| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
On November 12 2019 06:22 BigFan wrote: I mean, what did he expect after he went over the edge? he watched Greg Zaun get the axe... so this could've been planned on his part. previously, he said only the french wear visors. the problem was , statistically speaking , he was correct at the time. French players wore visors at 2.5X the rate of non-french players. so he skated on that one. | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 12 2019 06:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: he watched Greg Zaun get the axe... so this could've been planned on his part. previously, he said only the french wear visors. the problem was , statistically speaking , he was correct at the time. French players wore visors at 2.5X the rate of non-french players. so he skated on that one. He also claimed that the players wearing visors high-sticked more which wasn't true. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32755 Posts
While it isn't the acerbic rant against immigrants as some have portrayed it as, I think it was definitely an unwise slip of the tongue for what would have been otherwise just another "Support the troops" spiel. Saying "... they come here, whatever it is" was unnecessary, as was implying that those same people were ungrateful for "our milk and honey" because they don't chip in a few dollars for a poppy. I get that he might have got caught up in the moment and I wouldn't have minded the thing otherwise, but implying that people from outside the country aren't adapting to the way of life and are ingrates for not buying a poppy is just bullcrap to me. I don't feel I have to gauge respect for Canada and the veterans off of poppies. Was it racist or anti-immigrant? I disagree with those claims, but it was exclusionary hot air because he can't get over the idea that not everyone agrees with his sentiment over poppies. I've read they were looking to can Cherry for a while anyways so this was a convenient catalyst for that. I'm sure he has a good career ahead of him as a Toronto Sun columnist anyways. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
On November 12 2019 14:34 PhoenixVoid wrote: I've read they were looking to can Cherry for a while anyways so this was a convenient catalyst for that. I'm sure he has a good career ahead of him as a Toronto Sun columnist anyways. there may be some people at SportsNet//Rogers who wanted Don gone. Don stated who was told not to say anything about it right after it happened. Hurricane Hazel came out in support of Cherry. Some government guy was on CBC saying we need to do a better job of educating immigrants about Canada's place in world history. Sportsnet//Rogers is bungling this thing badly. Ever since they signed that giant $5+ Billion NHL rights deal Rogers has been "shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic" with constant changes. Sportsnet is going to take a beating for this thing. Maybe the anti-Cherry faction within Sportsnet feel like they won the battle. Sportsnet is about to lose the war. EDIT : According to Don: he was instructed not to say anything for 2 days. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6600 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
On November 13 2019 21:41 OmniEulogy wrote: Yeah pretty much agree with both of you on this. The message he was trying to send was fine, his messaging was off but even then I think it only sounded as bad as it did because he can't finish a sentence and changes what he's saying three times in under a second. I genuinely think his "you people" comment to start it off was directed at people who weren't wearing poppies and then it curved straight into his immigrant rant and made it way worse lol Recently, J. J. Redick was vilified for saying the half syllable "che" at the wrong part of a sentence. Of course, this is 100% proof he hates China and Chinese people right? LOL. Apparently, 50 years ago people were playing Led Zeppelin songs backwards searching for satanic messages. They were trying to get Led Zeppelin banned. J. J. Redick and Don Cherry are getting the Led Zeppelin treatment.  EDIT: Raptors superfan Nav Bhatia is now supporting Don Cherry. My grandma drives a Hyundai. He is selling her the next car she buys right now at the Don Cherry Rally. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
any one know what "2% of GDP" is in metric? LOL. Justin, like his dad, loves to alter the terms of a debate. He is trying to move away from the "2% of GDP" catch phrase. He wants to make it look like Canada is a strong autonomous country making an independent decision to enhance the strength of its military. The reality is Justin's Uncle Sam ordered him to increase military spending to 2% of GDP. Justin will end up doing what his Uncle Sam is telling him to do. IMO, Internal/Canadian messaging will continue to avoid expressing the increase in military spending as a % of GDP. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
On December 05 2019 02:57 CorsairHero wrote: nobody cares tbh i got quite a lengthy debate about how Justin expresses the increase in his miltary spending in the USA politics thread. The way leaders from Canada and the USA are fumbling over continued questions about it... I'd say someone cares. One of the questions asked if Justin was going to apologize to Trump.. that was pretty hilarious. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
Its also something we have been underpaying under Nato agreements. Which the US was more than happy to allow everyone else to do for whatever geo political leverage they were getting or thought they were getting. If the agreements says thats what Countries should do then thats what they should do. Im ok with this. Drumpf and his 4% can summarily fuck off and Im pretty sure thats what the leadership will indicate through policy. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
Military spending is a giant black hole and whatever you give, they will spend. So in that sense everything is 'needed' and more is always necessary. But post-Cold War, a reasonable case could be made that 2% of everyone's GDP is simply unnecessary. Whereas, if you are expecting the Russkis to march across the border at any moment that certainly makes a lot more sense. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On December 05 2019 11:09 JimmiC wrote: Sadly we may be returning to a time when it is more necessary, I was reading how Russia is upping its presence in the Arctic so Norway is upping its spending and its monitoring, they are also doing exercises with the US to get them ready for any possible arctic warfare. Given our proximity to Russia and claims to the Arctic we may soon be in the same boat. I guess we have Alaska there to help shield us but at some point that might not be enough. I would rather we spend as little as possible to almost none on the military, however I'm not sure that is realistic given the current global climate. Also, given how volatile our southern neighbor has become relying on them is probably not the best plan either. I mean, sure, but what are the chances that Russia will actually make a move any time soon? This is not the soviet union and as strong as Russia can be, I can't see them doing anything in the upcoming years. From my perspective, spend as little on the military as possible (within reason of course) and use the rest to bolster the welfare of the citizens. Happy citizens, more of them working, more money, tax whatever etc... People will be also more willing to volunteer for the army imo. You might be asking, well, how does that work? Workplace sickness which can have many factors, including stress causes a lot of money to be lost yearly. That's an interesting thing that can be tackled imo and would help the country immensely. Then with more money, the military can get more funding etc... Of course, there are flaws with this idea, but this is a general way of looking at it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On December 05 2019 10:50 Falling wrote: I understand tying payments to GDP allows countries to pay more or less depending on whether they have good or bad years economically. However, there seems to be no good way to simply determine that budget can be less overall. (Besides shirking your commitment.) Military spending is a giant black hole and whatever you give, they will spend. So in that sense everything is 'needed' and more is always necessary. But post-Cold War, a reasonable case could be made that 2% of everyone's GDP is simply unnecessary. Whereas, if you are expecting the Russkis to march across the border at any moment that certainly makes a lot more sense. In the case of Canada the military spending being a black hole us untrue, the DND material support group. The department that imports and exports everything for them runs through my system. It is routinely under budget. That's unfortunately as much as I can say. As for whether 2% is unnecessary, yeah it probably is but then the agreement needs to reflect that and that's fine too. Making the case doesn't mean shit in this world and it shouldnt, get it in writing, signoff on it. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On December 06 2019 03:05 Falling wrote: I don't mean that in Canada defence spending is a blackhole- we've not put serious money into it for some time. (That's a time-honoured Canadian joke these last few decades.) I mean as a category, it's a black hole. There's always more equipment you could spend on, and it's not so obvious when enough is enough. That could be said for literally anything .. when is it obvious that healthcare spending or education or anything else is enough ? And if there are ways to find whats obvious elsewhere I would hazard a guess that whatever concept you apply to other forms of Govt spending would be roughly translatable there. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On December 05 2019 12:26 JimmiC wrote: Im certainly on board, but when they took over Crimean things changed. I dont think anyone thought they would do either. I think I would still rather spend as little as possible, but I do think the global climate is changing China is also flexing a lot more and the USA is far more of a wild card then it was in the past. Taking over Crimea is totally different from trying to lay claim to an area outside their reach (by comparison). | ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Rogue vs Classic
Patches Events
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
IntoTheTV X SOOP
herO vs Rogue
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
