Mont Royale

Can't say I have a second favourite team... just teams that I dislike less than others.

For all the in-game line mix-and-matching that Carbonneau likes to do, he picked an odd game to keep the original lines intact. Guys who didn't come to play like SK, Kovalev, and Tanguay were rewarded with more icetime in the 3rd, while the 4th line languished on the bench. I realize we needed offence, but I think putting Lats (who seemed to be using his body and creating things last night) onto one of the top 3 lines would have been worth trying, considering the others were generating virtually nothing. Anyway, Colin pretty much nailed everything wrong with this team. The lack of focus and urgency better be fixed soon, or this Cup-contending team playing its 100th anniversary season will struggle to make the playoffs. :puke:

Absolutely. He plays the puck well, but sometimes he's just so damn casual (slow) about it, it turns into an adventure. That will improve with experience, one would hope.

There's always been those who wanted a goon, but what I'm reading here is a lot of frustration that our goon can't do his job because nobody wants to fight him and he'd get an instigator penalty if he forces the issue. If anything, that only casts more doubt on whether a goon is relevant for this team, in this league. In an ideal world, I'd like to see a return to the days when teams had a few players who were tough as nails, but could also play the game. John Ferguson would take on anybody, but could also score 20 goals.

Suspicious voting This is mildly amusing.

I never argued that, so I'll assume it's a hypothetical question. Of course the answer is no. I definitely got the impression that you had an anti-American bias because of this and various other posts. Maybe I'm confusing it with an anti-Bush bias (which I have myself). Deterrence is something that can't be proven, that's for sure. To me, it's just something that seems to be self-evident. I mean, if the U.S. can deter an enemy from even placing warheads in a nearby enemy country (Cuba), surely there's a deterrence effect to attacking a friendly neighbouring country.

Myth? Really? I think you are letting an anti-American bias affect your reasoning. I'm not the biggest US fan either, but I try to be a realist. To be clear, when I speak of a deterrent effect, I'm not talking about deterring someone from doing some unauthorized snowshoeing in the Arctic. And although you can cross various countries off the list as having potential to attack Canada at this time, it hasn't always been the case. Would we have been attacked by the Soviets in, say, the 60s if there was an similarly impotent country to our south? Would Japanese aggression found its way to Canada after they were done island-hopping in the 1940s? There were fears of both occurring during those times, and that was with the U.S. there. These possibilities can't be ruled out, although obviously it's purely hypothetical and the absence of the U.S. as a great power would have had unknown impact on the whole geopolitical system. Fact is, attacking Canada is attacking the U.S., and it's suicide. If a country attacked, would the UK, France, or NATO (if the U.S. wasn't in it) save us? Of course not.

I don't believe Chris said we're allies "just" for protection - but that's certainly a benefit to us. It's allowed us to keep our military spending at maintenance levels (if that) - and allowed some of us a holier-than-thou attitude on use of military power (not directed at you). When has anyone ever tried to attack Canada? They haven't - that's the point. The U.S. deterrent is enough. If the U.S. wasn't around, I wonder if anyone would be interested in a industrially-advanced, resource-rich land with poor defences. Hmmm.

Makes sense - beer at the Bell Centre is about the same price as a good hat... People should put something in their hats to weigh them down, so they go further. Like a can of beer.

Considering the environment of isolationism at the time, FDR provided support to Britain beyond all reasonable expectations (and at considerable political risk). Now there was GREAT president.

Very good - considering I wasn't expecting any suspension because there was no injury. It was a cowardly act, and an obvious intent to injure.

Not sure - but after seeing all those lyrics, I'm glad they do the short version before hockey games!

I know they weren't about to take over the country (not sure that criteria is relevant), but the terrorist attacks were a 'serious threat', wouldn't you agree? I, for one, would like the U.S. to continue to be the predominant military and economic power in the world. As much as the last 8 years has reminded us that this power can be abused, the fact is that the era of U.S. (or U.S.-Soviet) hegemony has been relatively free of the large scale conflicts that were (more or less) the norm through to WWII. The possibility of U.S. intervention has undoubtedly been a decisive factor in this. (As an aside, I don't think the suggestion that Obama would do something to undermine his own country's power is very credible.) Bush is justifiably criticized for his predisposition for war, but it shouldn't be ignored that there are safeguards on the power of the presidency, namely Congress. The fact that Congress went along with the Iraq scheme proves the system isn't perfect (and speaks to the hysteria that followed the 9-11 attacks), but it's a system that often works as intended. In the case of military decisions, I think it's preferable to the Canadian system, where a party often has the majority and there is much more expectation of voting with party lines, which puts more power in the hands of a single individual.

It was definitely a malicious hit. I agree that the NHL isn't likely to do anthing on that one, but if they did, they should also look at the butt-end. One begat the other.

I don't know if the situation called for BGL or not. In that case, the Habs are damned either way. There was no corresponding heavyweight on the Leafs to make a statement with. 2 of the goalie interference penalties were on the mild side, and were penalized appropriately. The main guy who deserved a shit-kicking (Grabovski) is so far out of BGL's weightclass that it would be laughable, and the Habs would be criticized if BGL went after him (although I personally wouldn't have minded, after seeing the buttend on Price). I liked the acquisition of BGL, but should he play at all in these kinds of games? The Leafs' lineup generally and this game in particular were better suited for a middleweight, but unfortunately Kostopolous' night didn't last long.

I'd be willing to forgive last night's indifferent performance if they embarrass the Leafs tonight. I'm very reasonable that way.

Balsillie rep denies it too

I really hope Gillette doesn't sell - and going by the denials, we have nothing to worry about. However, if he does, we could do worse than Balsillie, who has a bottomless pit of money and is probably only looking to add 'Stanley Cup winner' to his already-impressive list of achievements. My only worry would be that he would treat the Habs as his plaything. As a habs fan and hockey player himself, he may be tempted to insert himself into the operations of the team, and make hockey decisions to the detriment of the team and the alienation of Gainey. That's something that Gillette seems to understand is best left to the pros. But all this is highly unlikely anyway.

If it were that easy to be inspiring, more people would be. I'm not necessarily referring to the people physically present at the rallies; a lot of people were inspired just watching it on TV. Yes, I agree it's not solely about the message, but how it's conveyed... as I said, his conviction in delivering the message. It's why Obama ended up being rated so high in integrity without a long track record to back it up - people just believe him by how he speaks. Or, along those same lines: "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made." Jean Giraudoux, French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist Powerful oratory can move mountains. It's a gift - JFK had it, Lincoln had it, Churchill had it, and Hitler* had it. Obama has it too. (*Disclaimer: comparisons of Hitler to the others do not extend beyond public speaking skills!)

I think it more has to do with Barack Obama himself. Even in US politics, it's not often that someone comes along and captures the imagination of people like he did. There are many who were popular and respected, but perhaps the kind of connection that people have felt toward a charismatic candidate may have last occurred with JFK, at the federal level at least - though some may argue Clinton came close. It's happened in Canada as well: Trudeau-mania swept the nation in '68! It's one thing to listen to a candidate state his policies and talk about change, but it's quite another to really believe and be inspired by his conviction as he does it. That's a rare occurrence. Obama's gift of oratory has been his greatest asset so far.

Price, then Halak. Backups face the Leafs, per league rules.

Just curious of your opinion of Palin now, with the benefit of hindsight of the campaign.

Congratulations, Obama and his supporters! Congratulations, America!

The socialists are feeling confident - they're starting to get lippy.

E-Day has arrived. Predictions?