Mont Royale
-
Posts
1437 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mont Royale
-
-
Canadians are getting more nervous about the economy, and Harper will be taking the blame (whether it makes sense or not).
-
The debate last night didn't seem to have any knock-out punches from what I saw, so this favours the front-runner, Obama. The dynamic between the 2 candidates was interesting, with McCain apparently trying to make up ground by repeatedly attacking Obama's voting record and policies. This somewhat drew Obama to retaliate in kind, but I could tell he was trying to stick with his strategy of ignoring the attacks and describing his policies. This must be the standard front-runner strategy, because Harper did the same thing in the Canadian debates.
IMO, the impression that each candidate left on the audience/viewers was quite different: Obama spoke eloquently (although the delivery was somewhat disjointed at times, which I've never noticed from him before) and in greater detail than one usually sees in a debate, which often is reduced to who can get the best sound bite. The conventional wisdom is that a politician should avoid talking over the level of his audience, so this may not work in his favour (i.e. he will risk being seen as elitist or an intellectual - horrors!). However, I've always thought voters were smarter than they're given credit for (although I was sorely tempted to revise this opinion after Bush's re-election
). McCain did well in his strategy of attacking Obama and contrasting their policies, and used more 'straight talk' (if that's what the pundits call it). I found him rather patronizing though, constantly saying "my friends, ..." and smiling while delivering barbs to Obama. -
they basically have relocated the Bills there. 4 home games in TO, right? That's half the damn home schedule!
No, it's 8 games over 5 years. 3 are pre-season games ('08,'10, '12), and one regular season game per year.
-
1 row from the glass 160$
Interested?
Nah, can't do it for that price. My budget is more suited to 1 row from the roof.
-
I have tickets and hotel room booked.
Really no one is interested?
How much are the tickets?
-
I just voted Liberal....not because I want to see Dion as a PM, but because I'd like to see Harper keep just a minority government.
That's the way I'm leaning, for the exact same reason. I'm somewhat more aligned with the Conservatives' policies, but I don't trust them enough to give them a majority.
-
Then you have to question Harper's judgement of character. If he surrounds himself with liars and cheats, how is that any good?
I guess if you're inclined to vote against Harper, you're going to interpret everything in the most negative way possible. I'm undecided (and leaning Liberal at the moment), but I don't put very much stock in this particular issue. I don't know if you've ever hired staff, but one thing you can never accurately test for is character. You never know what somebody is going to do if they're under deadline and have to get something done. And it's unlikely this guy was hired by Harper himself in any case.
I don't think this is the worst crime that's ever happened. There are many associated with the Liberals who basically stole government money in the sponsorship scandal; that's a bit worse, don't you think?
-
Layton was calm, confident, and professional. If anything, I thought he was almost too polished in his delivery. Anyway, he did well sticking to his key themes and pushing his agenda.
Gilles Duceppe did well enough, and I'm sure somebody cares, but not me.
This was the first time I've seen Elizabeth May in action, and she pleasantly surprised by having something of substance to say on a wide range of topics. On her key issue of the environment, I don't think she succeeded in differentiating herself enough from the Liberal platform to make a major breakthrough, but it was a solid performance that will raise the profile of the Green party.
Harper handled a difficult situation well. Every party leader aimed their rhetoric at him virtually without respite, but he stayed calm and projected that 'prime ministerial' demeanour that he was prepped to. Those looking for substance would have to look elsewhere, as he sticked to broad generalizations and past initiatives rather than identifying a platform for the future.
Stephane Dion had the most interesting and unusual approach. He would often look directly into the camera (instead of at Harper, who was the target) and almost plead for the viewer to give him a chance, to not believe Harper, to understand his policy on a given issue, etc. I can definitely understand why the Conservatives would portray him as a weak leader, since he didn't have the flair, the swagger, the bluntness that we often associate with leadership. On the other hand, he came across to me as the most human and well-meaning of the group.
At the end, I still haven't decided who I'll be voting for, but this debate helped to sharpen my perception of the candidates and where they stand.
-
well, I'm not much for talking about politics on the board... but since I was directly asked:
Yeah, I suppose it wasn't the best approach to call people out, but I didn't want the thread to die a quick death. Thanks to both you and Fanpuck for giving your well thought-out responses. Hopefully we'll get some other perspectives to keep things going.
As far as the polls go, I read that Obama has just under a 6 point lead. I may be wrong, but that doesn't sound very commanding in a 2 party race and the election still a month away. I understand that Obama has the momentum though.
As for McCain, he was my choice all along, for the very reason that he's not a typical Republican. I would say I am pretty conservative, but I think more important than politics right now is unity. I love the fact that he doesn't always tow the party line. It shows me that he actually thinks for himself and is willing to work with the other side. I really believe the only way to get things moving in the right direction in this country is to attack problems together. Instead of Democrats vs. Republicans, it needs to be Americans vs. Problems. I think McCain is a candidate with a chance of doing that, at least to some degree. Just this week he showed that the country is more important than his campaign, when he flew back to Washington to work on the economic bailout bill.Do you really think McCain has a better chance of uniting Americans than Obama? My outsider's perspective is that he might be too tied to the Bush administration, which has divided the country and reduced its influence abroad.
-
So much has happened/is happening in the U.S. election campaign, but we have no 'official' thread to talk about it. I guess this one will do. (Sorry your provoking comments went ignored earlier, zumpano!)
As an interested observer, I'd like to hear the opinions of other members on the candidates, especially those in the U.S. (but not only them). So, to get things rolling:
Fanpuck - what do you think of your party's choice of Palin. Seems to me a cynical ploy for votes from disenchanted Clinton supporters. What do you think of McCain, for that matter (I ask because apparently he isn't a favourite of conservative Republicans)?
simonus - how do you feel about Obama's leadership so far? Apparently he has only a slight lead in the polls, despite widespread disapproval of the Bush White House - what do you attribute that to?
Everybody else - join in on these and any other topics you want to bring up. If a certain member was still around, we'd have this thread up to 10 pages by now - most of it nonsense, but at least it would be entertaining reading...
-
Where's the Anything to do with Nothing thread?
Wow - 304 pages before somebody came up with that. (at least I don't think anybody did before, but at 304 pages, who would check?)
-
The cap going down would be really tough on some teams.
I wonder if a reduced cap would drop salaries? I know it would drop the maximum contract allowed but what about market value in general?
Based on the effect a rising cap had on salaries, it can be surmised that a dropping cap would lead to reduced market value.
-
a cap drop would be really, really hard to enact considering how close to the cap many teams are.
I don't think so. I mean, the cap for this year is set. But if it were to drop for next season, every team has expiring contracts, buyouts, waivers, etc. that getting under wouldn't be a big issue. The cap is unlikely to drop so much that it would cause serious problems.
-
and that is why I am so glad that Guy and Bob are running this team. They know what they are doing.
Indeed. There are far too many short-sighted and negative people in the world. Some seem to relish seeing people fail to meet expectations, even if those expectations were unrealistic in the first place.
The only unfortunate part is that Lats seems to be frustrated by this. Hopefully he'll be able to block out the naysayers and just concentrate on continuing to advance his game, hopefully helped by encouraging words from the team's leadership who have been on the receiving end of the same kind of treatment.
-
I would tend to agree, but once again I was trying to think of something that, if submitted to the owners as a proposal, would have a chance to be accepted.
OK, but I thought that criteria was abandoned once Kozed suggested contracting 6 teams.
-
That is why I think the same as Cerebus said. The 3 pts for a regulation win would have been enough to clinch... Rewarding a team with 1 pt for a OT/SO lost is rewarding a good show (at least by the goaler...).
I would distinguish between OT and shootout. OT is real hockey, even at 4 on 4, and a loss is a loss and deserves nothing. (A team can put on a good show in regulation and still lose. There should be no points for showmanship!) The shootout, on the other hand, bears little resemblance to hockey, and the losing team deserves at least one point for playing to a tie in real hockey.
-
5. Call the rules. (clutch and grab, holding, etc) Is it better than the "Trap Era?" Yes. Is it as good as the late 80's? Not even within a million miles.
Enforcing the rules still more won't have a dramatic impact. I'm not sure it's even desirable given the amount of laughable/questionable penalties being called these days; that will only increase.
We'll never go back to the late '80s, because if you watch closely, it wasn't that good. Defensive zone coverage and goaltending technique have improved by leaps and bounds, and is unlikely to regress. Maybe it's just me, but high scoring does not equal good.
-
The Heritage classic? Really? Why because it was played outdoors?
10 greatest games in the history of the Canadiens and it has signifigance because they played it outside and Theo wore a toque?
Well, yes. It was the first outdoor game in... well, I have no idea. It seems less significant now because they're doing it every year, but it was a novelty back then.
I agree it should be off, and '93 game 2 should be on. But, I understand that the voting was done by fans who are, in general, much more casual than those found here, and the novelty effect won out, apparently.
-
The absence of Game 2, 1993, is a glaring, monumental and completely inexcusable omission that devalues the entire collection. F*ck them.
I agree, it should be on there... but c'mon. Whether we agree with them or not, all the games selected have some sort of historical or nostalgic significance. I'm still just pleased to death that this collection is being put together at all. It will still be on my must-buy list.
-
Ah. You're right, I'm not thinking of Chris Cuthbert. But the old guy with short white hair that's on the panel with Kypreos. Can't remember his name.
Bill Watters. Yeah, he's awful. He has his own radio program in Toronto, going up against McCown, and failing miserably.
-
There will be very few national games featuring the habs, unless they are playing the leafs.
Well, the Habs games were more frequently the national game last season than the season before, especially toward the end when the Leafs were out of it. We can hope that they don't wait until then to make the change this year. Or that the Leafs collapse early and often. Or both.
Anyway, I can get the regional Habs games as well, even though I'm in south-central Ontario, through the time-shifting CBC channels (which may or may not be available, depending on your cable package).
-
An interesting piece last night on CBC's National Reality Check had Terry Milewski talking about the arts cuts. He pointed out that Harper is correct that there was more funding provided by the Conservatives over the last 2 1/2 years and the cuts applied actually brought the arts funding back down to pre-Conservative spending levels. In short, Harper added 45 million to the budget before he then (now) took it away. So, between 2006 and today the fund is even. That's reality. The opposition is making it sound like he cut 45 million below the 2006 level. Wrong. He added 45 million since 2006 and has reversed it - break even. Actually, the truth is it's 800 K lower now compared with 2006.
Did the program explain the reason behind increasing arts funding by $45 million, and then reducing it the very next year? Most programs fare better with stable funding, so I'm not sure this paints Harper in a better light when it comes to supporting arts. Secondly, my opinion of funding of the arts is aligned with Zowpeb's (i.e. better if they support themselves), so I would have preferred that they cut $45 million from the previous levels. So, either way, it's not looking good on Harper in my view. However, I realize this is all posturing for Quebec voters, who seem to be the only ones who care about arts funding.
-
Yeah, Cuthbert is on TSN. Probably one of CBC's dumbest moves was firing him. Best play by play guy in Canada.
I've never gotten used to his voice. Annoying. Guys like Bob Cole and Joe Bowen have their faults - quite a few, actually - but possess great announcing voices.
-
My total debt level is about 50% of the value of my home equity. That's probably typical, in fact it might be low... but I'm not happy about it, probably because 3 years ago my debt level had just reached zero. At that moment, instead of being happy and mortgage-free in our decent-sized first home, I allowed myself to be talked into getting a bigger house. I'm no happier with a bigger house, and the person who talked me into it (hint: it wasn't either of my kids) is no happier either, because mortgage payments reduce disposable income. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Not that I'm bitter.
Anyway, we're managing OK, but I definitely contributed to the upward trend in debt levels you see in the stats. It's possible I'm singularly responsible. :puke:
And no, I don't know anyone else who is overextended... but as mentioned, financial problems aren't often discussed openly. Except anonymously on hockey sites.
Upcoming Canadian Election
in The Lounge
Posted
I don't think we're in deficit yet (unless I missed something), although the way the economy is going, it might not be far away. And, I'm sure Harper would argue that it was that 'other' conservative party that ran up the deficits, not them.