Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bacchus

  1. I just don't see how he has a place on the current roster.

    Who of the top 6 forwards is he considerably better than?

    Remember, we are talking about in 1.5 years from now. Who knows who will still be with us then; who knows how good Perogie will be. Maybe Kovalev will retire, maybe Ryder will be gone, maybe we will suffer a serious career ending injury up front. Just because we aren't clairvoyant doesn't mean we should close the door on the possibility.

  2. he sells rumors (that will likely never happen)

    This sums up Ekland perfectly. He is worse than a high school gossip, but obviously there are enough people with their ear to the ground on this.

    Because of his huge strike out percentage, I avoid his site. I much prefer spector, who posts rumours from more legitimate sources!

    I really don't get the McDonald Weight deal, unless the prospect their way is a diamond in the rough!

  3. That's between Gainey and Koivu ... and apparently a few thousand garrulous fools!

    Keep spinning your wheels in aimless chatter :clap: If you talk about enough things often enough, eventually you will be right a few times; hope it makes you as happy as a broken clock!

  4. Canada is the biggest joke of a country on the planet. You supposedly hate America but your fetish with the dollar is psychotic. You critize america but then omg its the end of the world if i don't shop in the states. pathetic. You all hate each other, french hate everyone who doesn't look white and not speak french, english speakers hate the french and just ignore them bitching about bi-lingual labels. You sell out to the Americans. You are weak, you need to grow a back bone and stand up for yourself and not be Bush's henchman. At this point with this government, and you're push towards oblivion you don't deserve to be a country. When the only thing that binds you together is hate towards one country, you will fall apart.

    I don't know who's more insane at this point, Harper supporters who think he's Jesus and the messiah and the greatest thing ever, or Bush idiots.

    And to make Canada even more ridiculous, who are the big 3 deniers now. Howard, Harper, Bush. Howard will be gone after we wake up, the new guy said climate change will be his govt's first action. Bush will be gone by the end of year. Canada you're all alone on this, the train has left the station. You're all alone, the rest of the world says: fine.

    Whoever wrote this is any idiot who doesn't deserve a reasonable response. They should get off of their soap-box before writing if they expect to be taken seriously.

  5. Happy with the team so far, and most of the players ... although I think it is too early to be getting unhappy with certain players ... patience ... it is a long season, and some of those guys your happy about may go through a slump yet, while the ones your unhappy with may start lighting it up.

    In fact, the only thing I am unhappy with right now is the title of your thread ... can people please start being less ambiguous with their titles?!?

  6. There are plenty of programs in place to help people in need. Most of them are designed to keep people reliant on them unfortunately...but that's an argument for another thread. To argue that western society at large is not trying to help people out of distressing socio-economic problems is absolutely pointless...the fact is that there are literally THOUSANDS of government programs to help these people. Despite that there will always be a poor segment of society...might have something to do with the fact that the Canadian government sets a poverty line based on a percent of income rather then based on an income vs. needs. As such there will always be a large segment of "poor". Again, I'll refrain from that tangent here. Policing a demographic that has higher rates of crime is NOT a band-aid solution...the police are not there to be a solution to helping people get out of their economic problems. They are there to find criminals and prevent crime. They are enforcing the law. If you want a solution then look to the government to stop handing out programs that create generations of people to rely on them...give people hand ups instead of hand outs like most of the programs we have.

    How does policing this type of demographic "profit" people who benefit from an unlevel playing field? I could easily argue that there is a LARGE portion of people who profit from the very programs that are allegedly in place to help them. Take a guess at how many people in this country are employed by the Employment Insurance division of government...I'll give you a hint...it's well over 20,000 people. Might be over 30,000 now. There's a reason people refer to things like the "homeless industry"...because there are a lot of people/charities/"non-profit organizations making a LOT of money keeping the status quo in these demographics. If you want an actual solution you should look to improving these programs. The police are there to solve crime and prevent crime. Since crime typically occurs in the poorer demographic then they should certainly spend more resources in these areas. It also happens that these areas are minority areas. It shouldn't be about race...as I said the Irish, Italians, French, Native Americans, Jews, and more have all experienced life in the poor, high crime, demographic over the centuries. However, now we have a large left wing contingent who demand retribution in the form of programs and money that they dole out and keep people dependant for long periods of time...rather then putting in programs that would help build community and help people take steps forward. They've created a generational sense of entitlement to a group of people who are poor...but profiling a poor demographic with high levels of crime is the problem?

    I also never claimed any 'reasonable accomodations' have been made for anglos. I'm of french background but I'm about as english as you can get since I group up in Ontario. Hey, I know full well the racism that pervades Quebec in regards to Native Canadians and the anglo population. However, I do think Quebec has generally been more willing to let people be until the last 20 years or so. Protecting your culture is a personal thing...always should have been. But the minority should not impose it's will on the majority...that's how I've taken some of the issues in this small Quebec town. Minority religions should not feel entitled to forcing a majority to change...much like the majority shouldn't feel a hockey player should be forced to speak a language...just idiocy. Let people be what they want, how they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on how you live your life.

    I think you misunderstand me. When we are talking about "racial profiling" and larger percents of certain populations being imprisoned, we aren't really talking about Canada. We're talking about the US. Although it may not be equal across the board, crime is spread much more evenly between cultures than it is in the US.

    Also, I wasn't talking about hand-outs from the government, but real shifts towards better education, less of a gap between the poor and the rich, etc. etc. These are the real issues ... not hand outs and such.

    Yes, Quebec has become way more racist recently. Also, it isn't about the minority enforcing its will on the majority; but rather the majority ought to respect the rights of the minority.

    Now this is where the interesting part of "Reasonable Accommodation" comes in to play. How far do you accommodate other nationalities and ethnicities? Well, I think it is reasonable to say that you accommodate them as long as you do not have to alter your laws to accommodate them. When a people come to your country they ought to accept the way things are done in their new home. When you come to someone's house you ought to play by their rules. However, you shouldn't MAKE new rules in order to NOT accommodate them, like bill 101 and the language law that specifically targeted Anglos.

    Now, the debate really gets interesting in Quebec, because there are two groups who did not immigrate here, but who are being discriminated against: Native Americans (who were here well before the French), and English (who won Quebec from France in 1759. These two groups should not be considered in "Reasonable Accommodation", and we should have our full rights to practice as we have always practiced, and continue to want to practice. These groups, at different times, accommodated the French to varying degrees.

    I understand fully when people get upset about a student coming to school with a knife. This is illegal in Canada, and has been for years. If someone wants to practice their culture to the nth degree, they should go back to their country of origin. However, if they are willing to adapt to the pre-existing laws, or at least the spirit of these pre-existing laws (which forbids the bearing of weapons in schools), then there really shouldn't be an issue.

  7. It seems incredibly dense to argue that you shouldn't profile a demographic because they are a "victim" of their environment. If being in that environment pushes more people into a life of crime then that segment should be profiled.

    That's silly. If the environment facilitates more people of a certain demographic to engage in criminal activities, then the environment should be changes so that people are no longer "pushed" in to a life of crime. If we accept the fact that criminals are often made by society, then society should take steps to eradicate the process by which they are made, not keep an eye on them to make sure they don't do bad things. The later is a band-aid solution, which avoids the problem, and only serves to benefit those who profit from the unleveled playing field.

    BTW, just because something has been done in the past doesn't mean it is justifiable.

    Also, many of you have been arguing for a certain restrained racial profiling. Here is some breaking news ... the people that actually are on the front-lines of using racial profiling very often are lacking the restrain and wherewithal to actually keep it in check.

    Having said all of this, I don't agree with the hard line "reasonable accomodation" arguments being debated in Quebec. I find it very counter to what French culture actually has stood for in the past. I always looked at Quebec with admiration over the way they've often embraced aspects of other cultures...Jackie Robinson anyone?

    You mustn't be English ... I don't think that reasonable accommodations have been made for Anglos all the time. I grew up under bill 101, language laws, and other restrictive policies that basically targeted Anglos. I have seen huge Chinese signs on Montreal with very little in the way of French translation in even large font .... yet try and do that in English.

    I agree with you. In many ways Quebec has been very tolerant, and accepting of other cultures ... but they have also been very intolerant. I am still very shocked when I hear the way some Quebeckers refer to Native Americans. There is a lot of Franco intelligentsia who are embarrassed about this trend in Quebec, just in case you thought I was a reactionary left winger Anglo.

  • Create New...