

 

There was a time when they - CNN/MSN had no evident/apparent affiliation - they were simply state-media - apologists and agents (as Faux news are presently) every bit as embedded and cow-tow to the Republican party, the Bush presidencies  - as they were and are the Democrats in the present.   The Democrats represent no break from big pharma, no break from corporate lobbyism, and someone will have to help me understand the big break they made from big oil.

 

Obama - if we're real here - expanded presidential power when he could have / should have (if we're naive) done otherwise, and has effectively enabled his predecessor in the process. 

He didn't appear to have a problem expanding the US' global policing and surveillance network - it's difficult to detect any real break with business as usual in the United States during his presidency - it sure looked and looks like continuity in general.

 

And now, the option people are supposed to embrace - is another round with his vice president.  Same old same old.

America can't really vote their way out of their problems.   They are going to have to bring 'democracy' into both those parties -  those people within are the ones to do it - not their opponents, pointing what-about fingers accross at each other, endlessly - and effectively escalating the erosion of rights on both sides.  That, or build a third party, non-partisan, capable of rebalancing that tire fire.

[JustRich]

7 minutes ago, luckylager said:

 

 

I was born a white male on Vancouver Island.

 

 

Ah, that explains the handle.  I lived in the CV for awhile, sure is a popular  beer amongst the locals.

[luckylager]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

No, everybody is allowed to have an opinion and allowed to state it publicly.  White people have good opinions and bad ones.  FN and POC have good opinions and bad ones.  If you don't even allow certain groups to talk then good and bad opinions don't get tested against each other or against reality.

 

Keep in mind that your policy would have basically told Abraham Lincoln to just STFU during the Civil War.

Not even close.

"Stuff white people say" is not even remotely close to something Ol Abe would have said when responding to a post informing people of their Charter Rights.

Unless you think Abe would spit on people for knowing and understanding their personal freedoms.

 

Hmmm

[Kevin Biestra]

2 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Not even close.

"Stuff white people say" is not even remotely close to something Ol Abe would have said when responding to a post informing people of their Charter Rights.

Unless you think Abe would spit on people for knowing and understanding their personal freedoms.

 

Hmmm

 

How would you even know what Ol Abe, or any of these other white people you are grouping together, would say if you aren't even going to let any of them talk in the first place.

[oldnews]

12 minutes ago, Pete M said:

A few games ago, Makar wasn't even in the picture....where did he come from, unreal!

 

ago, Makar wasn't

Heiskanen is 21

Hughes is 20

Makar is 21

 

Theodore is the eldest of those top 4 - at 25 yrs old.

 

That's quite the young rush of top end pmd.

 

 

[JeremyCuddles]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Are we sure that's not his stomach that's rumbling? 

Stomach rumbling cause he about to let out more verbal BS. Someone needs to do us all a favor get a diaper for his face.

[luckylager]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

How would you even know what Ol Abe, or any of these other white people you are grouping together, would say if you aren't even going to let any of them talk in the first place.

Ridiculous

Did you even read the posts leading up to you engaging me or are you just looking for conflict?

Really coming off as a drama queen, begging for attention because you can overreact to a post without acknowledging its context.

 

Be honest here - if someone writes a post that isn't derogatory and outlines some of your fundamental rights, would you find it acceptable to reply with "Stuff white people say"

 

That said, if he is FN than he has every right to say that to me. The First Nations have been the victims of institutionalized genocide, rape, torture, slavery, kidnapping ... the list goes on and on. It's disgusting what the Crown and canadian government have done to the first canadians for hundreds of years.

So there is that, and I did leave the door open in that regard.

[oldnews]

10 minutes ago, FilthyRich said:

Ah, that explains the handle.  I lived in the CV for awhile, sure is a popular  beer amongst the locals.

 

when I first arrived in Courtenay - my first house party - the guys that would eventually be my best friends - confiscated my beer and replaced it with an option between Kokanee and Lucky.

I took the Kokanee, of course, but eventually was 'converted' / drank a lot of Lucky.  Not sure I ever particularly liked it, but it was cheap, it wasn't that bad and it tasted better after the first few.

we used to "red eye" it a lot - run an ounce or two of tomato juice down the side, slam it and the last and pretty much only thing you tasted was the tomato juice - it was that good.

[Kevin Biestra]

1 minute ago, luckylager said:

Ridiculous

Did you even read the posts leading up to you engaging me or are you just looking for conflict?

Really coming off as a drama queen, begging for attention because you can overreact to a post without acknowledging its context.

 

Be honest here - if someone writes a post that isn't derogatory and outlines some of your fundamental rights, would you find it acceptable to reply with "Stuff white people say"

 

That said, if he is FN than he has every right to say that to me. The First Nations have been the victims of institutionalized genocide, rape, torture, slavery, kidnapping ... the list goes on and on. It's disgusting what the Crown and canadian government have done to the first canadians for hundreds of years.

So there is that, and I did leave the door open in that regard.

 

How on earth could anyone read my two replies to you and walk away with "drama queen" or anything of the sort.  I stated things very plainly and calmly and you've escalated to drama and projected it onto me.

 

Looking for conflict?  No, I am not.  But what you stated should be the case, segregating who is allowed to state opinions about anything based on racial segregation, is an automatic point of disagreement.

 

Begging for attention?  Again, how would anyone walk away with that conclusion.  I think you are perhaps projecting onto me again.

 

You ask for an honest response to this question of yours...  "if someone writes a post that isn't derogatory and outlines some of your fundamental rights, would you find it acceptable to reply with 'Stuff white people say'"

 

My answer...  It would be acceptable to state that opinion out loud, sure, but I don't think it's the right response.  Are you suggesting that there aren't black lawyers, black policy makers, black policemen and other black people educated on their rights who would also do their best to educate others, black or otherwise, about their rights?

 

You seem to be going hard in the paint to make sure we all understand you're pro black and care about black lives, and that's good.  But how much do you really respect black people if you don't seem to expect a black person to develop opinions or positions that can withstand scrutiny or debate?

 

 

 

[luckylager]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

How on earth could anyone read my two replies to you and walk away with "drama queen" or anything of the sort.  I stated things very plainly and calmly and you've escalated to drama and projected it onto me.

 

Looking for conflict?  No, I am not.  But what you stated should be the case, segregating who is allowed to state opinions about anything based on racial segregation, is an automatic point of disagreement.

 

Begging for attention?  Again, how would anyone walk away with that conclusion.  I think you are perhaps projecting onto me again.

 

You ask for an honest response to this question of yours...  "if someone writes a post that isn't derogatory and outlines some of your fundamental rights, would you find it acceptable to reply with 'Stuff white people say'"

 

My answer...  It would be acceptable to state that opinion out loud, sure, but I don't think it's the right response.  Are you suggesting that there aren't black lawyers, black policy makers, black policemen and other black people educated on their rights who would also do their best to educate others, black or otherwise, about their rights?

 

You seem to be going hard in the paint to make sure we all understand you're pro black and care about black lives, and that's good.  But how much do you really respect black people if you don't seem to expect a black person to develop opinions or positions that can withstand scrutiny or debate?

 

 

 

Ken, that's a strawman, doesn't represent the actual context of anything that's actually happened in the conversation, is an overreaction and very extremist in nature.

 

I think you need a break.

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, UKNuck96 said:

I’m splitting hairs on a tangent here but - There is a growing belief that the celts did not exist, and even if you were to group together a Celtic area it did not reach England or Ireland.

 

also it would be Germanic and not German hybrid to be more accurate as it would have been the northern Germanic tribes which formed the Saxons, angles and jutes, and then later the Danes (England and southern Scotland) and Norwegian (Scottish isles and western Scotland (which incidentally was ruled  by the Norwegians until the 13th century.

 

also in regards to Romans in Germany- very small areas of present day Germany were roman occupied, Norway was never occupied by romans however there is evidence that some of the auxiliaries from the Rhine frontier may have settled there after their service but primarily it would have been a trading partner for iron ore. 
 

Norway was not occupied by the Catholic Church nor invaded by it. It was converted from within and through wider exposure to the Christian world (primarily Britain) 

 

also British didn’t become junior romans - the concept of roman citizenship was different to how we view countries today. A big part of how Rome succeeded was cultural probably even more so that militarily. They assimilated the local cultures and eventually transplanted it in most areas, so calling Britain junior romans is a misunderstanding of what Rome was. 

 

the point about Rome and race is a good one, but at the same time also a misnomer. Britain had a black governor Urbinus, and their were black emperors, however the majority of the populations under Rome would have stayed local to where they were born, the social elites would have had a larger level of mobility around the empire as would have those in the military (which is why there were a significant number of black soldiers around the Carlisle area in England during this period and beyond) 

 

Also The below statement is unfortunately not as true as many believe. While there were some outcasts and those looking for a better life that come to the USA, and this has borne out over waves of successive generations, the 13 colonies were essentially private charters.

 

 

 

1) "we" for the most part - are the "tortured children of Europe".  "We" endured atrocities and occupation - and we also, in some places threw that occupation off - however, "we've" brought the spoils of that with us - and like the junior Romans that the British became, "we've" transplanted that to North America, this time, ourselves the disrespectful occupying force. 
 

unfortunately I think the nature of America and the believe and perpetuation of it being a frontier country is partially responsible for the situation today.

 

back in 1763 the proclamation line was brought in to try and avoid bloodshed between Britain, the colonies and the native tribes. However there was a them vs us mentality and with the greed of land owners and the social elite looking to expand their land holdings (especially in Virginia (and including George Washington)) they antagonised and raised across it.

 

the USA has been built on money, greed and wealth (tbh most states probably have) but because it has not gone through what most other nations have with elites being replaced or transplanted due to war, invasion, revolution it has never had the break of the entrenchment of one group of power for another, which may alter the fabric and societal construct. 
 

today a narrative of them vs us still exist within the USA. Rather then dealing with this for well over a century they have created systems that protect the elite, which due to the makeup of their society is inherently white. 

I'm not going to argue all that debatable "splitting hairs" as you say / take on the history of Roman occupation -  RCC presence in Europe or the scope of the Roman Catholic church dictating international law - to the Christian sovereigns - for centuries.

 

 

The Royal Proclamation is an important document in Canadian constitutional law and history as well.

 

It makes a very critical distinction - between lands reserved for bands, and lands reserved to the Nations.

 

Before   in the absence of a treaty - those words - reserved to - indicate the reality of the relationship - beyong the treaty frontier - which in large part what is called British Columbia remains.

 

Essentially - you had the Papal Bulls - which debated the humanity of Natives for 42 years post-contact - resolved in 1535 - to have souls and therefore = human.   Those Papal Bulls - were international law - and bound the Christain Sovereigns of Europe.

 

The Province of B.C. and Canada has a hard time dealing with the reality of the international and constitutional law ever since.   The Province abandoned the Douglas treaty process - under Governor Seymour, who essentially attempted to reverse the Papal Bull of 1535. 

 

Until they've treatied with the Nations, their jurisdiction and land title are not legitimized.  That's where "we've" been for quite some time.

 

The federal government, is obviously, very aware of the implications of an actual Nation to Nation treaty process - so they've gone underground, and devolved their responsibilty to the Province. 

What they attempt, instead, is a fraudulent treaty process - to negotiate between the Province (not a Nation) to Indian Act Band Councils (applying Indian Acts outside/beyond the treaty frontier -  where those lands reserved to the Nations, and their governance, are effectively outside the jurisdiction - and land title of the Province and Federal Government.

The irony - this is not the "law" of Natives, radicals, pr freedom fighters, etc - it's Canada's own Constitutional law - and the international law that underlies / derives from the Christian Sovereigns that were bound by the Roman Empire / Bulls of the Popes,  and the British Empire / colonial law.

The Province and Federal Government like to pretend they've already extinguished these rights - however they also know that they need to create a process to do so.

 

"We'll" be a better country once 'we've' redressed this properly.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by oldnews

[wai_lai416]

6 hours ago, Googlie said:

Vegas will be no-shows for the second back-to-back?

would be nice. i mean this extra 2 days break is good for the canucks but the 2 back to back if we get there will be huge advantage to vegas.. they barely played any games

[CanucksBachelor]

honestly I hope managment and the ownership comes down hard on players for skipping work and refusing to play..this is not a democracy, nhl is a business.. you don't get to "choose" when you come into work..

 

Clear guidelines are set, just like any other professional environment. You don't show up for work one day you'll get fired or heavily reprimanded.. owners dominate not the players, let's not set a bad precedent here.

[Kevin Biestra]

7 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Ken, that's a strawman, doesn't represent the actual context of anything that's actually happened in the conversation, is an overreaction and very extremist in nature.

 

I think you need a break.

 

All right, in a conversation of what...three messages where I've written everything calmly and plainly and impersonally, I've received the following in reply...

 

"drama queen"

"looking for conflict"

"overreaction"

"extremist"

"strawman"

"begging for attention"

 

All unprovoked.  Are you sure it's me that needs a break?  As I cautioned earlier, you may be projecting.

[Chicken.]

4 minutes ago, CanucksBachelor said:

honestly I hope managment and the ownership comes down hard on players for skipping work and refusing to play..this is not a democracy, nhl is a business.. you don't get to "choose" when you come into work..

 

Clear guidelines are set, just like any other professional environment. You don't show up for work one day you'll get fired or heavily reprimanded.. owners dominate not the players, let's not set a bad precedent here.

Unions are a powerful drug... 

[JustRich]

1 hour ago, Pete M said:

A few games ago, Makar wasn't even in the picture....where did he come from, unreal!

 

ago, Makar wasn't

Man I hope we meet the Avs in the third round.  It's going to make for some sick-ass hockey!