I'll add to that for certain, which I empathize with how candid Hamilton is of its team. In Winnipeg's case it's very different, considering the fact Randall deserves to have at least been inserted through some point of turn. I highly doubt this is blasphemy considering an 0-4 start to the season with an inept offense. It's really that serious here.
No matter what Bob the snob Irving does to live down how bad the team is right now, (listening to Irving rudimentary football huddle).
Tonight, it was John Huffnagel doing Irving the honors, and Huff played Irving like a fool knowing full well the consequences.
Who votes 'yes' in this poll sees exactly what's at fault.
= == = = = = ==
Dinwiddie has a lot to prove:
1.0 The coaches know Dinwiddie is trigger happy, they'll hold him to strict play-calling as they did in the GC.
1.1. Dinwiddie has a lot of trouble running into what he reads opposed to what his DECISIONS are. He might make the right read, but he's to greedy when it comes to what he WANTS to to with the ball.
1.3. Thus dinwiddie's int. ratio increases.
This reminds me of former qb coach mike working's son, posted a story on ourbombers after dinwiddie's performance in BC last season. He witnessed a comment made toward dinwiddie, when questioned about a long passing attempt. The coach said: 'you'd never make that throw.' It's indicative of dinwiddie's over compensating tendencies, that simply won't just go away unless you are of the 'hear no evil see no evil' type.
= = === = ====
Serna should have been year long ago, Troy was released about 4 years too late.
===== = = = =
You guys make it seem Dinwiddie's breast-feeding for the backup role and you're all surrogate candidates for the in-vitro. If the Bombers (as I fully expect. . .) wet the bed, instead of Randall, then go back to Glenn without any question??? The fact is this team hasn't scored points on offense, there is no reason that Randall shouldn't be given playing time. Berry is completely covering his tracks, the trouble is the footprints are as large as an elephant it's hard keep the hiding place secret.
=== = === =
GOD. 0-4 man. 0-4!!!111LO1 This isn't ridicue it's madness that people don't see what the hell is going on but put the dagger in it.
= = = = = == =
blue&gold4ever wrote:
OK this is ridiculous i know and i have never been a KG fan, he reminds me of Khari Jones
It's a stretch to say, but I'll say it anyway, this looked more to me like a curse of Kerwin Bell.
= = = = = =
Nobody here is blaming Dinwiddie, I'm just not so narrow minded to believe in the second-coming of a miracle. That being said, tell me when it comes down to the sense of what really matters most?
2.0 = the bombers at 0-4 haven't managed an offense that generated only 1~td per every 6 qtrs. (this follows)
2.1 = Any reasonable attempt of an offense is TO SCORE POINTS. . .
2.2 = this is indicative of a very inefficient strategy, that in order to correct it should have at least shown Not only Dinwiddie but Randall (I would think) would have already been taking snaps (which he hasn't.) It's unbelievable to me.
Very simple logic.
= = = = == = =
Yes, I'll think about my free tax paid mts center while breaking the bank with profits to boot.
= = = = = = ==
UPA_Smitten wrote:
Should all control, all profit be ceded to private owners for a relatively small contribution to the initial cost?
A resounding 'no' should echo across the red river to meet you.
But honestly man, I'm not trying to steal your thunder here. . . I did a pretty fair job instructing the exact same issue not too long ago.
http://www1.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=27140
You can't just ask someone a hypothetical question expecting an answer. I actually gave people an answer by saying, "We're a bunch of morons giving Mark Chipman an arena for free, if you really believe that should happen again."
In case you're wondering, I'm only adding to your position, just giving the people a refresher.
== = = = == = =
Re; '99'
This my friend was a brilliant post you made, as brilliant as they come in fact. . . )
=== = == = ===
Dave Ritchie was a player's coach that kept veterans around longer than he should have. Crandall and the Stamps got hot at the right time and haven't equaled that intensity since--it was a fluke they beat the Bombers in the Grey Cup.
Jim Daley and Doug Berry were good assistant coaches who couldn't take it to the next level. Both lacked the imagination and leadership that it takes to coach a talented bunch like the Bombers.
I liken Berry's coaching style to that of a novice chess player. He comes out with his queen, a bishop and tries to checkmate in 4 over and over again.
When the opposition figures that out, Berry haphazardly throws out a few pawns in a vain attempt to stop the opponent's attack and create more room for his predictable queen-bishop-rook attack.
Though this strategy might result in a win against teams who have pieces missing from the board (Hamilton) and/or lack the skill to readily exploit Berry's lack of board development, skillful teams like Montreal will shred the secondary and dominating defenses like BC will commit their defense to stop a Bomber passing offence that doesn't believe in a running game.
We have one of the best O-lines in the CFL, the best RB in Blink (Lumsden's a marshmallow; see my glass RB post in the puttytat forum), the best D-line in football, a secondary that needs babysitting and special teams that are high maintenance.
It takes a head coach with skill to lead this Grey Cup contender to the promised land. Berry just doesn't have it. He rose to his level of incompetence last year in the Grey Cup and should be tarred, feathered, and rode out of town on a flatcar.
That snarly old buzzard Lyle Bauer should take the reins until a suitable coach is found; one that recognizes the talent of the Bombers and knows how to use it to maximum advantage.
= = = = = = = = =
However, getting rid of Bauer would not only be 'catastrophic' but also welcome. The BoD's iron_clad outfitter's get tailored at Mr. BIG AND TALL on PORTAGE AVE.
= = = = == = = = =
At this point, be afraid, be very afraid, that's all I can tell you.
GONG!
= = ======
Oh, by the way it looks like Bryant ran away with the derby in BC the other night.
Congrats Romby, you did us proud busta.
= = === = = ==
I want to know how many of you, regardless of your real postion on the matter, in the very least feel that if the Bomber's were any other team Randall would have seen some playing time by now?
Very simple. Not so simple minded.
= = ==== = = =
^Honestly I am so mad right now. Berry's "Kevin Glenn is a winner" on CJOB tonight just got me fuming. What a clown he is for stating that.
= === = =
. . . is this years title of Doug Berry's blasphemous auto-biography circa 2008. (this follows)
Listening to Bob 'the snob' Irving on the coaches show this evening is a waste of time. True to Irving's forum, there is such one-sided discussion, yet super-charged with ego it's sickening.
Before Berry even admits that Glenn is done in Winnipeg; the door has all but been shown to Glenn. They call this professionalist? I guess only in Winnipeg.
The thing that gets to me in Winnipeg, before Taman or Bauer reveal it's time to move on, is how snuffed out the fans are getting 8_balled this season. So much promise, that 300k to Kevin Glenn gave us?? This is absolutely mind boggling to say the least. (this follows)
Doug Browns spin zone, has an animated side-kick knob-jobbing his mouth and it's supposed to excuse everything. My god, this season is an all out farce right from the beginning.
The truth be told, I fully anticipate that Doug Berry's solution is to bring in Randall at the "right time".
At 0-4, this entire mess should be cleaned up, and slated to move Randall into the starters role. Dinwiddie is nothing more than a back-up. At 1td per 6 qtrs. of play, there is no excuse (even with Kevin Glenn 300k) not to put Randall in by now. But not one fan is intelligent enough to see it.
This Bomber team is a lifeless arrogant bunch that completely undermines everything the B&G should be.
I am totally embarassed to be a Bomber fan based on such pure brutal hypocrisy, that Randall sits on the sidelines under circumstances that any PROFESSIONAL COACH in this league would have at least given the kid a shot.
WHAT A JOKE. FIRE BAUER NOW!!!!!1111 This is his idiotic bs.
= == == = = = =
???what. Let's see what Dinwiddie can do?? This offense hasn't avg'd more than 1 td for every six quarters played. . . how much worse can dinwiddie do on offense? It's not even funny.
= =c = = = = = = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: The one thing: Bomber's need to replace. . . .is Posted: Jul 21, 2008 - 04:33 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 237
Status: Online!
'we got it going on' slogan.
With. . .
'My kingdom for a horse' and a big picture of Lyle Bauer with an 'x' marked over it.
But all seriousness aside, I truly hope the best for Dinwiddie, but I don't think he's a starting cfl qb - I'm not going to lie. What I hope happens and what will actually happen, well, you get the picture.
Other than that, to watch Dinwiddie capsize down the spiral - then - it'll be Randall's turn.
Please - please do not commit back to Glenn, I pray this with all my heart.
Randall can do something with what we've got.
== = = = == = =
re; barrin simpson
His career is finished now.
= === = = = = =
Glenn actually said that?? At 300k he's he learned too much from Khari Jones.
I've been waiting to say this for a while now, but the time has come, I was right when saying Taman should have dealt Glenn/Simpson for Calvillo. I'd have done it in a heart beat.
At the time I made my opinions about Calvillo known on ourbombers, you see the posters running rampant with their heads cut off. It's ludicrous.
If Glenn actually said that, the man is a write off. Absolutely.
= = = = = = =
I want to see Randall play, but that's just selfish of me to say so.
= == = = = = =
There is little doubt that berry can instill confidence in Dinwiddie's chances. Dinwiddie is going in with an offense that can't generate as many td's as its defense for crying out loud.
== = == = = =
milt-for-life
Post subject: RE: Re: Chief Council Meeting minus Doug Brown Posted: Jul 20, 2008 - 10:40 PM
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 225
Status: Offline
Doug Berry is a total ignorant idiot look how it tturrned out for the riders... Marcus Crandal was playing like ****, so they tried their backup.. then that guy plays like **** and they put in darian Durant he plays good and wins the game. THE RIDERS ARE 4-0
now Kevin Glenn plays like **** for 4 games straight andin 1 game Dinnwiddie goes in and doesnt do anything special bt we end up 0-4
if we tried out all of our quarterbacks in the first place we wouldnt be in such a goddamn big mess!!
_________________
"Gavin’s the speedster off the edge and Tom’s the kung-fu energy type of guy,”
Jerome Haywood on Gavin Walls and Tom Canada
= = = = = = = =
That's exactly the kind of response I was looking for.
== = = = = = ==
~I have to say that i'm excited about Samuels coming back because in my opinion, (as I expressed vehemently in the past. . . ) Samuels left unceremoniously. This provides us with character that the Bombers desperately need, (which I also recently posted as a 'locker room type player'.) Just what the dr. ordered. The defense can use a veteran, and this speaks volumes for what the defense has been missing.
Assessing the blame is easier than addressing the poitical changes that we should see happen.
= = == = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Chief Council Meeting minus Doug Brown Posted: Jul 20, 2008 - 12:45 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 237
Status: Online!
redwhite2005 wrote:
Guys be sure you remain calm this is just a bad nightmare. This may cause you to get your drinking habit back. But in all honesty Berry has lost his team. They need change quickly. The Stamps see a wounded bomber team and will be going after them. This could be another ugly game. Keep smiling guys you will get through this. How is my buddy Taman looking lately?
This season is rather becoming of the situation, the situation as it stands is damage control. Doug Brown wrote a column last week appealing to the fans; but in my opinion, the tables have turned against Taman or what Bauer believes should happen next? By all indications, it looks as though the pattern of 'blaming the coach' has no excuse to be given. This utter failure exposes Taman as well as Bauer given Dave Ritchies infamous departure. I do not see this team as the same unit as Daley was when with the organization, it's apples and oranges but it comes a close second. The same difference between Daley and Berry acts as a measuring stick: in this case is that what Berry did with Kevin Glenn. With an inferior type of qb, Berry took this team with a huge sacrifice in order. . . and succeeded. (This follows.)
In my opinion, if the Bombers BoD's fail to recognize the pattern of illogical thinking befallen upon Taman or Bauer as pointing toward Berry as the scapegoat, there is a problem. The solution is somewhat more complicated than removing Berry; it lays somewhat on the shoulders of managment at this point. It truly gives us an indication that serves Taman is incompetent provided that Bauer is shown the door. Otherwise, the BoD's have to be written off for lack of intelligent vision. The future cannot rest upon Bauer, even, even if the one thing keeping the BoD's from canning Bauer is the stadium issue. (This follows.)
That Bauer has invested some effort to keep himself around enough that the BoD's won't publically denounce Bauer.
If there's another issue that needs to be addressed, it's that Kevin Glenn has been spent. For a pro to make pro-$ figures, has tested Glenn's ability to perform. Now, Berry has to act 'responsibly' because of Glenn's oversized ego?? Perhaps, but we can't equate Glenn's inability to perform with the likes of a Doug Flutie or Tom Brady. That being said, I do not count Berry at fault for this either. The Bombers went into the season counting chickens before they hatch. (This follows.)
I think Berry would make a unilateral move at taking Bryan Randall and molding him until ready for a start.
With that intent in mind, Bomber fans can suffer the cost of wondering how Dinwiddie will falter? The coaching staff knows how capable Dinwiddie is, however, the task at hand is if the kid can consistently do what is required. They know Dinwiddie is over-zealous at best. Nothing they can do about it. (This follows)
Bryan Randall. That's the guy we go with. Not that it's going to happen though. Berry probably thinks that Glenn can help the team get 3 maybe 4 crippling victories to salvage the year.
As Nacho Libre would say: Let's get down to the nitty gritty.
= = = == = = =
PIGSEYE
Post subject: Posted: Jul 20, 2008 - 11:04 AM
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 4457
Sad but true papa, and fortunate for the Bombers.
The East is wide open, the first team that starts to string together a few wins, can go from the outhouse to the penthouse, very quickly.
Nobody should be writing off the season after only 4 games in.
What was TO after 8 games last year 2 - 6, and they still finished first.
Way too much football to be played yet.
= = = == = =
Great points pigs_eye.
= = = ==== =
RedandWhite wrote:
I confess I will worry about the upcoming matchup...
The offense is triggering a whopping avg. of 1 td for every six quarters of play.
= = == == = = = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: bed wetter's inc. minus bryan randall Posted: Jul 19, 2008 - 02:56 AM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 237
Status: Online!
okay, so we know that Glenn's season is in jeopardy. . . it's an important change in fate. The truth be told, Dinwiddie is all but the guy now. However, Bryan Randall I think might be the real deal next to Dinwiddie. Next up, it's a lot of soul searching for this team.
= = = = == = = =
If this loss served Berry his last game as bomber coach, i doubt he'll be here to last 2 more losses. Greg Marshall will predicatbly be HC by seasons end.
== = = = = = = =
Sportsmen wrote:
Lets see, Head Coaches run out of Winnipeg:
Dave Ritchie
Jim Daley
Doug Berry (next)
It can't all be the Coaches fault. Who brings in the players for the Coach to use?
Taman!
Maybe before the next Coaching change, a GM change would be more appropriate.
After all, these three Coaches have one thing in common that Im pretty sure Taman doesn't have..... A Grey Cup Ring! (Ritchie with many teams, Berry with Montreal and Daley with Calgary)
let me buy u a beer, i like the way u think.
= = ======
bigcanadiano
Post subject: so if the bombers wet the bed in bc Posted: Jul 18, 2008 - 01:29 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 237
Status: Online!
things get even more uninspiring, and suppose the effort is on par with last week (which seems unfathomable if it even comes close to comparable. . .) then things in blue-land become truly problematic. Rest assured.
= == = = = =
Ha yes, Provencher Bridge. If we're going to deflate the issue of Eaton's; it should be kept in it's context. Nobody is crying over a building that doesn't exist. What matters is the aftermath, in what was neglected as result of the mts centre being built. That's all one should responsibly decipher.
= = = == =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Posted: Jul 17, 2008 - 08:42 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 237
Status: Online!
hammerbutt wrote:
As far as the Eaton's building if you're all weapy to see a heritage Department store building walk 3 blocks to the Bay
Spectacular. . . but that couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. I wish you'd see deeper into the thread, because it has a lot to offer. Unfortunately, unless you re-read some of what it TRULY meant. As it seems to me, this has nothing to do with being 'weapy'. It has a lot to do with a democratic, or in this case, the least diplomatic abolition of justice in this city's millenium.
= = = == = = =
I know just how you feel.
This is actually about True North, in the same manner that they've pursued a pompous attitude the same way Winnipeg Enterprises ran in the former Winnipeg Arena.
There is no way Chipman can accomodate enough corporate sponsership with a lion-share. The profits to do so would be too ambitious, even by True North's standards.
I suppose if you've read how I think chipman, in my opinion, promises to fund a wpg_nhl_market. . . promises are made to be borken. I guarantee you (. . .in my original response to '99') that my dissertation of True North's quasi-proposal is bang on the metro-scope.
With everything going at a full proof cycle, the profitability of a wpg_nhl_market would be very challeneging to say the least.
(this follows. . .)
= = = == = = =
why eaton's was a big mistake, but it'd be even bigger if the average citizen of winnipeg weren't educated enough to see how the bureaucractic element may surprise the few. Maybe just enough to feud with Chipman's rainbow-esque True North concept. You will quickly find chipman loves his photo-ops.
That way things could be done much-much better.
= == = = = ==
great posts. As this thing begins to unravel, if Roberts continues to hurl the coaching staff, the players are revolting. This is not good going into bc.
Quote:
It's time to declare an onlinefatwa - it's time for bomberjihad.
The points you make of dinwiddie are quite intriguing actually. I recall Dinwiddie's struggle in BC last year when given the ball.
Quote:
Somethings up.
Bean with a mysterious hand injury, now Sheridan is placed on the 9 game IR, for a phantom shoulder injury.
Looks like they are making some cap room for someone.
And Kevin Glenn just needs to get his head out of his azz. 1 TD and 6 INTs in 3 games !!!! That just isn't good enough.
Maybe I was wrong, and they need more than just a locker-room type player.
Glenn cannot do any worse that's for sure.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
dead poets society
Any losses incurred by True North, so long the NHL were to put a blanket over the feasability of a successful NOT mediocre wpg_market?
The answer(s) are simply in the magical_recipe provided to True North by you the citizen of Winnipeg.
Quote:
According to the Term Sheet and other information prepared by government authorities at the time the deal was done, the private owners of the True North arena were to receive direct subsidies of at least $1.5 million annually from VLT revenues, of which at least $1.125 million represents the foregone share that ordinarily would go to the provincial government.
The $1.5 million, remember, is a projected minimum. True North, or its assignee, gets 75 per cent, or $3 million, of the first $4 million of the revenue generated by its 50 VLTs. After $4 million they get the usual 20 per cent.
In addition, it was estimated at the time that another $2.2 million would go to the owners of the arena annually out of business and entertainment taxes that otherwise would be collected and kept by the city.
So, before the first dollar of rent is collected for any event, a minimum of $3.7 million in income every year for 25 years, comes from the province and city.
This^ is the total cost of the mts centre for True North, or in other words, a hand is kept in your pocket while the potential for an NHL franchise were it to be hatched.
This is important information, if you THINK about it, only because a plot to exercise any $capital interest$ in a future NHL team does not rest on the the city. . . the NHL would have to be convinced it can squeeze the life out of it's investors.
If True North were to run the NHL in mts centre, the projected 5-10 year period of %100_capacity might break even through expenses (i.e.player salaries) depending on profits its allocated. The point being, if True North were to place half the costs from %50_capacity in mts centre, Mark Chipman may not benefit from the deal given to him by the government, nor would the NHL be willing to participate.
In a successful mts centre, Mark Chipman's NHL team would have to break even by covering all the costs, at %100 capacity, but would not be able to turn a profit at 60-75% capacity. The state of that happening would entail cutting loss.
Quote:
Remember that $60 million mortgage? It is, not coincidentally, amortized over 25 years. A garden variety mortgage with blended payments including interest at six per cent per annum over that period of time would need about $4.6 million per year to fully service.
Still, in 2008, the total property tax saving will come to more than $1.1 million. There's the other 20 per cent of the mortgage payment, and then some.
= = = = ===== = = = =
PIGSEYE
Post subject: Posted: Jul 16, 2008 - 09:13 PM
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 4436
bigcanadiano wrote:
My point was this: where else in this country is there a landmark such as eaton's?? I would tell you that there are probably no chance of finding it. By historical (cnd.) standards, it is not a far fetched argument to make that eaton's (again. . . by cnd. standards) is equivilant to the Taj-Mahal. It is inexcusable to me, that a country so short in existence completely absent minded of what this building represented exactly? Into this short millenium, you would think the government even in it's short period compared to other nations, would have thought something. They didn't. . . it's unbelievable to me.
Quebec City is what, 400 years old this year ?
Somehow, a dilapidated department store in Winnipeg, is hard to imagine as a Taj-Mahal. Except maybe if your a rat or a roach.
= = = ==== = = = =
(my response)
Quote:
What this means is that the actual cash invested in the arena was $58.5 million, of which $40.5 million, or 69.2 per cent came from the taxpayers and $18 million, or 30.8 per cent came from the private owners. So, really, the people who get all of the profit and have all of the control of the arena put up less than a third of the capital invested, and, as already noted, only 15 per cent of the total cost.
Put another way, for every $1 invested by the private owners, they got an immediate gift from the taxpayers of $2.25 of equity. That's right. On Day 1 they tripled their money with more to come.
^This (in italics.) =
Quote:
If it had been built on a vacant site already owned by the government, you could subtract from that the $3 million or so that it cost to tear down the Eaton's building.
For those of you doing the math, the actual share of the cost of the arena funded by the people who are reaping 100 per cent of the profits is less than 15 per cent (19 per cent if you accept that the Eaton's site, with the empty building still on it, was worth $5 million and not the nominal amount declared for land transfer tax purposes).
It should make you wonder how True North, Glenn Murray, or Gary Doer totally steamrolled the issue. In retrospect anything we were allowed to have knowledge of THEN in clear hindsite, factuality would have certainly played an important role, pigseye.
If you think this information wasn't present at the time True North formed it's anti-coup against the government forces behind this project, NOW our participation of any future stadium being built will have equal amount of support. The difference being that this time, the truth will be had rather than purged upon by True North, the government which completely underminded the process of it's citizens as a part of our better understanding.
== = = = = = = = = = ==
spidey99
Post subject: Posted: Jul 16, 2008 - 02:09 AM
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Posts: 60
Status: Offline
As much as cartel economics sickens me, the Eaton's saga makes me want to blow chunks. In Eaton's dying days, the billionaire Eaton family had the audacity to send these heartstring-tugging letters to seniors who had long retired from Eaton's which begged them to help the dying retail giant by sending in as much of their pensions as they could spare. This level of greed and depravity is subhuman.
When I hear the name Eaton, I want to go to an Eaton family gathering, take the head of this brood and gut him like a salmon in front of his family while they curiously watch their patriarch flop around the floor.
As for the Eaton's building, if it wasn't for the asbestos embedded throughout the building, I would have led the campaign to 9/11 Eaton's straight to hell.
= = = = = == == = =
(my response)
I feel that.^
What baffles me is how True North thinks they can afford an NHL team. With a 150mil dollar arena, the purchase of a team is app. 175mil. Couple that with a 50mil cap budget just to compete.
quick math:
15000 x 90$avg. per seat= 1,125 000mil
1,125 000 x 40game season= 45, 000 000mil
= = == = = = =
If the c.e.o. mark chipman leads an ad hoc attempt to the table (as the ever so insightful WFP randy turner suggests have 'secret council meetings with the NHL.'. . .) the mts centre 15,000 sold out seats at 90$_!! a seat.
I'm accounting luxury boxes in the 90$ avg per seat, ergo, even if each seat were a bottom feeding 50$_per game, per seat, hypothetically the 90$ range is a good average. (i.e. educated guess)
Without concessions/parking, revenue sharing (a must), or profits from sales, chipman is telling us he'll clear 45mil in ticket sales alone.
This follows. . .
============
linear pattern of logic, that cheap skates will bow to chimpans idealized godzilla wearing suit made of crackerjack sized boxes. Do you see the oxymoron yet??
(this follows. . .)
= = = == = = = =
If pessimism isn't your skeptical domain, let's consider chipman's investment were to become reality, he has generated a fan base that brings a total of $45mil per year in ticket sales alone - which covers the cost of putting a competing team on the ice. Any profit that True North makes is based on concerts as well as the NHL teams proxy. This means tv revenues which make up the lions share of Canadian markets, double Chipman's chances of turning the NHL into a profitable_wpg_based_market. That is the question?
Yes, yes it is.
(this follows. . .)
= = = = == = =
with or without a 45mil 'exit strategy' of 15,000 seats per game to cover the cost certainty of player salaries. Chimpman thinks True North can assure any losses based on the fact the arena is being paid for by the tax-payer which acts as collateral. This also means anything Chipman believes True North corp. can afford to purchase (as buy into an NHL_wpg sized market), is covered by the %100 profit margin True North achieves per annuum, without any compensation toward the monetary public (taxpayer).
(this follows. . . )
= = = = = == = =
True North seriously believing the NHL has any interest in moving to wpg, because the capital$_$formula is here. . .
A fan base brand of former jet loyalists that will unquivocally sell out the building for at least a 5-10 year minuimum at 60-100$ per game.
The answer(s) are simply in the magical_recipe provided to True North by you the citizen of Winnipeg.
Quote:
According to the Term Sheet and other information prepared by government authorities at the time the deal was done, the private owners of the True North arena were to receive direct subsidies of at least $1.5 million annually from VLT revenues, of which at least $1.125 million represents the foregone share that ordinarily would go to the provincial government.
The $1.5 million, remember, is a projected minimum. True North, or its assignee, gets 75 per cent, or $3 million, of the first $4 million of the revenue generated by its 50 VLTs. After $4 million they get the usual 20 per cent.
In addition, it was estimated at the time that another $2.2 million would go to the owners of the arena annually out of business and entertainment taxes that otherwise would be collected and kept by the city.
So, before the first dollar of rent is collected for any event, a minimum of $3.7 million in income every year for 25 years, comes from the province and city.
This^ is the total cost of the mts centre for True North, or in other words, a hand is kept in your pocket while the potential for an NHL franchise were it to be hatched.
This is important information, if you THINK about it, only because a plot to exercise any $capital interest$ in a future NHL team does not rest on the the city. . . the NHL would have to be convinced it can squeeze the life out of it's investors.
If True North were to run the NHL in mts centre, the projected 5-10 year period of %100_capacity might break even through expenses (i.e.player salaries) depending on profits its allocated. The point being, if True North were to place half the costs from %50_capacity in mts centre, Mark Chipman may not benefit from the deal given to him by the government, nor would the NHL be willing to participate.
In a successful mts centre, Mark Chipman's NHL team would have to break even by covering all the costs, at %100 capacity, but would not be able to turn a profit at 60-75% capacity. The state of that happening would entail cutting loss.
Quote:
Remember that $60 million mortgage? It is, not coincidentally, amortized over 25 years. A garden variety mortgage with blended payments including interest at six per cent per annum over that period of time would need about $4.6 million per year to fully service.
Still, in 2008, the total property tax saving will come to more than $1.1 million. There's the other 20 per cent of the mortgage payment, and then some.
= = = = ===== = = = =
PIGSEYE
Post subject: Posted: Jul 16, 2008 - 09:13 PM
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 4436
bigcanadiano wrote:
My point was this: where else in this country is there a landmark such as eaton's?? I would tell you that there are probably no chance of finding it. By historical (cnd.) standards, it is not a far fetched argument to make that eaton's (again. . . by cnd. standards) is equivilant to the Taj-Mahal. It is inexcusable to me, that a country so short in existence completely absent minded of what this building represented exactly? Into this short millenium, you would think the government even in it's short period compared to other nations, would have thought something. They didn't. . . it's unbelievable to me.
Quebec City is what, 400 years old this year ?
Somehow, a dilapidated department store in Winnipeg, is hard to imagine as a Taj-Mahal. Except maybe if your a rat or a roach.
= = = ==== = = = =
(my response)
Quote:
What this means is that the actual cash invested in the arena was $58.5 million, of which $40.5 million, or 69.2 per cent came from the taxpayers and $18 million, or 30.8 per cent came from the private owners. So, really, the people who get all of the profit and have all of the control of the arena put up less than a third of the capital invested, and, as already noted, only 15 per cent of the total cost.
Put another way, for every $1 invested by the private owners, they got an immediate gift from the taxpayers of $2.25 of equity. That's right. On Day 1 they tripled their money with more to come.
^This (in italics.) =
Quote:
If it had been built on a vacant site already owned by the government, you could subtract from that the $3 million or so that it cost to tear down the Eaton's building.
For those of you doing the math, the actual share of the cost of the arena funded by the people who are reaping 100 per cent of the profits is less than 15 per cent (19 per cent if you accept that the Eaton's site, with the empty building still on it, was worth $5 million and not the nominal amount declared for land transfer tax purposes).
It should make you wonder how True North, Glenn Murray, or Gary Doer totally steamrolled the issue. In retrospect anything we were allowed to have knowledge of THEN in clear hindsite, factuality would have certainly played an important role, pigseye.
If you think this information wasn't present at the time True North formed it's anti-coup against the government forces behind this project, NOW our participation of any future stadium being built will have equal amount of support. The difference being that this time, the truth will be had rather than purged upon by True North, the government which completely underminded the process of it's citizens as a part of our better understanding.
== = = = = = = = = = ==
spidey99
Post subject: Posted: Jul 16, 2008 - 02:09 AM
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Posts: 60
Status: Offline
As much as cartel economics sickens me, the Eaton's saga makes me want to blow chunks. In Eaton's dying days, the billionaire Eaton family had the audacity to send these heartstring-tugging letters to seniors who had long retired from Eaton's which begged them to help the dying retail giant by sending in as much of their pensions as they could spare. This level of greed and depravity is subhuman.
When I hear the name Eaton, I want to go to an Eaton family gathering, take the head of this brood and gut him like a salmon in front of his family while they curiously watch their patriarch flop around the floor.
As for the Eaton's building, if it wasn't for the asbestos embedded throughout the building, I would have led the campaign to 9/11 Eaton's straight to hell.
= = = = = == == = =
(my response)
I feel that.^
What baffles me is how True North thinks they can afford an NHL team. With a 150mil dollar arena, the purchase of a team is app. 175mil. Couple that with a 50mil cap budget just to compete.
quick math:
15000 x 90$avg. per seat= 1,125 000mil
1,125 000 x 40game season= 45, 000 000mil
= = == = = = =
If the c.e.o. mark chipman leads an ad hoc attempt to the table (as the ever so insightful WFP randy turner suggests have 'secret council meetings with the NHL.'. . .) the mts centre 15,000 sold out seats at 90$_!! a seat.
I'm accounting luxury boxes in the 90$ avg per seat, ergo, even if each seat were a bottom feeding 50$_per game, per seat, hypothetically the 90$ range is a good average. (i.e. educated guess)
Without concessions/parking, revenue sharing (a must), or profits from sales, chipman is telling us he'll clear 45mil in ticket sales alone.
This follows. . .
============
linear pattern of logic, that cheap skates will bow to chimpans idealized godzilla wearing suit made of crackerjack sized boxes. Do you see the oxymoron yet??
(this follows. . .)
= = = == = = = =
If pessimism isn't your skeptical domain, let's consider chipman's investment were to become reality, he has generated a fan base that brings a total of $45mil per year in ticket sales alone - which covers the cost of putting a competing team on the ice. Any profit that True North makes is based on concerts as well as the NHL teams proxy. This means tv revenues which make up the lions share of Canadian markets, double Chipman's chances of turning the NHL into a profitable_wpg_based_market. That is the question?
Yes, yes it is.
(this follows. . .)
= = = = == = =
with or without a 45mil 'exit strategy' of 15,000 seats per game to cover the cost certainty of player salaries. Chimpman thinks True North can assure any losses based on the fact the arena is being paid for by the tax-payer which acts as collateral. This also means anything Chipman believes True North corp. can afford to purchase (as buy into an NHL_wpg sized market), is covered by the %100 profit margin True North achieves per annuum, without any compensation toward the monetary public (taxpayer).
(this follows. . . )
= = = = = == = =
True North seriously believing the NHL has any interest in moving to wpg, because the capital$_$formula is here. . .
A fan base brand of former jet loyalists that will unquivocally sell out the building for at least a 5-10 year minuimum at 60-100$ per game.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
plagarizing demiurge
If not for Taman, I think we need to add a 'locker room' type player. Someone that would add depth to a position, that is a face we know. Otherwise, if Berry is content in leaving Kevin Glenn to burn us out with no points in the 1st quarter, put Dinwiddie in. Without points, or if our defense commits another suicide mission, I expect to see Dinwiddie into start the 2nd half. Bryan Randall needs something to look at for god sake.
=====================
Allow me to be honest with you, before jumping to conclusions if for a moment you believe our civic politicians would do anything to have saved face over the mts centre, thus protecting the Eaton's building from kingdom-come. Therefore, then the taboo of politicians "are all corrupt" is true.
I think, if more people thought about what's NOT being done, at least one political voice could have changed the outcome.
My point was this: where else in this country is there a landmark such as eaton's?? I would tell you that there are probably no chance of finding it. By historical (cnd.) standards, it is not a far fetched argument to make that eaton's (again. . . by cnd. standards) is equivilant to the Taj-Mahal. It is inexcusable to me, that a country so short in existence completely absent minded of what this building represented exactly? Into this short millenium, you would think the government even in it's short period compared to other nations, would have thought something. They didn't. . . it's unbelievable to me.
That being said, if you consider how intellectually dishonest political leaders are then knock yourself out. People of that sophistication have fallen off the evolutionary scale perhaps. It doesn't mean the brain seizes to work.
=====================
Allow me to be honest with you, before jumping to conclusions if for a moment you believe our civic politicians would do anything to have saved face over the mts centre, thus protecting the Eaton's building from kingdom-come. Therefore, then the taboo of politicians "are all corrupt" is true.
I think, if more people thought about what's NOT being done, at least one political voice could have changed the outcome.
My point was this: where else in this country is there a landmark such as eaton's?? I would tell you that there are probably no chance of finding it. By historical (cnd.) standards, it is not a far fetched argument to make that eaton's (again. . . by cnd. standards) is equivilant to the Taj-Mahal. It is inexcusable to me, that a country so short in existence completely absent minded of what this building represented exactly? Into this short millenium, you would think the government even in it's short period compared to other nations, would have thought something. They didn't. . . it's unbelievable to me.
That being said, if you consider how intellectually dishonest political leaders are then knock yourself out. People of that sophistication have fallen off the evolutionary scale perhaps. It doesn't mean the brain seizes to work.
characterizing virtue
The sweetheart part of the deal for the private owners is that they are guaranteed these subsidies for 25 years whether they need them or not.
So, before the first dollar of rent is collected for any event, a minimum of $3.7 million in income every year for 25 years, comes from the province and city.
Remember that $60 million mortgage? It is, not coincidentally, amortized over 25 years. A garden variety mortgage with blended payments including interest at six per cent per annum over that period of time would need about $4.6 million per year to fully service.
This is what constructive joe-taxpayer has been rewarded. True North and its subsidiary investors are reaping the profit margins, for an arena that is essentially being paid for BUT NOT OWNED by the public sector. In truth, True North is being BOUGHT A BUILDING FROM WINNIPEG PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME. . . for FREE!!! In fact, Winnipeggers MUST ENJOY hiding in their fox-holes so much that it makes True North look a lot better getting filthy rich.
If this above paragraph eludes the average citizen of this city, you will begin to understand how Eaton's did not have to be demolished.
Sadly this is all just academic.
Everything, Eaton's itself, having stood up until past 2000a.d. deserved a better fate, but not ONE civil servant risked breeching something so totally unavoidable? It is absolutely mind boggling how a country such as ours just let this happen the way it has.
This is divisive of Sam Katz extrodinary cowardice on the same type of issue.
The fact(s)
1- Eaton's = destroyed
2- Canada has no sense of soveriegty that it allows it's tax-payers to have our eyes gouged out (follows. . .)
3- True North inexplicably (as the Bombers sorry excuse for a football team) have a building built for them FOR FREE - (follows)
4- Mark Chipman's associates keep 100% of the profits.
The True North project cost taxpayers $40.5 million up-front and taxpayers are committed to subsidies and tax concessions of about $5 million a year for 25 years, or another $125 million over time.
The private owners put $18 million and made no commitment to make further investments if the project should turn sour, but they get all of the profit.
Unbelievable to me is that not 1 Winnipegger I know, even cares that the profit Mark Chipman is making off of this can feed our children and our childrens children all because of the the MTS Centre built for True North.
And nobody cares.
Unbelievable, even as I write this. The Eaton's building was a waste.
== ==== === = = =
footballmad
Post subject: RE: pertaining to incompetent leaders Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 10:06 PM
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 911
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
iunno what exactly your talking about big. I agree with the article and the fact that the mts centre was funded largely by the public sector and had next to no information on its actual funding. and agree that the same thing for the football stadium but asper has been alot more open abot it and has shown much more willingness to spend his own money to do so and has gaurenteed to pay back the public fundings within 5 years.
all i am saying about UPAs post is that at the time aspers proposal was choosen, mulitple proposals were made and were looked at. he states ledehoski doesnt want to own our team. i was making my point at that statment by him.
= = = == ========= =
in my opinion the mts centre is by and large the worst issue of incomptence i can equate, notwithstanding the article as it stands on its own merit. That being said, as a canadian born and raised in winnipeg, my own opinion has little edge, seeing I am biased (admittedly) to saving the now raped/pillaged eaton's building done by none other than Mark Chipman, Glen Murray, and Gary Doer.
The article only provides just how "risk free" the government can milk it's consumer as a tax-paying entity? What that question concerns me as a citizen is the government of manitoba, will on account of provincial litigation treat it's citizen as part of an ENTERPRISE WHICH WE ARE NOT. In fact, Mark Chipman (as it stated in the article. . . ) is a piece of the monopoly which goes something like, "I am a citizen for the tax-payer in this community, who will wager all the money invested into this (True North Corp.)and do solemnly swear to honor all prevailing monetary costs allocated into my PRIVATE BUSINESS - LOL -!!!) In the larger scheme of things Mark Chipman acted as the alibi in terms of a government loop hole - (an enterprise) - made up of frailty (i.e. joe-taxpayer.)" This is based on the condition I propose that the government of manitoba singlehandedly maneuvered without any recourse of action to legitimately inform the public of it's wrong-doing.
^This is the crux of the article, which based on formality, is telling us that the wool was being pulled over our eyes without it being questioned. Not only were we played for as tax-paying entities; but the average citizen were left blinded by the government. This is to say: the government knowlingly deceived it's main investor (the public monetary interest) into an illigitimate partnership through True North as if it is legally binding enough to withstand the peril of public opinions resolve.
Cont.
Also, it is in my opinion the government of Canada (YES. . . CANADA) failed not only the citizens of winnipeg but in large part the legal aspect of demolishing of the former Eaton's building. . . is without a doubt a crime that has gone unforseen due to the incredible loss of such an important piece of history. The reason being, that in an age such as this, Canada is less than a 200 year old nation, yet, to let Eatons go unpreserved, unprenounced and unwanted speaks volumes for the lack of vision or intiative. It was a shame to watch it happen and feel powerless because of it.
Any winnipegger or Canadian across the nation should be ashamed not knowing how significant a crime this was. People are completely clueless as to those that say, "It was necessary for downtown." Completely and utterly ignorant to standards that accompany it.
thank you,
bigc.
P.S. If this article doesn't make sense to you, or the impertinence of Mark Chipman, Glen Murray and True North. . . think again. Sam Katz wants to make his name something to be remembered, yet he flip flops on a stadium for point douglas.
====== ===
footballmad
Post subject: RE: pertaining to incompetent leaders Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:50 PM
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 911
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
all is well big. And just a point on Katz with point douglasw an stadium design. he is ina tight spot really. with him and apser running can-west as direct buisness partners. aspers is expecting him to be on his side, while katz has to be reliable for bettering the city. and although i personally think the design is a fantastic idea i also have limited knowledge of all aspects.
but i agree the sam katz flip flops decisions has to me he runs the city more like a buisness then a city.
==== === = = = = == =
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/westview/story/4198276p-4789875c.html
^This article should be taken very seriously. It is a code of ethics, that many ignorant to it have no idea of.
= ========
bigcanadiano
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:52 AM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
This is actually a decent post by '99'. But spidey, let's lay off the incest remarks, huh?
Anyhow, I was going to make another topic post, but this one is clearly intelligent enough to subscribe to it, eh.
Tonight on Doug Brown's show, I wanted to call in, but I repressed the urge. The truth is there is no urge.
The positives:
When the best players on our team are Ryan Dinwiddie and Derrick Armstrong, those are the postives.
The negatives:
. . . However, Doug and Wheeler made a feeble attempt to give fans a "let's feel sorry for ourselves" which is a good diversion for those types that are in remorse.
Spidey brings up key elements to the unravelling this season of a Stephen King novel. The novelty "We got it goin' on" is wearing thin on Bauer or Taman. This brings us to unquestionably the coaching.
Who is to blame? . . .you decipher the rest.
Here is my endorsement:
Berry = player's coach. He has mimicked Don Matthew's to a tee. Problem is we are not Mtl We do not have A. Calvillo. We have Kevin Glenn. To make a long story short; we have players that love Berry's strategy, but have to be resiliant with what's given to them. That's what a players coach does. At this level of play, the players are responsible for what needs to be done on the field.
All Players = they're playing for last year. Berry instills what he thought was critical for success. Unlike Matthew's, Berry thought he could count on the players to play at a high level without resorting to dirty tactics Matthew's is infamous of. We know Matthew's common knowledge was to win at any cost, put player's competing against each other, endorsed decpetive kinds of tactics preparing for the opposition which meant attempting to injure (i.e. Milt Stegall / D. Sanchez) . . . Bringing in players from other teams practice rosters for strategy purposes. . . doing fake punts on no grounds necessary for it, like running up the score etc. Berry does not do this whatsoever with his players, and respects their intelligence. (This follows. . . )
Troy Westwood: some people are using this as a cop out card against berry. This is simply untrue. Berry's philosophy proves one thing: never put yourself ahead of the team. Troy Westwood was a cancer at this. No matter what any one says that is the truth. Same goes for Keith Stokes. A guy who holds a babies rattle just so he can be the focus (as Stokes was) is not Bomber football.
In conclusion: I blame not berry but the players. This is not about blaming the victim, which in all fairness to berry would be just that. He's done everything he's taken from his experience in Montreal, and the Bombers have one thing to do, which is, be resiliant. Mtl, Ham, or Tor are easily beatable teams. Ham is not a darkhorse by any stretch. I still say they are over-achieving, and MTL will fizzle to smash mouth football. Tor is a joke in waiting. The season is not over for the Bombers, but every indication says otherwise. I thought Edm. would be the worst team in the CFL this year, but the Bomber's can really do the Eskimos proud.
The sad truth is it is the players that are at fault and not berry. He wanted Glenn to call his own plays, by this time in "the program" I'll bet you my ridiculous wager of $01. that Glenn hasn't even stepped up to the plate yet, while Gumby flies down on a parachute @ Canada Inns with Bob the Snob Irving announcing 'WE'RE BEING ATTACKED' over. . . and over. . . Next thing you know, Gumby's shifty moves breaks every Bomber tackler for a td return.
Berry thinking, "SIGN HIM UP."
bigcanadiano
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 02:10 AM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
BTW - the term 'suicide football' is a great analogy. The Bombers are really making a name of it and should feel privileged to coin it. Truly unbelievable start this season.
footballmad
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:03 PM
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 911
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
big you make great points. to me there are aspects of the game that coaching is at full blame though. we always make the same little msitakes game in and game out that hurt us. but other then those i fully agree. the players have a lack of heart and effort. they don't show the same will or passion to play or win games and it obviously is killing this team.
Me i like our OC Kit cartwright a little better then our previous guy, but in the past few seasons i began calling him the drive killer. make a few great plays march down field and then call a 2nd down play that is doomed from the snap count. and now this year for some reason we instigated the roll out. to me i hate this idea, and our team is not set up for it. a roll out is made for a fast QB and a sloppy oline lets look at vick and the flacons for that, he could roll out and had the speed to get in a throwing position or take off. our team has a strong offensive line and a pretty immobile qb in Glenn, he does not have the speed t get outside and set up a pass or take off. to me all the roll out does is take away half of glenns options.
which leads down to play calling altogether. it has been bad, REAL bad. even if we don't give roberts the ball we have to leave him in the back field for the snap count. when we drop roberts out the db's back off and gain the upper hand on our recievers. if Glenn is calling the plays i say we go back to the drive killer to do it, and if the drive killer is calling them then i say we give glenn the chance.
really at this rate thier s no harm, the team is 0-3 and sinking faster each game. anythign new could bring a different aspect to the game that could infact start winning us football games.
_________________
Rider Pride Better Hide! Bomber Blue Coming Through!
On Game Day We All Play!
= = = == = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:26 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
You think my points were fair? That's falttering to me, because after reading the points you made (which I also agree with) it tells me what a disaster this season is thus far. That's not an insult, it's the truth of it that hurts more.
spidey99
Post subject: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 07:39 PM
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Posts: 53
Status: Offline
We've all seen this before in the Khari Jones years. The Blue Bomber bus had the makings of a Grey Cup champion, but just couldn't make it to the top of the mountain.
History repeats itself in more ways than one. After an arm (& heart)breaking playoff season, the supposed-to-be Grey Cup Champions begin to self-destruct. Listening to Berry gripe about the enthusiasm of some of his players in public, poisoning the locker room atmosphere, players not having faith in their coaches, etc. reminded me of the end of the Dave Richie saga.
Just as we finally said bye-bye to Dave Ritchie, we'll soon be saying goodbye to Doug Berry and crew at the end of the season, if not sooner. We might as well take that snarly old buzzard Lyle Bauer behind the barn with the coaches and make a fresh start when new management takes over. Taman will be a good GM.
We know the Bombers will get punked next week against the Lions and will probably lose to the Stamps, making us 0-6. Dare I say, "Remember the Reinbold years?"
There's more talent here than in the Reinbold era, but it's obvious that the Dave Berry version of the Bombers peaked last year and is likely the worst team in the CFL. Full credit has to go to the Tabbies, Argos (ew), Riders, Esks, and Als who have upgraded their rosters this year while we bent over backwards to stay intact, believing we were good enough to make it to the top of the mountain.
I feel bad for Milt, but his individual accolades and a spot in the Hall of Fame will have to be enough. For the rest of us, it's time to take out the paper bags and join the hall of shame. At least the beer I bring from home is cold.
So, before the first dollar of rent is collected for any event, a minimum of $3.7 million in income every year for 25 years, comes from the province and city.
Remember that $60 million mortgage? It is, not coincidentally, amortized over 25 years. A garden variety mortgage with blended payments including interest at six per cent per annum over that period of time would need about $4.6 million per year to fully service.
This is what constructive joe-taxpayer has been rewarded. True North and its subsidiary investors are reaping the profit margins, for an arena that is essentially being paid for BUT NOT OWNED by the public sector. In truth, True North is being BOUGHT A BUILDING FROM WINNIPEG PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME. . . for FREE!!! In fact, Winnipeggers MUST ENJOY hiding in their fox-holes so much that it makes True North look a lot better getting filthy rich.
If this above paragraph eludes the average citizen of this city, you will begin to understand how Eaton's did not have to be demolished.
Sadly this is all just academic.
Everything, Eaton's itself, having stood up until past 2000a.d. deserved a better fate, but not ONE civil servant risked breeching something so totally unavoidable? It is absolutely mind boggling how a country such as ours just let this happen the way it has.
This is divisive of Sam Katz extrodinary cowardice on the same type of issue.
The fact(s)
1- Eaton's = destroyed
2- Canada has no sense of soveriegty that it allows it's tax-payers to have our eyes gouged out (follows. . .)
3- True North inexplicably (as the Bombers sorry excuse for a football team) have a building built for them FOR FREE - (follows)
4- Mark Chipman's associates keep 100% of the profits.
The True North project cost taxpayers $40.5 million up-front and taxpayers are committed to subsidies and tax concessions of about $5 million a year for 25 years, or another $125 million over time.
The private owners put $18 million and made no commitment to make further investments if the project should turn sour, but they get all of the profit.
Unbelievable to me is that not 1 Winnipegger I know, even cares that the profit Mark Chipman is making off of this can feed our children and our childrens children all because of the the MTS Centre built for True North.
And nobody cares.
Unbelievable, even as I write this. The Eaton's building was a waste.
== ==== === = = =
footballmad
Post subject: RE: pertaining to incompetent leaders Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 10:06 PM
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 911
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
iunno what exactly your talking about big. I agree with the article and the fact that the mts centre was funded largely by the public sector and had next to no information on its actual funding. and agree that the same thing for the football stadium but asper has been alot more open abot it and has shown much more willingness to spend his own money to do so and has gaurenteed to pay back the public fundings within 5 years.
all i am saying about UPAs post is that at the time aspers proposal was choosen, mulitple proposals were made and were looked at. he states ledehoski doesnt want to own our team. i was making my point at that statment by him.
= = = == ========= =
in my opinion the mts centre is by and large the worst issue of incomptence i can equate, notwithstanding the article as it stands on its own merit. That being said, as a canadian born and raised in winnipeg, my own opinion has little edge, seeing I am biased (admittedly) to saving the now raped/pillaged eaton's building done by none other than Mark Chipman, Glen Murray, and Gary Doer.
The article only provides just how "risk free" the government can milk it's consumer as a tax-paying entity? What that question concerns me as a citizen is the government of manitoba, will on account of provincial litigation treat it's citizen as part of an ENTERPRISE WHICH WE ARE NOT. In fact, Mark Chipman (as it stated in the article. . . ) is a piece of the monopoly which goes something like, "I am a citizen for the tax-payer in this community, who will wager all the money invested into this (True North Corp.)and do solemnly swear to honor all prevailing monetary costs allocated into my PRIVATE BUSINESS - LOL -!!!) In the larger scheme of things Mark Chipman acted as the alibi in terms of a government loop hole - (an enterprise) - made up of frailty (i.e. joe-taxpayer.)" This is based on the condition I propose that the government of manitoba singlehandedly maneuvered without any recourse of action to legitimately inform the public of it's wrong-doing.
^This is the crux of the article, which based on formality, is telling us that the wool was being pulled over our eyes without it being questioned. Not only were we played for as tax-paying entities; but the average citizen were left blinded by the government. This is to say: the government knowlingly deceived it's main investor (the public monetary interest) into an illigitimate partnership through True North as if it is legally binding enough to withstand the peril of public opinions resolve.
Cont.
Also, it is in my opinion the government of Canada (YES. . . CANADA) failed not only the citizens of winnipeg but in large part the legal aspect of demolishing of the former Eaton's building. . . is without a doubt a crime that has gone unforseen due to the incredible loss of such an important piece of history. The reason being, that in an age such as this, Canada is less than a 200 year old nation, yet, to let Eatons go unpreserved, unprenounced and unwanted speaks volumes for the lack of vision or intiative. It was a shame to watch it happen and feel powerless because of it.
Any winnipegger or Canadian across the nation should be ashamed not knowing how significant a crime this was. People are completely clueless as to those that say, "It was necessary for downtown." Completely and utterly ignorant to standards that accompany it.
thank you,
bigc.
P.S. If this article doesn't make sense to you, or the impertinence of Mark Chipman, Glen Murray and True North. . . think again. Sam Katz wants to make his name something to be remembered, yet he flip flops on a stadium for point douglas.
====== ===
footballmad
Post subject: RE: pertaining to incompetent leaders Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:50 PM
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 911
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
all is well big. And just a point on Katz with point douglasw an stadium design. he is ina tight spot really. with him and apser running can-west as direct buisness partners. aspers is expecting him to be on his side, while katz has to be reliable for bettering the city. and although i personally think the design is a fantastic idea i also have limited knowledge of all aspects.
but i agree the sam katz flip flops decisions has to me he runs the city more like a buisness then a city.
==== === = = = = == =
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/westview/story/4198276p-4789875c.html
^This article should be taken very seriously. It is a code of ethics, that many ignorant to it have no idea of.
= ========
bigcanadiano
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:52 AM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
This is actually a decent post by '99'. But spidey, let's lay off the incest remarks, huh?
Anyhow, I was going to make another topic post, but this one is clearly intelligent enough to subscribe to it, eh.
Tonight on Doug Brown's show, I wanted to call in, but I repressed the urge. The truth is there is no urge.
The positives:
When the best players on our team are Ryan Dinwiddie and Derrick Armstrong, those are the postives.
The negatives:
. . . However, Doug and Wheeler made a feeble attempt to give fans a "let's feel sorry for ourselves" which is a good diversion for those types that are in remorse.
Spidey brings up key elements to the unravelling this season of a Stephen King novel. The novelty "We got it goin' on" is wearing thin on Bauer or Taman. This brings us to unquestionably the coaching.
Who is to blame? . . .you decipher the rest.
Here is my endorsement:
Berry = player's coach. He has mimicked Don Matthew's to a tee. Problem is we are not Mtl We do not have A. Calvillo. We have Kevin Glenn. To make a long story short; we have players that love Berry's strategy, but have to be resiliant with what's given to them. That's what a players coach does. At this level of play, the players are responsible for what needs to be done on the field.
All Players = they're playing for last year. Berry instills what he thought was critical for success. Unlike Matthew's, Berry thought he could count on the players to play at a high level without resorting to dirty tactics Matthew's is infamous of. We know Matthew's common knowledge was to win at any cost, put player's competing against each other, endorsed decpetive kinds of tactics preparing for the opposition which meant attempting to injure (i.e. Milt Stegall / D. Sanchez) . . . Bringing in players from other teams practice rosters for strategy purposes. . . doing fake punts on no grounds necessary for it, like running up the score etc. Berry does not do this whatsoever with his players, and respects their intelligence. (This follows. . . )
Troy Westwood: some people are using this as a cop out card against berry. This is simply untrue. Berry's philosophy proves one thing: never put yourself ahead of the team. Troy Westwood was a cancer at this. No matter what any one says that is the truth. Same goes for Keith Stokes. A guy who holds a babies rattle just so he can be the focus (as Stokes was) is not Bomber football.
In conclusion: I blame not berry but the players. This is not about blaming the victim, which in all fairness to berry would be just that. He's done everything he's taken from his experience in Montreal, and the Bombers have one thing to do, which is, be resiliant. Mtl, Ham, or Tor are easily beatable teams. Ham is not a darkhorse by any stretch. I still say they are over-achieving, and MTL will fizzle to smash mouth football. Tor is a joke in waiting. The season is not over for the Bombers, but every indication says otherwise. I thought Edm. would be the worst team in the CFL this year, but the Bomber's can really do the Eskimos proud.
The sad truth is it is the players that are at fault and not berry. He wanted Glenn to call his own plays, by this time in "the program" I'll bet you my ridiculous wager of $01. that Glenn hasn't even stepped up to the plate yet, while Gumby flies down on a parachute @ Canada Inns with Bob the Snob Irving announcing 'WE'RE BEING ATTACKED' over. . . and over. . . Next thing you know, Gumby's shifty moves breaks every Bomber tackler for a td return.
Berry thinking, "SIGN HIM UP."
bigcanadiano
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 02:10 AM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
BTW - the term 'suicide football' is a great analogy. The Bombers are really making a name of it and should feel privileged to coin it. Truly unbelievable start this season.
footballmad
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:03 PM
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 911
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
big you make great points. to me there are aspects of the game that coaching is at full blame though. we always make the same little msitakes game in and game out that hurt us. but other then those i fully agree. the players have a lack of heart and effort. they don't show the same will or passion to play or win games and it obviously is killing this team.
Me i like our OC Kit cartwright a little better then our previous guy, but in the past few seasons i began calling him the drive killer. make a few great plays march down field and then call a 2nd down play that is doomed from the snap count. and now this year for some reason we instigated the roll out. to me i hate this idea, and our team is not set up for it. a roll out is made for a fast QB and a sloppy oline lets look at vick and the flacons for that, he could roll out and had the speed to get in a throwing position or take off. our team has a strong offensive line and a pretty immobile qb in Glenn, he does not have the speed t get outside and set up a pass or take off. to me all the roll out does is take away half of glenns options.
which leads down to play calling altogether. it has been bad, REAL bad. even if we don't give roberts the ball we have to leave him in the back field for the snap count. when we drop roberts out the db's back off and gain the upper hand on our recievers. if Glenn is calling the plays i say we go back to the drive killer to do it, and if the drive killer is calling them then i say we give glenn the chance.
really at this rate thier s no harm, the team is 0-3 and sinking faster each game. anythign new could bring a different aspect to the game that could infact start winning us football games.
_________________
Rider Pride Better Hide! Bomber Blue Coming Through!
On Game Day We All Play!
= = = == = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: RE: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:26 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
You think my points were fair? That's falttering to me, because after reading the points you made (which I also agree with) it tells me what a disaster this season is thus far. That's not an insult, it's the truth of it that hurts more.
spidey99
Post subject: Blame it on the coaches Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 07:39 PM
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Posts: 53
Status: Offline
We've all seen this before in the Khari Jones years. The Blue Bomber bus had the makings of a Grey Cup champion, but just couldn't make it to the top of the mountain.
History repeats itself in more ways than one. After an arm (& heart)breaking playoff season, the supposed-to-be Grey Cup Champions begin to self-destruct. Listening to Berry gripe about the enthusiasm of some of his players in public, poisoning the locker room atmosphere, players not having faith in their coaches, etc. reminded me of the end of the Dave Richie saga.
Just as we finally said bye-bye to Dave Ritchie, we'll soon be saying goodbye to Doug Berry and crew at the end of the season, if not sooner. We might as well take that snarly old buzzard Lyle Bauer behind the barn with the coaches and make a fresh start when new management takes over. Taman will be a good GM.
We know the Bombers will get punked next week against the Lions and will probably lose to the Stamps, making us 0-6. Dare I say, "Remember the Reinbold years?"
There's more talent here than in the Reinbold era, but it's obvious that the Dave Berry version of the Bombers peaked last year and is likely the worst team in the CFL. Full credit has to go to the Tabbies, Argos (ew), Riders, Esks, and Als who have upgraded their rosters this year while we bent over backwards to stay intact, believing we were good enough to make it to the top of the mountain.
I feel bad for Milt, but his individual accolades and a spot in the Hall of Fame will have to be enough. For the rest of us, it's time to take out the paper bags and join the hall of shame. At least the beer I bring from home is cold.
the act of pretending
RedandWhite
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:38 PM
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 8157
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
...what difference does it make that I'm a mod, I'd say the same thing anyway...I just found it, in your words, absurd that you would quote jm calling her post 'laughable' in it's wordsmithing when the one you wrote afterwards was even less understandable...
...sorry, I don't smoke either...
======= =======
\
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 03:27 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
No, what I found laughable was a double standard that one who pulls rank, such as a mod using indiscretion to insinuate what a posters remarks actually mean.
(Yeah, kind of like that r/w.)
My entire line of reasoning has been brought about unknowing she was a mod, until she pm'd with her unmistakeable use of proper conduct.
I only state what is in fact, that nobody took the remarks seriously, they were candid. Thus no need to enforce the "rules". It's not as if the incest remarks were made on Rider-boards, which would be totally wrong.
= = = = == my response cont. == = = = = = =
Thank you for the encouragment? At any rate, I had no idea the mod/poster was indeed a mod to begin with. In r&w's response which he quotes me, (mockingly - of course) has nothing to do with internet etiquette on his part, yet I take the liberty to reply. See how that works?? The point I was making was done in good faith. As well, there is no reason to give warning to posters that "DON'T FOLLOW GUIDLINES/RULES/REGULATIONS - LOL" when there is no need for it. There is a fine line when telling the difference between what is parody on the internet and what is in fact reality. Some people, yes even mods - are truly guilty of absurdity themselves.
Put it in your peace pipe. . .
"brutha".
===== = ========= =
Okay, and I feel wholeheartedly that in the same manner of discretion you are pertinent upon.
^this. . . my response to== = =========>
For the record, spidey99 clearly suggests otherwise.
What does it matter who speaks for whom? The issue is that talk of that sort (and not by you, so why are you getting all bent out of shape anyway?) is inappropriate on an all-ages public forum.
= = = = = = === = =
(I respond)
You just fired off a pm, expecting to engage in some kind of psychological banter, that has no place on a public forum or have any insite into the fairytale world of something someone else said. Nobody has to believe it. Yet, I clearly stated that no matter what the person in question's intent was, it's not to be taken seriously. However, you incited me in the (pm) that I'm making 'idiotic' posts that seems to fit your misunderstanding of my response to you.
Therefore, it's a threat you pose when no threat was even mentioned toward you, then you proceed to antagonize through patronizing me.
What else. . . oh yeah, the wording you use is rather convenient seeing you hail from prince albert, which means to me you're a moral authority which you aren't. Let people decide for themselves.
============== = = == =
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:55 AM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
No, I sent a PM to you explaining the situation. I have no desire to get into anything psychological with you whatsoever.
Perhaps you should realize you are overreacting here, and also recognize that the forum guidelines state that comments deemed in appropriate by the moderating crew have no place on the board. I ran the comments by another moderator (not a Saskatchewan fan) and they also deemed them inappropriate.
I think you really need to take a breath and come back later. Bringing things into the public light that were meant for private messaging is kind of sleazy, if you ask me, and it seems you need some time to reflect.
== == = = == = =
jm02 wrote:
I tend to think a person's worth is determined by how they present themselves,
BTW - ^this wording is just laughable.
====================
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:41 AM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
Care to explain why? And you do know that the post in question referred to the fans as inbred hicks, right? So there blows your statement right out of the water...
= = = = = ===========
I wrote:
pfft. get off it already. we don't care. that was my main point. Nobody justifies who represents what, otherwise you're wasting your time. There's no need to tell anyone how plain and ignorant a person's opinions are. It's a matter of intelligence that negates you from the norm.
Nobody says Sask. fans are inbreds unless it's troy westwood who's (thank goodness) out of a bomber uni.
Go post @ cflzone.
=== == = = = ===
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:22 AM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
This has nothing to do with "Rider Pride" - I don't even consider myself to have it, since I am in no way affiliated with the successes of the team, but hey, if that's the type of person you want representing the rest of you, go hard...I tend to think a person's worth is determined by how they present themselves, in any capacity...calling an entire population inbred hicks and talking about cornholing a relative isn't exactly becoming of a human being...there's smack, and then there is just plain ignorance.
But it's your call...so, have fun, 'Peg fans! Bigcanadiano wants you all to be represented by the one who made those comments, it seems...
==== = ==== = = = = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:18 AM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
Either sit this one out or go post on reider's board begat migs chosen pro-rider outfit. Rider-pride doesn't fly here.
= = == = = =
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 08:31 PM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
Yes...always good sportsmanship to namecall and insult...
= = == = = = = =
spidey99
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 07:57 PM
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Posts: 53
Status: Offline
Give the inbred hicks their due. After winning 3 Grey Cups in the last 100 years (98, close enough) let them brag and cheer for all they're worth.
Watching the Riders win the Cup is like seeing Hailey's comet; it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Just don't get too drunk celebrating again, Migs. Cuz wasn't keen on the cornholin' ya gave her last Novemeber;)
= = = = = = = = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
Yes, not to steal your thunder here but I had understood it was a ri_lol_der fan.
= = = = = = =
PIGSEYE
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 12:49 PM
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 4424
^
You do realize that was written by a Rider fan (Migs I believe) ?
Some of then still seem to need to convince themselves of their victory.
= ===========
If Kevin Glenn played in the Grey Cup, do you guys still believe that the Bombers were guaranteed the championship? All offseason many of you guys whined and cried thousands of times that the Riders GreyCup win was tarnished because Kevin Glenn didn't play in the big game yet thus far this season he has resembled Kevin Federick more than anything. You guys held on to that excuse to get you through the offseason and methinks we can finally put that one to bed. Its unfortunate you guys had to start your 2nd stringer who started his first game, yet on Saturday afternoon we showed that even a 3rd stringer can come in and win a game in his first start. Here's hoping you guys turn it around soon because Hamilton and Montreal look to be the new Sheriff's in the East.
Cheers
===================
bahaha. . . i love how this nobody tries so desperately to get his point across, only to prove we'd loved to see Kevin Glenn in the Grey Cup. Only on ourbombers. brilliant.
bigcanadiano
Post subject: ourbombers is a ton of laughs Posted: Jul 12, 2008 - 02:00 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
right behind the cflzone. A clown show.
=============
There is no reason the bombers will contend in the east.
Kevin Glenn has done wonders with a OL of future shriners at 0-3.
+this defense is a j-o-k-e. Unbelievable. A JOKE.
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 01:38 PM
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 8157
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
...what difference does it make that I'm a mod, I'd say the same thing anyway...I just found it, in your words, absurd that you would quote jm calling her post 'laughable' in it's wordsmithing when the one you wrote afterwards was even less understandable...
...sorry, I don't smoke either...
======= =======
\
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 03:27 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
No, what I found laughable was a double standard that one who pulls rank, such as a mod using indiscretion to insinuate what a posters remarks actually mean.
(Yeah, kind of like that r/w.)
My entire line of reasoning has been brought about unknowing she was a mod, until she pm'd with her unmistakeable use of proper conduct.
I only state what is in fact, that nobody took the remarks seriously, they were candid. Thus no need to enforce the "rules". It's not as if the incest remarks were made on Rider-boards, which would be totally wrong.
= = = = == my response cont. == = = = = = =
Thank you for the encouragment? At any rate, I had no idea the mod/poster was indeed a mod to begin with. In r&w's response which he quotes me, (mockingly - of course) has nothing to do with internet etiquette on his part, yet I take the liberty to reply. See how that works?? The point I was making was done in good faith. As well, there is no reason to give warning to posters that "DON'T FOLLOW GUIDLINES/RULES/REGULATIONS - LOL" when there is no need for it. There is a fine line when telling the difference between what is parody on the internet and what is in fact reality. Some people, yes even mods - are truly guilty of absurdity themselves.
Put it in your peace pipe. . .
"brutha".
===== = ========= =
Okay, and I feel wholeheartedly that in the same manner of discretion you are pertinent upon.
^this. . . my response to== = =========>
For the record, spidey99 clearly suggests otherwise.
What does it matter who speaks for whom? The issue is that talk of that sort (and not by you, so why are you getting all bent out of shape anyway?) is inappropriate on an all-ages public forum.
= = = = = = === = =
(I respond)
You just fired off a pm, expecting to engage in some kind of psychological banter, that has no place on a public forum or have any insite into the fairytale world of something someone else said. Nobody has to believe it. Yet, I clearly stated that no matter what the person in question's intent was, it's not to be taken seriously. However, you incited me in the (pm) that I'm making 'idiotic' posts that seems to fit your misunderstanding of my response to you.
Therefore, it's a threat you pose when no threat was even mentioned toward you, then you proceed to antagonize through patronizing me.
What else. . . oh yeah, the wording you use is rather convenient seeing you hail from prince albert, which means to me you're a moral authority which you aren't. Let people decide for themselves.
============== = = == =
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:55 AM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
No, I sent a PM to you explaining the situation. I have no desire to get into anything psychological with you whatsoever.
Perhaps you should realize you are overreacting here, and also recognize that the forum guidelines state that comments deemed in appropriate by the moderating crew have no place on the board. I ran the comments by another moderator (not a Saskatchewan fan) and they also deemed them inappropriate.
I think you really need to take a breath and come back later. Bringing things into the public light that were meant for private messaging is kind of sleazy, if you ask me, and it seems you need some time to reflect.
== == = = == = =
jm02 wrote:
I tend to think a person's worth is determined by how they present themselves,
BTW - ^this wording is just laughable.
====================
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:41 AM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
Care to explain why? And you do know that the post in question referred to the fans as inbred hicks, right? So there blows your statement right out of the water...
= = = = = ===========
I wrote:
pfft. get off it already. we don't care. that was my main point. Nobody justifies who represents what, otherwise you're wasting your time. There's no need to tell anyone how plain and ignorant a person's opinions are. It's a matter of intelligence that negates you from the norm.
Nobody says Sask. fans are inbreds unless it's troy westwood who's (thank goodness) out of a bomber uni.
Go post @ cflzone.
=== == = = = ===
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:22 AM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
This has nothing to do with "Rider Pride" - I don't even consider myself to have it, since I am in no way affiliated with the successes of the team, but hey, if that's the type of person you want representing the rest of you, go hard...I tend to think a person's worth is determined by how they present themselves, in any capacity...calling an entire population inbred hicks and talking about cornholing a relative isn't exactly becoming of a human being...there's smack, and then there is just plain ignorance.
But it's your call...so, have fun, 'Peg fans! Bigcanadiano wants you all to be represented by the one who made those comments, it seems...
==== = ==== = = = = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Posted: Jul 15, 2008 - 12:18 AM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
Either sit this one out or go post on reider's board begat migs chosen pro-rider outfit. Rider-pride doesn't fly here.
= = == = = =
jm02
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 08:31 PM
Joined: Jul 06, 2005
Posts: 8690
Location: Prince Albert
Yes...always good sportsmanship to namecall and insult...
= = == = = = = =
spidey99
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 07:57 PM
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Posts: 53
Status: Offline
Give the inbred hicks their due. After winning 3 Grey Cups in the last 100 years (98, close enough) let them brag and cheer for all they're worth.
Watching the Riders win the Cup is like seeing Hailey's comet; it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Just don't get too drunk celebrating again, Migs. Cuz wasn't keen on the cornholin' ya gave her last Novemeber;)
= = = = = = = = =
bigcanadiano
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
Yes, not to steal your thunder here but I had understood it was a ri_lol_der fan.
= = = = = = =
PIGSEYE
Post subject: Posted: Jul 14, 2008 - 12:49 PM
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 4424
^
You do realize that was written by a Rider fan (Migs I believe) ?
Some of then still seem to need to convince themselves of their victory.
= ===========
If Kevin Glenn played in the Grey Cup, do you guys still believe that the Bombers were guaranteed the championship? All offseason many of you guys whined and cried thousands of times that the Riders GreyCup win was tarnished because Kevin Glenn didn't play in the big game yet thus far this season he has resembled Kevin Federick more than anything. You guys held on to that excuse to get you through the offseason and methinks we can finally put that one to bed. Its unfortunate you guys had to start your 2nd stringer who started his first game, yet on Saturday afternoon we showed that even a 3rd stringer can come in and win a game in his first start. Here's hoping you guys turn it around soon because Hamilton and Montreal look to be the new Sheriff's in the East.
Cheers
===================
bahaha. . . i love how this nobody tries so desperately to get his point across, only to prove we'd loved to see Kevin Glenn in the Grey Cup. Only on ourbombers. brilliant.
bigcanadiano
Post subject: ourbombers is a ton of laughs Posted: Jul 12, 2008 - 02:00 PM
Joined: May 31, 2005
Posts: 186
Status: Online!
right behind the cflzone. A clown show.
=============
There is no reason the bombers will contend in the east.
Kevin Glenn has done wonders with a OL of future shriners at 0-3.
+this defense is a j-o-k-e. Unbelievable. A JOKE.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Evaluating myself confindently
quote:
It's a fair question. My opinion isn't grounded in hard data. It's more of an educated hunch. Europeans who have a much better grip on democracy than we have.
My response:
I'm leaning towards answering an original question with another question which is what merk does quite a bit no less. Otherwise, I'd agree that Europe has democracy down wholesale as well.
=======================
Sadie, why is it when I speak to you - or at least try to anyway - you say nothing as opposed to when I don't you say something. Hmmm? Hmmm?
=========================
Quote from: goonie on June 24, 2008, 09:55AM
No no, go for a BBQ at Becky and Mike's, she's a sweet cook.
Hey, i overlooked this part. No wonder mike is mr. happyhappy. Becky can cook!
=========================
Gawd. leave it to the canucks to pick up a leaf. the canucks suck hard.
==========================
because when you speak to me you're saying things like how you'd lick the bottom of a well to meet me or something, whereas your responses to other people are more reply-worthy.
Oh come now valentine. You are clearly purging my attempt at something more honorable with an excuse. The truth is: hap said "would you lick the bottom of the (most disgusting pool on earth)" because hap gets it. I on the other hand found it amusing he would. The point I made to you was you do things in jest just to respond to me, which leaves me no grounds to communicate with you. . . it's as if you're scared to show me yourself. I don't know what else to say.
=========================
they did not deserve to lose that game. . . very unfortunate. it's hard to watch germany beat these teams on such terms.
======================
^ give me a break. Such pity. Honestly, the worst 2 cnd. teams were by and large the Leafs/Canucks. Made for each other I tell you.
=====================
meh. I wouldn't watch it again, neither would I vacancy.
=======================
no. sadie has a lot to offer. it gets lost in translation that nobody else sees it, it takes someone special to show there's a turtle underneath the shell. how've u been?
=======================
So you made a thread about Vacancy not being such a bad movie and then completely 180'd on it?
She said she liked monster better. I didn't say that. . . I agreed with her position - being - that she liked monster better. How clearly can I put that for you????
========================
So in your "Toonces Talk" you're saying you're the prince charming who's going to save Sadie and show her true happiness because that's what you can provide her?
No. I'm saying no matter what anyone does, she'll be whatever she wants with whoever she wants. . . I on the other hand just think that apathy is not the root to happiness which is the point of my message. I believe I lead by example when addressing that as an issue. It's not my fault people confuse it as falsely interpreting that from it. Sadie is no different, I just wish she were more open on the board because she seems interesting enough, or I may be giving her or the other too much credit for even trying my best, thus, they can't change their habits. Again, not my fault.
========================
watch it. it's not bad. . . but you'll agree it could be better.
=======================
I ride 17km on the staionary in 1h:5min. Not bragging, just sayin.
=======================
not a chance.
=======================
*takes frantic note.
=======================
Quote from: Hap on Today at 02:54 PM
Go Germany!
Either the russians were revoked of some cocaine spree or they just didn't show up to play against spain. ridiculuous result on the field. This won't happen against germany.
=====================
houses in b.c. are like mortaging how long it'd take to reach the moon.
========================
our justice system's finest. Indeed.
==========================
This deserves an ingenious response; simply because our news media neglects to focus on the immoral validation of the war, since they've gone so far to support it, that it leaves the masses to wither in naive ignorance of the truth.
In my view: there is one short message that echos to this history of war in Iraq.
When you know in your heart there is something that should be said, but you don't know what else to say about it - it's probably a nightmare. On the other hand, if there's one thing you'd wish that could happen, it'd be that the perpetrators of such gluttony would come forward and state, "It's all been an accident, we realize what is better after we decided to unilaterally absolve our humanity, thus contribution to the war effort. As such we apologize and regret the actions accountable. Our addmission is that we are sorry and let this not happen in future time." Then we'd measure that sentiment with a statement of our own, that we're not going to punish anyone because we appreciate the solid confession is a step forward in the right direction, leaving us to believe that a new kind of thinking has been found - something we've been unconsciously waiting for yet suspicious it might someday be spontaneous we all agree to it.
Sadly, the reality is not this^. The reality we face is waging war against ourselves because that's what makes the world turn, with money to burn.
However, when you think about it, it's totally unselfish thinking (as in my example of it. . . ) that could save us so much trouble it's almost ridiculous to mention. Honestly, in my mind, the world is a shoestring attach to greatness as in my example suggests, yet - we are either totally completely blind to it as such, yet it's so fucking obvious. I mean honestly. ?Have you ever read anything so cut and dry it makes perfect sense, that the world is at your fingertips ^ that was it.
P.S. I've said from day 1 it was all about oil + CNN.
It's a fair question. My opinion isn't grounded in hard data. It's more of an educated hunch. Europeans who have a much better grip on democracy than we have.
My response:
I'm leaning towards answering an original question with another question which is what merk does quite a bit no less. Otherwise, I'd agree that Europe has democracy down wholesale as well.
=======================
Sadie, why is it when I speak to you - or at least try to anyway - you say nothing as opposed to when I don't you say something. Hmmm? Hmmm?
=========================
Quote from: goonie on June 24, 2008, 09:55AM
No no, go for a BBQ at Becky and Mike's, she's a sweet cook.
Hey, i overlooked this part. No wonder mike is mr. happyhappy. Becky can cook!
=========================
Gawd. leave it to the canucks to pick up a leaf. the canucks suck hard.
==========================
because when you speak to me you're saying things like how you'd lick the bottom of a well to meet me or something, whereas your responses to other people are more reply-worthy.
Oh come now valentine. You are clearly purging my attempt at something more honorable with an excuse. The truth is: hap said "would you lick the bottom of the (most disgusting pool on earth)" because hap gets it. I on the other hand found it amusing he would. The point I made to you was you do things in jest just to respond to me, which leaves me no grounds to communicate with you. . . it's as if you're scared to show me yourself. I don't know what else to say.
=========================
they did not deserve to lose that game. . . very unfortunate. it's hard to watch germany beat these teams on such terms.
======================
^ give me a break. Such pity. Honestly, the worst 2 cnd. teams were by and large the Leafs/Canucks. Made for each other I tell you.
=====================
meh. I wouldn't watch it again, neither would I vacancy.
=======================
no. sadie has a lot to offer. it gets lost in translation that nobody else sees it, it takes someone special to show there's a turtle underneath the shell. how've u been?
=======================
So you made a thread about Vacancy not being such a bad movie and then completely 180'd on it?
She said she liked monster better. I didn't say that. . . I agreed with her position - being - that she liked monster better. How clearly can I put that for you????
========================
So in your "Toonces Talk" you're saying you're the prince charming who's going to save Sadie and show her true happiness because that's what you can provide her?
No. I'm saying no matter what anyone does, she'll be whatever she wants with whoever she wants. . . I on the other hand just think that apathy is not the root to happiness which is the point of my message. I believe I lead by example when addressing that as an issue. It's not my fault people confuse it as falsely interpreting that from it. Sadie is no different, I just wish she were more open on the board because she seems interesting enough, or I may be giving her or the other too much credit for even trying my best, thus, they can't change their habits. Again, not my fault.
========================
watch it. it's not bad. . . but you'll agree it could be better.
=======================
I ride 17km on the staionary in 1h:5min. Not bragging, just sayin.
=======================
not a chance.
=======================
*takes frantic note.
=======================
Quote from: Hap on Today at 02:54 PM
Go Germany!
Either the russians were revoked of some cocaine spree or they just didn't show up to play against spain. ridiculuous result on the field. This won't happen against germany.
=====================
houses in b.c. are like mortaging how long it'd take to reach the moon.
========================
our justice system's finest. Indeed.
==========================
This deserves an ingenious response; simply because our news media neglects to focus on the immoral validation of the war, since they've gone so far to support it, that it leaves the masses to wither in naive ignorance of the truth.
In my view: there is one short message that echos to this history of war in Iraq.
When you know in your heart there is something that should be said, but you don't know what else to say about it - it's probably a nightmare. On the other hand, if there's one thing you'd wish that could happen, it'd be that the perpetrators of such gluttony would come forward and state, "It's all been an accident, we realize what is better after we decided to unilaterally absolve our humanity, thus contribution to the war effort. As such we apologize and regret the actions accountable. Our addmission is that we are sorry and let this not happen in future time." Then we'd measure that sentiment with a statement of our own, that we're not going to punish anyone because we appreciate the solid confession is a step forward in the right direction, leaving us to believe that a new kind of thinking has been found - something we've been unconsciously waiting for yet suspicious it might someday be spontaneous we all agree to it.
Sadly, the reality is not this^. The reality we face is waging war against ourselves because that's what makes the world turn, with money to burn.
However, when you think about it, it's totally unselfish thinking (as in my example of it. . . ) that could save us so much trouble it's almost ridiculous to mention. Honestly, in my mind, the world is a shoestring attach to greatness as in my example suggests, yet - we are either totally completely blind to it as such, yet it's so fucking obvious. I mean honestly. ?Have you ever read anything so cut and dry it makes perfect sense, that the world is at your fingertips ^ that was it.
P.S. I've said from day 1 it was all about oil + CNN.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
the switch to purity
Well I find it hard to argue against anyone when I feel there is something sincere happening such as is this case. I trust you see nothing insincere about, in this instance, my comprehension skill.
Also, I leave it to chance that correct observation, such as my 'emo' being put out on this screen is delusion on my part. Therefore, vegas, ghengis etc. see an easy target. It's like they say nothing but I yet I continue har-har-har. The difference is if I have something to say I say it. I don't see how that can be funny, unless I have no idea what I'm providing the viewer. I've always believed people show their ignorance, by not responding accordingly thus I give them no credit. I've only shown I can be honest and worthy of real emo, not just jerking the chain with no purpose. That is why I respond in ways I do, to break that frustrating pattern of hi-jacking, and getting to focus on what really matters.
============================
oh yes. yes i do halfpine. I am well aware of what you guys are doing, . . . but never - I mean never underestimate my intelligence. That's a big no-no in my books.
You've been warned fairly, that's not a threat, it's that I know what you guys are doing. (Coming from a guy like you, who used to accuse me of not contributing anything over on the ewok-board.)
You see, the best actors are the ones that have nothing - absolutely nothing to lose. Those are few and far between. (Though vegas doesn't compare.) It speaks for a lot, have you been reading anything in this thread, you'd find the source of these reasons speak quite resoundingly well in fact. Otherwise, from our days at goanalog, I see nothing that's changed my opinion of you either. But don't underestimate my intelligence, that's when things go terribly wrong for everybody involved, but I speak with influence not ignorance which many forget.
I am simply sharing with you what context I have from my experience. I dare you to watch the movie as I've described it.
=============================
Quote from: Hap on Today at 03:44 AM
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
When we're talking about real capitalism is what we can control as individuals that co-exist among the absence of regulation. . . what I mean is a generational gap that exists. We're also talking about superficial people. I'm also talking about independence run amok. I'm referring to my personal beliefs that mock people from my generation (as I so see fit) that exploit others only in effect create (. . .if that's the actual word we should be using. . . ) there own means whereby increasing their material gains depends on each and every choice they make. It started out as, "I come from a house/home which my infancy was created." That was then, now. . . "Look at me, I've created my own opportunities, oh yeah, I remember you - you've changed - but look how much more I am and how better my things are than yours today." What I'm deducing is a selling out mentality that is contingent to the hipster profile. It's as if the evolution from infancy, leads to a ambivilant look of our own skin.
In all honesty, this may sound bias in thought, but it speaks of the over-competetive, condescending, and risk taking society we managed ourselves.
I can give you a hyper-sensitive example: this week I walk into a workplace establishment where a woman conducting her business is in the premesis. She looks at me with her pro-professional image as if to make a statement with a boastful 'hello' how are you today. I've never met this person before, until, you quickly realize it's just an illusion. . . the rest of the way the same person would not greet me or say another word to me the whole time she was there. It just makes you wonder; or at least - I know.
So, with that being said, I say there is no difference. People act for themselves as they see accordingly, and I should make the choices that go along with it, because as I mentioned already there has been in my generation those that talk the talk, as opposed to others like myself that walk the walk. Some have been "raised" into adulthood, movingat a frantic pace as they see fit, perhaps misguided in their becoming something of a materialist sense. Some like myself prefer to take the path less travelled, moving without a turtle shell in the hopes of achieving something far more revealing. Now I just refuse to acknowledge what judgments people may have or not, - not like there's anything wrong with that. I just keep quiet.
Quote
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
....and let's not forget that I do agree with hap here. ^
===============================
i know. . . it is pretty hilarious. especially seeing how difficult affleck was being on set, the entire scene i thought may have helped getting the dir. vision through though of course by accident it had to happen the way it did. i think i'll never forget it, believe me. a mimi-miracle of sorts. but not a word of a lie.
i find it peculiar that a guy like vegas who has no such acting experience can outmaneuver a camera on film. they just like being away from the camera i think is my guess.
Also, I leave it to chance that correct observation, such as my 'emo' being put out on this screen is delusion on my part. Therefore, vegas, ghengis etc. see an easy target. It's like they say nothing but I yet I continue har-har-har. The difference is if I have something to say I say it. I don't see how that can be funny, unless I have no idea what I'm providing the viewer. I've always believed people show their ignorance, by not responding accordingly thus I give them no credit. I've only shown I can be honest and worthy of real emo, not just jerking the chain with no purpose. That is why I respond in ways I do, to break that frustrating pattern of hi-jacking, and getting to focus on what really matters.
============================
oh yes. yes i do halfpine. I am well aware of what you guys are doing, . . . but never - I mean never underestimate my intelligence. That's a big no-no in my books.
You've been warned fairly, that's not a threat, it's that I know what you guys are doing. (Coming from a guy like you, who used to accuse me of not contributing anything over on the ewok-board.)
You see, the best actors are the ones that have nothing - absolutely nothing to lose. Those are few and far between. (Though vegas doesn't compare.) It speaks for a lot, have you been reading anything in this thread, you'd find the source of these reasons speak quite resoundingly well in fact. Otherwise, from our days at goanalog, I see nothing that's changed my opinion of you either. But don't underestimate my intelligence, that's when things go terribly wrong for everybody involved, but I speak with influence not ignorance which many forget.
I am simply sharing with you what context I have from my experience. I dare you to watch the movie as I've described it.
=============================
Quote from: Hap on Today at 03:44 AM
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
When we're talking about real capitalism is what we can control as individuals that co-exist among the absence of regulation. . . what I mean is a generational gap that exists. We're also talking about superficial people. I'm also talking about independence run amok. I'm referring to my personal beliefs that mock people from my generation (as I so see fit) that exploit others only in effect create (. . .if that's the actual word we should be using. . . ) there own means whereby increasing their material gains depends on each and every choice they make. It started out as, "I come from a house/home which my infancy was created." That was then, now. . . "Look at me, I've created my own opportunities, oh yeah, I remember you - you've changed - but look how much more I am and how better my things are than yours today." What I'm deducing is a selling out mentality that is contingent to the hipster profile. It's as if the evolution from infancy, leads to a ambivilant look of our own skin.
In all honesty, this may sound bias in thought, but it speaks of the over-competetive, condescending, and risk taking society we managed ourselves.
I can give you a hyper-sensitive example: this week I walk into a workplace establishment where a woman conducting her business is in the premesis. She looks at me with her pro-professional image as if to make a statement with a boastful 'hello' how are you today. I've never met this person before, until, you quickly realize it's just an illusion. . . the rest of the way the same person would not greet me or say another word to me the whole time she was there. It just makes you wonder; or at least - I know.
So, with that being said, I say there is no difference. People act for themselves as they see accordingly, and I should make the choices that go along with it, because as I mentioned already there has been in my generation those that talk the talk, as opposed to others like myself that walk the walk. Some have been "raised" into adulthood, movingat a frantic pace as they see fit, perhaps misguided in their becoming something of a materialist sense. Some like myself prefer to take the path less travelled, moving without a turtle shell in the hopes of achieving something far more revealing. Now I just refuse to acknowledge what judgments people may have or not, - not like there's anything wrong with that. I just keep quiet.
Quote
Real capitalism requires control by force because the poor inevitably outnumber the rich, and property rights are not inherent. Virtually all of the attempts in the past 30 years to radically deregulate capitalism have been accompanied by force. I can't think of any extreme capitalism makeovers that have come about democratically.
....and let's not forget that I do agree with hap here. ^
===============================
i know. . . it is pretty hilarious. especially seeing how difficult affleck was being on set, the entire scene i thought may have helped getting the dir. vision through though of course by accident it had to happen the way it did. i think i'll never forget it, believe me. a mimi-miracle of sorts. but not a word of a lie.
i find it peculiar that a guy like vegas who has no such acting experience can outmaneuver a camera on film. they just like being away from the camera i think is my guess.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
boxing without a title match
Sigh. Republican whitewashing tactics. Can we ask why you are employing hap to do your work/research for you?
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Hap on Today at 05:25 AM
In Canada, the right to free speech is not absolute. It is balanced against other rights,in this case the right of identifiable minorities to not be subjected to hatred. I think we are too quick to restrict free speech in this country, and this case is an example of how wide the hate-speech net is cast. I also think Steyn is an idiot.
The bottom line, however, is that freedom of speech in Canada and the US boils down to economics. The corporate news media will fight to the death against government censorship, but they'll drop a writer or broadcaster like a hot potato when advertisers are offended.
============================
my response:
Yes, this acts as a good response. However, when is it acceptable when ANY form of unilateral means are deemed necessary to alienate others as if to commit suicide. Let me explain what this means: in terms of Steyn's use of freedom of speech Steyn is acting in a manner that he must feel what represents (in this case a group. . . ) infringing upon his natural right as an individual to express what he must also feel is a breech of trust from where he exists as a person of identifiable means. Does this not equal the fact we are justifying an end if we are preserving freedom of speech for all people? I say the answer is yes. It does not depend on the individual, in this case Steyn, who is using his freedom of speech in a manner of speaking, "Look at me, I'm commiting a false suicide, because I Feel threatened by a certain group against me - my personal beliefs - are in jeopardy. . . this is ME being threatened." Does Steyn not constitute as free speech. On those terms I must abide to the RIGHT as an individual to express myself, but not as Steyn has in my view. I cannot make it any simpler than that who says, "I am commiting a suicide, my freedom of speech acts on it." = Steyn. However, our RIGHTS as individuals (regardless of minority status) do not depend on the use of a false vicitim such as is Steyn bemusing us. It is the law of diminishing returns. . .
========================
The movie as it is could've been a far better movie without (in this case affleck. . . ) who's a b-list movie actor. The shot from the scene is fairly dramatic, whatever the (director) wasn't getting through to (affleck) it was a misdemeanor on afflecks dispersal of the scene. What broke affleck's bad habits must have caught the dir. attention, because by the 4'th take the entire film crew was earily quite on set, when I looked in the back from where you see me on screen, in between takes the film's crew which are usually aspiring actors but don't have the talent are all looking in my direction. By the time the dir. thought about accounting for affleck's distaste, he used the takes that caused it.
======================
^Does this mean none of you has seen the movie? The clip that i am in is an over the shoulder shot of Affleck. He was not acting, when you see me, affleck is looking straight at me and not in character. . . the director was having a field day with affleck's antics which is not even the half of it. Affleck blew up at the director, telling him to "Stop telling me what to do." -
=====================
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Hap on Today at 05:25 AM
In Canada, the right to free speech is not absolute. It is balanced against other rights,in this case the right of identifiable minorities to not be subjected to hatred. I think we are too quick to restrict free speech in this country, and this case is an example of how wide the hate-speech net is cast. I also think Steyn is an idiot.
The bottom line, however, is that freedom of speech in Canada and the US boils down to economics. The corporate news media will fight to the death against government censorship, but they'll drop a writer or broadcaster like a hot potato when advertisers are offended.
============================
my response:
Yes, this acts as a good response. However, when is it acceptable when ANY form of unilateral means are deemed necessary to alienate others as if to commit suicide. Let me explain what this means: in terms of Steyn's use of freedom of speech Steyn is acting in a manner that he must feel what represents (in this case a group. . . ) infringing upon his natural right as an individual to express what he must also feel is a breech of trust from where he exists as a person of identifiable means. Does this not equal the fact we are justifying an end if we are preserving freedom of speech for all people? I say the answer is yes. It does not depend on the individual, in this case Steyn, who is using his freedom of speech in a manner of speaking, "Look at me, I'm commiting a false suicide, because I Feel threatened by a certain group against me - my personal beliefs - are in jeopardy. . . this is ME being threatened." Does Steyn not constitute as free speech. On those terms I must abide to the RIGHT as an individual to express myself, but not as Steyn has in my view. I cannot make it any simpler than that who says, "I am commiting a suicide, my freedom of speech acts on it." = Steyn. However, our RIGHTS as individuals (regardless of minority status) do not depend on the use of a false vicitim such as is Steyn bemusing us. It is the law of diminishing returns. . .
========================
The movie as it is could've been a far better movie without (in this case affleck. . . ) who's a b-list movie actor. The shot from the scene is fairly dramatic, whatever the (director) wasn't getting through to (affleck) it was a misdemeanor on afflecks dispersal of the scene. What broke affleck's bad habits must have caught the dir. attention, because by the 4'th take the entire film crew was earily quite on set, when I looked in the back from where you see me on screen, in between takes the film's crew which are usually aspiring actors but don't have the talent are all looking in my direction. By the time the dir. thought about accounting for affleck's distaste, he used the takes that caused it.
======================
^Does this mean none of you has seen the movie? The clip that i am in is an over the shoulder shot of Affleck. He was not acting, when you see me, affleck is looking straight at me and not in character. . . the director was having a field day with affleck's antics which is not even the half of it. Affleck blew up at the director, telling him to "Stop telling me what to do." -
=====================
building good will; the false imagination
As my girlfriend was mooching off of my generosity at the moxie's restaurant, there was this magnetic sense we were there for a reason that could only explain the nature of our encounter. As later on it would be discovered the perfect ending to the night would call upon my defense of her, as our night continued with an unexpected turn of events. At the nightclub in Winnipeg's exchange district, Alive had brought some uninvited guests who during that time this brief altercation had provoked my interest between I and my girlfriend. The fellow who got in the way of my fun filled adventure, thought it'd be a good idea to smack her bottom without being given the liberty or permission to do so. It is not in good taste to treat your victims of the opposite sex in this case female with unabiding freedom. So to put this character in his place, a confrontation ensued with a dear in headlights to which my girlfriend kicked me out of the bar. Successfully. In truth, there are more matters of the heart to fuel my desires, such as the Italian wannabe mafia archetypes that believe they can show up to manuever their chauvanist intensity to a new level of scum. That in such a manner they would be able to entice anything that stands in their way, but to no evail, the security cameras pick up all forms of Italian insecurities and inferiority complex, which reminded me of individuals that change the purpose through their lives to cause a false sense of materialist independence. As though their vigor exvaporates into thin air. Superficial minded that the light of someone who truly has human qualities, the laws of diminishing returns apply. May my view of this short period in history equivocate a lifetime of noble wealth and humble authority.
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
======================
I do not hate vegas, or ghengis or anyone else on this board. I just had to say what I neeed to reflect on, because of what sadie inferred.
-------------------------
I want to talk about keanu reeves as an actor, as it has something to do with what I wrote to vegas. Keanu reeves has put more bs-acting on screen than I care to admit to myself, it's like watching dog-poo-poo. But in the end, even though Keanu hasn't come within a nose hair for an Oscar nomination, the man must be doing something right, the Matrix trilogy alone must make him an action hero of all time. That takes some form of genius I would think.
If you want to watch a movie you'll see me in, and not believe it to be 'boring' to watch is the assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford.
Casey Affleck played a ruthless type of character, that didn't mix well with Brad Pitt playing Jesse James. Especially the scenes where the focus is on Affleck. If not for Pitt, Affleck glory hogged the entire movie from start to finish.
In the scene I was an extra, is a shot where Affleck is challenging the audience to provoke him. Affleck: "Do you want to test my courage, do you, do you. . ." At that precise moment, the camera shot is over his shoulder into the audience. There is a clear view of me seated in the audience, bracing myself due to Afflecks challenge. Why this is relevant, is the director did 4 different takes of that shot. Affleck became furious, because he felt I was upstaging him in his effort of the scene, which the director got word of Afflecks dissent, it moved around the theatre in a hurry. I was asked to move, quite candidly, by one of the films crew. I obliged. The director did another 3 takes of the shot, I suspect he had a total of 8-10 shots to play with for that scene. In the editting room, no doubt the director must have enjoyed what I did because they decided to keep my action in a critical part of the scene.
Before I left the theatre, I walked up to Affleck and complimented him on his work, that he graciously accepted. Sam Rockwell, who did a far better job acting, heard about Affleck's dislike of my performance in the audience, I also congratulated and he was reciprocal as well.
The whole time I walked of the Walker Theatre knowing that no one else knew what had happened.
============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
======================
I do not hate vegas, or ghengis or anyone else on this board. I just had to say what I neeed to reflect on, because of what sadie inferred.
-------------------------
I want to talk about keanu reeves as an actor, as it has something to do with what I wrote to vegas. Keanu reeves has put more bs-acting on screen than I care to admit to myself, it's like watching dog-poo-poo. But in the end, even though Keanu hasn't come within a nose hair for an Oscar nomination, the man must be doing something right, the Matrix trilogy alone must make him an action hero of all time. That takes some form of genius I would think.
If you want to watch a movie you'll see me in, and not believe it to be 'boring' to watch is the assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford.
Casey Affleck played a ruthless type of character, that didn't mix well with Brad Pitt playing Jesse James. Especially the scenes where the focus is on Affleck. If not for Pitt, Affleck glory hogged the entire movie from start to finish.
In the scene I was an extra, is a shot where Affleck is challenging the audience to provoke him. Affleck: "Do you want to test my courage, do you, do you. . ." At that precise moment, the camera shot is over his shoulder into the audience. There is a clear view of me seated in the audience, bracing myself due to Afflecks challenge. Why this is relevant, is the director did 4 different takes of that shot. Affleck became furious, because he felt I was upstaging him in his effort of the scene, which the director got word of Afflecks dissent, it moved around the theatre in a hurry. I was asked to move, quite candidly, by one of the films crew. I obliged. The director did another 3 takes of the shot, I suspect he had a total of 8-10 shots to play with for that scene. In the editting room, no doubt the director must have enjoyed what I did because they decided to keep my action in a critical part of the scene.
Before I left the theatre, I walked up to Affleck and complimented him on his work, that he graciously accepted. Sam Rockwell, who did a far better job acting, heard about Affleck's dislike of my performance in the audience, I also congratulated and he was reciprocal as well.
The whole time I walked of the Walker Theatre knowing that no one else knew what had happened.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
False imagination in times of hostile waters
If last night is any indication of future events, then I look no further to it from where I began by thinking, what on earth did she mean when I sat there and listened to her telling me how so many of her former friends truly professed love for me at such a tender age, that right then and there a flood gate opened that expelled many secrets hidden beneath like as treasure from beyond the grave, where ht one true thing I should find is simply my heart in a casket but yet open like a wounded knee feels, and the potential for brilliance on the minds of many past teachers that knew of my ability at learning. Therefore, learning has impacted how I've changed over the past 10 years more, that life really is what you make of it, in the end everything turns 360 degrees geometrically and performs in a manner that only you choose, but this narrative could not possibly express just how profound the nature of ones conscience is given the nature of present events have influence. But I digress, the complication is not one of vice but of virtue, for this person who's nameless shall equate with the desire of what I used to have control of, without really being fully aware of the consequences that would commence afterward due in part to our fairly discreet encounter as if we were taken back into a a time warp, then to meet again last night against all odds only to instill the truth. She told me as if an oracle came to light that the exact nature of my whereabouts were how strong my character is, that it was in fact my skill to correctly imply who was vain and those that were not, failed as my friends in this escalade.
======================
How so. I mean, does seinfeld just randomly come up?
======================
It's the first thing to go on my plate when they're available.
======================
Quote from: Mercules on June 21, 2008, 02:56PM
You get that kind of action when you are the underdog team that outplays and defeats the favorite team
my response:
Well stated. You should wear that as a tattoo.
re; Holland v Russia
does anyone know what the final score was?
======================
if the theme is bbq, you take some pre-packed skewers shrimp or what have you and bring those ready hot. Otherwise, pick up a bbq entertaining cookbook and grab an idea from there.
======================
Quote from: beaf on June 21, 2008, 09:25AM
is bigc actually from portugal or is he like the rest of canada in that he has to pick a european side from the international scene in order to feel s/he has a horse in the race?
Honestly, I am skin, mind, body, purely portuguese blood line. We have history, are of romantic language and the country is amazing.
Quote
christ it's like trying to read one of Plato's dialogues
That is the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me; especially coming from someone like you who is unsuspecting and unbias with his honesty. I respect that wholeheartedly.
======================
Seriously think about this I wrote ^ it may be the most important post in this subject as it was drawn out in the thread.^ A concept is not a right. I would love to hear what some of you think. In factuality, the distinction is crucial.
Mike I am looking at you here, because I know in my heart you have to trust what I wrote means something. I know it does, but it takes intellect. I do not apologize for the knowledge I demonstrate whatsoever. There is substance between what is concept, and what is a right in terms of free speech. In Canada's charter speech(1), autonomy(2), thought(3) are all drafted as rights.
So based on social scientific thought, the rules of credence should only apply. I get it - that you don't 'get' satisfaction from my response. How convenient of you merk. Especially considering the fact, yes the fact I give you, yes you the benefit of the doubt. ?HHHmmmm?. I wonder if that makes so much sense to you as to continue responding to suit your taste? If I had poor habits before I conducted any knowable research, how might you consider any form of response. . . would it be narrow minded perhaps or does that only apply to who you make victim? Here's another question for you, since you have honed such skill and mastry combined with karate-like-express instincts of yours?
My better intuition would serve that the quote itself, (as I said both before and after you concluded. . . ) I gave you yes you the benefit of the doubt, WITHOUT calling out your disposition of failing to provide a reference. If you see that - that is - my response is a social science but with a narrative.
You cannot dismiss an interlocutor on the admission of guilt, as if to say, "No - you provide faulty evidence for lack of (whatever the hell you care to insert here is fine - because that's all you've accomplished so far merk.)" I am telling you I am not a stupid individual, do not test me here merk, I've had more university faculty members jealous of my approach contingent with course material, put them on their heels, and given my experience against superficial method of practice. As result, blaming my own credibility was their cop-out card, much the same way you do. I don't buy into it, because I practice what I preach.
Otherwise, I am willing to examine the true source of your quote:
Quote
Which I still have no clue how to respond to.
To quote you is about probably the same way the person you quoted took information for granted and thusly replied:
Quote
Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
So I was quoting you, based on the source my friend.
Now for the proof of what I wrote, I hardly agree with most of what the article stated. Specifically based on the anti-Islamic sentiment, which is unjustified, yet you feel that you are standing up for 'free speech' not necessarily 'anti-islam'. Correct me merk. Was that not an intelligent enough response for you??
You see, I then proceeded to ensure my RIGHT as an individual, by stating YOU are reinforcing an illigit belief, not so much because it is false, but because it is moot. You refer to people in the sense you've described as anti-american, thus improperly portraying your 'american' held views of what free speech is. How is this for an intelligent response???
Now I also stated to you that because of an irregular view you mistook - the freedom an individual has to promote the cause of free speech = nothing can infringe (me, merk, myself, the 'I') from stating whatever I want when I choose to. It is my decision. Therefore, nothing can suppress me from the act to commit myself to it.
Read what the article said here:
Quote
I have read Holocaust denial material here and I remain convinced the Holocaust happened. I've read tracts demonizing homosexuality and don't consider gays a threat to anything. I've read accounts by reporters who laid bare national security secrets and I've watched other reporters interview jurors at the end of a criminal trial — all things that can be suppressed in Canada.
What it means in this case. . .
is that between concept and rights there is freedom of speech. That we can agree on. What people neglect is pure and simple logic of the material they're viewing, in essence, what defines an individual is not up to the state or the ideas we gather. I promptly advised you that concepts are not a model for free speech, only rights (as in laws) can be protected under strict positivist mentality. That is the difference we're suggesting is missing from the article. If you have a right to free speech, you're concepts aren't necessarily the same as what RIGHT protects individuals.
In Canada, pierre trudeau drafted free speech as a right. In the states, Americans has AMENDMENTS in their constitution. Think about that for a moment. You do not have free speech as an individual right so policy can protect your social demographic. That is a critical - crucial - distinction that connot be undetected. In other words, people that use freedom of speech in doing so - so not taking it for granted is the challenge. Neil McDonald has a right to promote his free speech, but I do not think the same way he does. Again, that is for you to decide because it is a RIGHT.
Therefore, your quote merk symbolized one thing; people do not have to act apologetic in Canada. They probably never will, that is about the same as Americans act, but only you deny it. The comfort zone here is complaining about people such as Mark Steyn, cannot breech our rights as individuals, Steyn is simply not aware of. I think that is what Pierre Trudeau had in mind, for all people.
In my case I've lived in Winnipeg all of my life, my parents came here from a fascist dictatorship back in the day. When I get used to living in Canada, (even today) I can say I still haven't been used to life here as I know. It seems sad, probably because it is. What this has to do with my freedom of speech you may never understand. My point being: if I had the truth on my side, then I'd be doing everything in my power to make this happen in my favor. However, I can only try, and in Canada as individuals living in this country I understand I cannot define individuals or be understated as one. That is not the course of history in American politics. God help you if you do not see the difference. Remember, I said 'if' and that is a monstrously huge IF you have the RIGHT to free speech, as to say in Canada Pierre Trudeau's ingenius vision whereas such Jimmy Carter would ask for his advice, mind you AMENDMENTS are not I repeat is not to be confused with as RIGHTS. In essence, you have widely held false beliefs of concepts, but nothing you say is protected as a RIGHT. You can speak anything you profess until the cows come home in the US, but in Canada you have to think before you speak. Pierre Trudeau had it right.
=============================
^ so on a side note apart from vegas. . . that is how you deal with toothless fucktards. Which a true professional such as the people I met with this week saw in me. Obviously it was a tip of the iceberg, they didn't have the need to feel "I wasn't ready emotionally. . ." but not as vegas put it.) We already knew that, they just wanted to help me through it, I wasn't short of being hailed as sir lawrence olivier. I can assure you, I was a far better person doing what I did this week. I am far happier when not dealing with ignorant individuals. End of story. Take this as you must. I'll be damned if I let some idiot fuck give me their misplaced judgment. I've learned so much, but vegas is being totally pathetic.
=============================
Listen man, get off it already, if you give yourself a reason for making cheap shots. . . I'm not the one giving you reason for it. I give reasons, before I accuse, yes accuse others of cheating in their responses. I am not on the attack for owning the thread, I simply stand against those that feel the need to antagonize others when they really have no idea what it is they're talking about, then, make shrewd observations as if it means something against me. That is how I have always been, yet, out of nowhere you appear with idiotic inferences. Get off your high horse and grab a clue of your own. I hope I made myself clear on this matter. And you are definitely not someone I care for, and I know what that means.
=============================
Eat my fuck for even suggesting it dickhole. Portugal played with quality, that is all I said. (How is that for a wipe off tattoo???) Do not pretend to be something you're not for giving them credit. What I said was respectful, and for a moment if anyone on this board can't read between the lines for the crap you or merk throw out are blind. I also stated if the portuguese weren't playing in a manner that wouldn't validate their performance kindly, I'd be the first to admit they deserved to lose. But we played like lions; yet you or merk being pricks justifies it wholeheratedly so. Fuck I wish England were in this thing to beat the snot out of your teams.
P.S. I'm glad becky and mike can see this stuff, because honestly I am sick and tired of it. . . go back to goanalog where the dimwits belong.
===========================
Maybe you're thinking too much. Btw- testing oneself is an art of sorts, knowing the difference is the beauty in what you have within you. Believe me when I tell you I am far and away miles ahead of people that I can no longer compare myself too. It's all about the unknown in place of my self awareness. If you for a moment think - what I'm telling you here isn't a gift to you from me, you're wrong, because people in my position that you can relate might have a common interest of the arts or vague idea of it wouldn't give you 2 cents worth of what I'm willing to bet against. I have done so, and I Will continue to do so, even if it means I'll never get a legitimate shot at something. Put that in your pipe and smoke it vegas. You don't know shit about me. Fucking shit about me, asshole.
Seriously, I've met guys like vegas on set that think they have master 'spy' techniques but couldn't blow a fish out of the water. This is not personal, I just don't want this guy following me around, as I stay far away from guys that show their true colors. This is no joke. I will back this up and I can. That's all I've ever done, so if the mods can follow me on this, I'm just responding with what this dude has done - but not because I'm shallow.
P.S. I'm fucking 30 years old, and I live in a country that I've grown up in during that time, but I know for a fact I will not tolerate this to use him as an example. If it continues, I will leave this board. You know I will.
======================
A good honest response. I can respect that, EVEN if I don't agree with it. . . to each there own, I say, you have a misconception. I can honestly tell you from my perspective, (according to what you saw ghen) that if we sat in the same room together watching that game, and we received exactly the same players on the pitch. . . Portugal did everything we possibly could. That is all I mean. I completely do not subscribe to the 'flashes of brilliance' or 'rolled over' because those are cliches easy to label the opposing teams loss. I think you can respect what those ideas represent. I am not trying to elicit bias, I simply want to state they played a great game, I swear if we didn't have the effort, then that would qualify, but portugal showed a lot of their stuff man. Believe me. The germans were happy not to lose that game. End of story.
========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 08:39AM
Ok, so stop imagining you even know the context or meaning behind the statement. Stop injecting your line of reasoning where it has no place.
Signed,
Mr. Ethnocentrist
So this is the response I get after surfing through your inexplicable use of discussing profanity when used with discretion? (However, I do not blame hap for that because as I've defended him already I know exactly where he's coming from. You on the other hand. . .) How's this for you merk; bigot or moron, or do you have both going for you? I am sick of this non-sense you give me. First off you make a contradiction between social scientific evidence, by asking me where you got the quote from, then proceed to tell me I have no place in offering my response to it because I don't know where it supposedly came from? (Were it for you to supply the source as every good school boy should.) Therefore, you're entire theory is either moot, or you're a liar for saying everything you've presented or both. Just read what was written and save yourself.
=======================
If that's the attitude you take, I sure would hope not you.
==========================
Yeah, or really suck at winning. Pick your poison.
==========================
So you see what the truth really is, the portuguese out played the germans to a man, without shame in the way we played. If you know anything about football you'd know the germans were scared shitless about getting scored on to tie the game.
======================
you are so clever i could shoot myself.
==========================
Which is also why you seem so cynical. The Portuguese played above average, but. . . they still looked like champions going out in style.
============================
So earlier in the wekk I was shtting myself preparing for what turned out to be a nice time with the artisitic director of the Manitoba Theatre Center. I provided Hamlet's character in the exchange, and in return some bittersweet music to my ears. They liked me, they really lliked me!
============================
Quote from: Hap on June 19, 2008, 10:28AM
Would it be better if I said you annihilated "what was left of your neighbours?" Would it help if HZ said Americans annihilated "what was left of the Indians?" It was their intent to get rid of the Indians, so what if there was only 10% left to annihilate after germ warfare and natural causes thinned their ranks. They wiped out what was left of the Indians.
And for the record, it is a cold hard fact that in North America, the now defunct but once widely used adage to describe "third world" conditions exist right here in our own back yard.
=========================
Again, what is this fascination of american history without some form of noteriety. Admittedly, I take a chomskian style approach when putting a microscope down to reason against such full scale paradigms (in this case American ideology.) I have stated this from the beginning of our psudo-generalization of these entire entries from post-to-post-to-post. It becomes circular. Merk on the other hand has such a deep appreciation for the love of his realist ventures in New Jersey, we can speak of a head of cabbage with a smiley face drawn on it, and that'd be merk's caricature. . . then there's mike being totally canadian in his approach to reasoning with the vaguest of responses so not to let poor merk down from the treehouse built-in with a reality television show. But I digress, back to colins post. . .
If you want to speak of colonialization within the control of state senate, hitherto assimilation of aboriginals from which the European invasion became radically altered was a combination of resistence fighters and the bands of indian settlements that ranged throughout the country of Canada.
The most immediate parallel to any modern day rebellion which we have not seen since (Quebecois sovereigntists) ARE the Metis in Manitoba, to which Louis Riel was executed for treason against the government. When we are speaking of free speech, there are only political prisoners that seek to verify the potential pitfalls, it is very 'unethical' in terms of pursuing it. Merk on the otherhand, simply refuses to believe people should steer clear of misinformation, and take the chains that go along with it.
P.S. For the love of god, if merk says he doesn't understand a damn word from this, I have a newsflash for all of you, AMERICANS DON'T LIKE TO LOSE. Maybe that should wake you guys up to sit or stand up and fight against such misjudging inbreds we call cross border retardation.
=======================
Two words: holy_fuck (enter laughter) followed by a jesus_mary for the several backhands I've taken wits to by none other than merk himself.
If I could be friends with a guy like merk, there is no telling what I could do in this world.
(I am the second coming of an ambiguous flamingo.)
P.S. This is probably my funniest post ever, and only I understand it!! - LOL -
=========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 03:08AM
Big C,
Where is the quote I used from?
I don't know where the quote is from or why you're even asking. My point being one in the same here: which is, my response was based on the subject matter originally. Therefore, the analogy between what is concept post ergo what is a 'right' depends on the context of freedom. Again merk, I stuck to my principle in question, that no matter which way you slice it one cannot refer to freedom as a concept. I made myself astutely clear on that.
I know where you are going with your question; but it has nothing to do with my answer, the choice I made is on par with the subject in this discussion. Honestly, not even you can turn the tables on me with that tactic. I am not a stupid individual.
======================
How so. I mean, does seinfeld just randomly come up?
======================
It's the first thing to go on my plate when they're available.
======================
Quote from: Mercules on June 21, 2008, 02:56PM
You get that kind of action when you are the underdog team that outplays and defeats the favorite team
my response:
Well stated. You should wear that as a tattoo.
re; Holland v Russia
does anyone know what the final score was?
======================
if the theme is bbq, you take some pre-packed skewers shrimp or what have you and bring those ready hot. Otherwise, pick up a bbq entertaining cookbook and grab an idea from there.
======================
Quote from: beaf on June 21, 2008, 09:25AM
is bigc actually from portugal or is he like the rest of canada in that he has to pick a european side from the international scene in order to feel s/he has a horse in the race?
Honestly, I am skin, mind, body, purely portuguese blood line. We have history, are of romantic language and the country is amazing.
Quote
christ it's like trying to read one of Plato's dialogues
That is the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me; especially coming from someone like you who is unsuspecting and unbias with his honesty. I respect that wholeheartedly.
======================
Seriously think about this I wrote ^ it may be the most important post in this subject as it was drawn out in the thread.^ A concept is not a right. I would love to hear what some of you think. In factuality, the distinction is crucial.
Mike I am looking at you here, because I know in my heart you have to trust what I wrote means something. I know it does, but it takes intellect. I do not apologize for the knowledge I demonstrate whatsoever. There is substance between what is concept, and what is a right in terms of free speech. In Canada's charter speech(1), autonomy(2), thought(3) are all drafted as rights.
So based on social scientific thought, the rules of credence should only apply. I get it - that you don't 'get' satisfaction from my response. How convenient of you merk. Especially considering the fact, yes the fact I give you, yes you the benefit of the doubt. ?HHHmmmm?. I wonder if that makes so much sense to you as to continue responding to suit your taste? If I had poor habits before I conducted any knowable research, how might you consider any form of response. . . would it be narrow minded perhaps or does that only apply to who you make victim? Here's another question for you, since you have honed such skill and mastry combined with karate-like-express instincts of yours?
My better intuition would serve that the quote itself, (as I said both before and after you concluded. . . ) I gave you yes you the benefit of the doubt, WITHOUT calling out your disposition of failing to provide a reference. If you see that - that is - my response is a social science but with a narrative.
You cannot dismiss an interlocutor on the admission of guilt, as if to say, "No - you provide faulty evidence for lack of (whatever the hell you care to insert here is fine - because that's all you've accomplished so far merk.)" I am telling you I am not a stupid individual, do not test me here merk, I've had more university faculty members jealous of my approach contingent with course material, put them on their heels, and given my experience against superficial method of practice. As result, blaming my own credibility was their cop-out card, much the same way you do. I don't buy into it, because I practice what I preach.
Otherwise, I am willing to examine the true source of your quote:
Quote
Which I still have no clue how to respond to.
To quote you is about probably the same way the person you quoted took information for granted and thusly replied:
Quote
Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
So I was quoting you, based on the source my friend.
Now for the proof of what I wrote, I hardly agree with most of what the article stated. Specifically based on the anti-Islamic sentiment, which is unjustified, yet you feel that you are standing up for 'free speech' not necessarily 'anti-islam'. Correct me merk. Was that not an intelligent enough response for you??
You see, I then proceeded to ensure my RIGHT as an individual, by stating YOU are reinforcing an illigit belief, not so much because it is false, but because it is moot. You refer to people in the sense you've described as anti-american, thus improperly portraying your 'american' held views of what free speech is. How is this for an intelligent response???
Now I also stated to you that because of an irregular view you mistook - the freedom an individual has to promote the cause of free speech = nothing can infringe (me, merk, myself, the 'I') from stating whatever I want when I choose to. It is my decision. Therefore, nothing can suppress me from the act to commit myself to it.
Read what the article said here:
Quote
I have read Holocaust denial material here and I remain convinced the Holocaust happened. I've read tracts demonizing homosexuality and don't consider gays a threat to anything. I've read accounts by reporters who laid bare national security secrets and I've watched other reporters interview jurors at the end of a criminal trial — all things that can be suppressed in Canada.
What it means in this case. . .
is that between concept and rights there is freedom of speech. That we can agree on. What people neglect is pure and simple logic of the material they're viewing, in essence, what defines an individual is not up to the state or the ideas we gather. I promptly advised you that concepts are not a model for free speech, only rights (as in laws) can be protected under strict positivist mentality. That is the difference we're suggesting is missing from the article. If you have a right to free speech, you're concepts aren't necessarily the same as what RIGHT protects individuals.
In Canada, pierre trudeau drafted free speech as a right. In the states, Americans has AMENDMENTS in their constitution. Think about that for a moment. You do not have free speech as an individual right so policy can protect your social demographic. That is a critical - crucial - distinction that connot be undetected. In other words, people that use freedom of speech in doing so - so not taking it for granted is the challenge. Neil McDonald has a right to promote his free speech, but I do not think the same way he does. Again, that is for you to decide because it is a RIGHT.
Therefore, your quote merk symbolized one thing; people do not have to act apologetic in Canada. They probably never will, that is about the same as Americans act, but only you deny it. The comfort zone here is complaining about people such as Mark Steyn, cannot breech our rights as individuals, Steyn is simply not aware of. I think that is what Pierre Trudeau had in mind, for all people.
In my case I've lived in Winnipeg all of my life, my parents came here from a fascist dictatorship back in the day. When I get used to living in Canada, (even today) I can say I still haven't been used to life here as I know. It seems sad, probably because it is. What this has to do with my freedom of speech you may never understand. My point being: if I had the truth on my side, then I'd be doing everything in my power to make this happen in my favor. However, I can only try, and in Canada as individuals living in this country I understand I cannot define individuals or be understated as one. That is not the course of history in American politics. God help you if you do not see the difference. Remember, I said 'if' and that is a monstrously huge IF you have the RIGHT to free speech, as to say in Canada Pierre Trudeau's ingenius vision whereas such Jimmy Carter would ask for his advice, mind you AMENDMENTS are not I repeat is not to be confused with as RIGHTS. In essence, you have widely held false beliefs of concepts, but nothing you say is protected as a RIGHT. You can speak anything you profess until the cows come home in the US, but in Canada you have to think before you speak. Pierre Trudeau had it right.
=============================
^ so on a side note apart from vegas. . . that is how you deal with toothless fucktards. Which a true professional such as the people I met with this week saw in me. Obviously it was a tip of the iceberg, they didn't have the need to feel "I wasn't ready emotionally. . ." but not as vegas put it.) We already knew that, they just wanted to help me through it, I wasn't short of being hailed as sir lawrence olivier. I can assure you, I was a far better person doing what I did this week. I am far happier when not dealing with ignorant individuals. End of story. Take this as you must. I'll be damned if I let some idiot fuck give me their misplaced judgment. I've learned so much, but vegas is being totally pathetic.
=============================
Listen man, get off it already, if you give yourself a reason for making cheap shots. . . I'm not the one giving you reason for it. I give reasons, before I accuse, yes accuse others of cheating in their responses. I am not on the attack for owning the thread, I simply stand against those that feel the need to antagonize others when they really have no idea what it is they're talking about, then, make shrewd observations as if it means something against me. That is how I have always been, yet, out of nowhere you appear with idiotic inferences. Get off your high horse and grab a clue of your own. I hope I made myself clear on this matter. And you are definitely not someone I care for, and I know what that means.
=============================
Eat my fuck for even suggesting it dickhole. Portugal played with quality, that is all I said. (How is that for a wipe off tattoo???) Do not pretend to be something you're not for giving them credit. What I said was respectful, and for a moment if anyone on this board can't read between the lines for the crap you or merk throw out are blind. I also stated if the portuguese weren't playing in a manner that wouldn't validate their performance kindly, I'd be the first to admit they deserved to lose. But we played like lions; yet you or merk being pricks justifies it wholeheratedly so. Fuck I wish England were in this thing to beat the snot out of your teams.
P.S. I'm glad becky and mike can see this stuff, because honestly I am sick and tired of it. . . go back to goanalog where the dimwits belong.
===========================
Maybe you're thinking too much. Btw- testing oneself is an art of sorts, knowing the difference is the beauty in what you have within you. Believe me when I tell you I am far and away miles ahead of people that I can no longer compare myself too. It's all about the unknown in place of my self awareness. If you for a moment think - what I'm telling you here isn't a gift to you from me, you're wrong, because people in my position that you can relate might have a common interest of the arts or vague idea of it wouldn't give you 2 cents worth of what I'm willing to bet against. I have done so, and I Will continue to do so, even if it means I'll never get a legitimate shot at something. Put that in your pipe and smoke it vegas. You don't know shit about me. Fucking shit about me, asshole.
Seriously, I've met guys like vegas on set that think they have master 'spy' techniques but couldn't blow a fish out of the water. This is not personal, I just don't want this guy following me around, as I stay far away from guys that show their true colors. This is no joke. I will back this up and I can. That's all I've ever done, so if the mods can follow me on this, I'm just responding with what this dude has done - but not because I'm shallow.
P.S. I'm fucking 30 years old, and I live in a country that I've grown up in during that time, but I know for a fact I will not tolerate this to use him as an example. If it continues, I will leave this board. You know I will.
======================
A good honest response. I can respect that, EVEN if I don't agree with it. . . to each there own, I say, you have a misconception. I can honestly tell you from my perspective, (according to what you saw ghen) that if we sat in the same room together watching that game, and we received exactly the same players on the pitch. . . Portugal did everything we possibly could. That is all I mean. I completely do not subscribe to the 'flashes of brilliance' or 'rolled over' because those are cliches easy to label the opposing teams loss. I think you can respect what those ideas represent. I am not trying to elicit bias, I simply want to state they played a great game, I swear if we didn't have the effort, then that would qualify, but portugal showed a lot of their stuff man. Believe me. The germans were happy not to lose that game. End of story.
========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 08:39AM
Ok, so stop imagining you even know the context or meaning behind the statement. Stop injecting your line of reasoning where it has no place.
Signed,
Mr. Ethnocentrist
So this is the response I get after surfing through your inexplicable use of discussing profanity when used with discretion? (However, I do not blame hap for that because as I've defended him already I know exactly where he's coming from. You on the other hand. . .) How's this for you merk; bigot or moron, or do you have both going for you? I am sick of this non-sense you give me. First off you make a contradiction between social scientific evidence, by asking me where you got the quote from, then proceed to tell me I have no place in offering my response to it because I don't know where it supposedly came from? (Were it for you to supply the source as every good school boy should.) Therefore, you're entire theory is either moot, or you're a liar for saying everything you've presented or both. Just read what was written and save yourself.
=======================
If that's the attitude you take, I sure would hope not you.
==========================
Yeah, or really suck at winning. Pick your poison.
==========================
So you see what the truth really is, the portuguese out played the germans to a man, without shame in the way we played. If you know anything about football you'd know the germans were scared shitless about getting scored on to tie the game.
======================
you are so clever i could shoot myself.
==========================
Which is also why you seem so cynical. The Portuguese played above average, but. . . they still looked like champions going out in style.
============================
So earlier in the wekk I was shtting myself preparing for what turned out to be a nice time with the artisitic director of the Manitoba Theatre Center. I provided Hamlet's character in the exchange, and in return some bittersweet music to my ears. They liked me, they really lliked me!
============================
Quote from: Hap on June 19, 2008, 10:28AM
Would it be better if I said you annihilated "what was left of your neighbours?" Would it help if HZ said Americans annihilated "what was left of the Indians?" It was their intent to get rid of the Indians, so what if there was only 10% left to annihilate after germ warfare and natural causes thinned their ranks. They wiped out what was left of the Indians.
And for the record, it is a cold hard fact that in North America, the now defunct but once widely used adage to describe "third world" conditions exist right here in our own back yard.
=========================
Again, what is this fascination of american history without some form of noteriety. Admittedly, I take a chomskian style approach when putting a microscope down to reason against such full scale paradigms (in this case American ideology.) I have stated this from the beginning of our psudo-generalization of these entire entries from post-to-post-to-post. It becomes circular. Merk on the other hand has such a deep appreciation for the love of his realist ventures in New Jersey, we can speak of a head of cabbage with a smiley face drawn on it, and that'd be merk's caricature. . . then there's mike being totally canadian in his approach to reasoning with the vaguest of responses so not to let poor merk down from the treehouse built-in with a reality television show. But I digress, back to colins post. . .
If you want to speak of colonialization within the control of state senate, hitherto assimilation of aboriginals from which the European invasion became radically altered was a combination of resistence fighters and the bands of indian settlements that ranged throughout the country of Canada.
The most immediate parallel to any modern day rebellion which we have not seen since (Quebecois sovereigntists) ARE the Metis in Manitoba, to which Louis Riel was executed for treason against the government. When we are speaking of free speech, there are only political prisoners that seek to verify the potential pitfalls, it is very 'unethical' in terms of pursuing it. Merk on the otherhand, simply refuses to believe people should steer clear of misinformation, and take the chains that go along with it.
P.S. For the love of god, if merk says he doesn't understand a damn word from this, I have a newsflash for all of you, AMERICANS DON'T LIKE TO LOSE. Maybe that should wake you guys up to sit or stand up and fight against such misjudging inbreds we call cross border retardation.
=======================
Two words: holy_fuck (enter laughter) followed by a jesus_mary for the several backhands I've taken wits to by none other than merk himself.
If I could be friends with a guy like merk, there is no telling what I could do in this world.
(I am the second coming of an ambiguous flamingo.)
P.S. This is probably my funniest post ever, and only I understand it!! - LOL -
=========================
Quote from: Mercules on June 19, 2008, 03:08AM
Big C,
Where is the quote I used from?
I don't know where the quote is from or why you're even asking. My point being one in the same here: which is, my response was based on the subject matter originally. Therefore, the analogy between what is concept post ergo what is a 'right' depends on the context of freedom. Again merk, I stuck to my principle in question, that no matter which way you slice it one cannot refer to freedom as a concept. I made myself astutely clear on that.
I know where you are going with your question; but it has nothing to do with my answer, the choice I made is on par with the subject in this discussion. Honestly, not even you can turn the tables on me with that tactic. I am not a stupid individual.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Fight the Power: encouraging
It does not take a genius to find, how the internet gathers many hidden alter egos to better a certain cause such as freedom/social justice/etc.
re; merks quote
It appears to me that much of "political (social) struggle" only tips the iceberg. The ideal form of this docu-drama is a History of Americanization, which would probably better suit the title. Again, we fail to see how glamorized American ideology has surfaced from its roots, into a popularized culture that repeats things that've happened in terms of world history from across the centuries as no different.
Honestly, what you all succumb to as Canadians on this board is quite astonishing, it speaks of how we pity ourselves to the ingnorance and plurality as wannabe Americans lacking our own identity. Open your eyes people!
I am not Chomskian by any stretch, (because I crave my own opinion), but take a huge step backward before buying into the shallow thoughts of American polarity in conscious.
====================
Please, let's not flatter ourselves here. I know where merk is coming from, and I am not speaking for him but for myself when looking in terms of American history as something interesting in and of itself. It's not that interesting if you ask me, but then that becomes a question of who you ask isn't it? The evolution of the world in terms of civilization-not-ergo-archeology per se... (speaking as in zinn's docu-drama) 'attitude towards history + history itself as a political act' = a massive pandora's box unopened. Once the p.box is opened, however, you must place emphasis on many aspects in 'why' things happened in a manner of epic proportions.
=====================
Let's look at some of the general positives that relate to Americana-mania if you will. . . as if you were American. That is if I were completely immersed into the values of the US, and completely sheltered from the outside world as we know it.
(1) The civil rights movement.
(2) War.
(3) Slavery.
(4) The industrialization of America.
If I Were to write an essay on any of the above topics, notice not one of them covers The oppression of blacks in America, in fact it starts with slavery then ends with status quo, or perhaps the continuing power struggle of every black person in America that still harbors both racial/radical profiling on a daily basis without any support from it's powerful government? But - that is getting too personal a focus on topic.
The industrialization of America that compensates for the purpose of exploiting resources without any remorse, which begins with foreign policy such as the Regan Administration did against the USSR otherwise known as the cold war.
The civil rights movement which we can equate to how each American has its birthright held to such high standards, it so created a nuclear program. The first of it's kind. Ever!
War, by the way, that has made the US military a force to be reckoned with the US single handedly pronounced any declaration of war to be permanently waged only if it makes a fair load of lucrative ends. Yes, a means to an end, but only as a MEANS.
Conclusion:
It is little wonder no one in their right mind would care to pay in excess of $200,000 to a major US college. The price you pay keeps any student from feeling guilty of the bullshit they have to spew out. Pump it up.
Anti-Americanization (translated into non fictional terms) = we've had enough, to put it nicely. . . you believe you've reinvented the wheel, but your training wheels are about to fall off.
=======================
quote:
“Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
=====================
They used the word concept, instead double talked it as 'right'.
Proof:
They've expected the reader misuse the word concept, replacing it as 'right'. Therefore, moot. Easy enough fallacy to grab, unless your insolent of virtue or just performing multiple depository in your anus.
Honestly, I wonder sometimes what people have left in terms of intelligent value. I should choose to keep the faith. But when you read something of so little favor, it insults your intelligence, that it begs the question, it reminds me of where the time has gone.
=======================
Oh the irony!
Seriously, if we're not contingent on the actual meaning, there is a course of action you can take other than demeaning or degradation of sorts. Was anything done to you merk, dealing with the subject of the matter which I provided you?
The meaning was simple. . . I accuse the author of the source which you quoted with a questionable use of language. Proof: that if you (agree with me) . . .then for starters. . . we take the word 'right' then replace it with the word which the author used as 'concept'. What I imply by demonstrating this to you, is the author in question deliberately manipulated the reader with a false idea. That being - 'freedom of speech' - as refered to it was a 'concept'. My conjecture is that unless you see past what the author's intent truly is, is to manipulate the reader into thinking of something that cannot be true. It is a matter of principle. In my mind, you cannot prove freedom of speech as a concept to begin with. It is an inherent right of the individual.
====================
After reading some of the unintelligent forms of responses given by merk, and hap being humble, yet open, courteous and honest against belligerent proxy.
Honestly, merk, between you and I. . . you show little respect. However, my personal choices do not reflect the same type of typical American folklore that you've offered the discussion. It is not common for me, or a person of the 'least/lowest denominator' to stand up and fight for freedom.
What I am referring to is the type of response you repeatedly give to myself, in a manner of insulting my intelligence.
What I would also like for you to understand, is that the respecting opinions of others is by and large the number one issue here.
First of all, if you take a fatalist argument and then proceed to make a tangent about how blacks are better for the struggle they've endured, they've survived and should be proud. Wouldn't this also equate to how suffering was not only needless, but it has no place in historically reliving such peace of mind? The point you made as arbitrary as it is - is senseless contextually in the use of history, should not reflect the will of a people that were oppressed undeserving of it. What I found equally repulsive was your use of an explicitive to arrogantly displace the 'normal' stereotype of black's in america as 'horse shit' because they weren't given the freedom they had, they stuck around long enough to earn things.
If you seriously read my responses, I directly accuse you of ethnocentric american indulged exhibitionist type of rhetoric only to display your points.
Quote
you just can't sell as many books if the subject is not America.
Just, wow. Sheer brutal ignorance.
P.S. And that mike, is how one does things around here. Canada, eh.
re; merks quote
It appears to me that much of "political (social) struggle" only tips the iceberg. The ideal form of this docu-drama is a History of Americanization, which would probably better suit the title. Again, we fail to see how glamorized American ideology has surfaced from its roots, into a popularized culture that repeats things that've happened in terms of world history from across the centuries as no different.
Honestly, what you all succumb to as Canadians on this board is quite astonishing, it speaks of how we pity ourselves to the ingnorance and plurality as wannabe Americans lacking our own identity. Open your eyes people!
I am not Chomskian by any stretch, (because I crave my own opinion), but take a huge step backward before buying into the shallow thoughts of American polarity in conscious.
====================
Please, let's not flatter ourselves here. I know where merk is coming from, and I am not speaking for him but for myself when looking in terms of American history as something interesting in and of itself. It's not that interesting if you ask me, but then that becomes a question of who you ask isn't it? The evolution of the world in terms of civilization-not-ergo-archeology per se... (speaking as in zinn's docu-drama) 'attitude towards history + history itself as a political act' = a massive pandora's box unopened. Once the p.box is opened, however, you must place emphasis on many aspects in 'why' things happened in a manner of epic proportions.
=====================
Let's look at some of the general positives that relate to Americana-mania if you will. . . as if you were American. That is if I were completely immersed into the values of the US, and completely sheltered from the outside world as we know it.
(1) The civil rights movement.
(2) War.
(3) Slavery.
(4) The industrialization of America.
If I Were to write an essay on any of the above topics, notice not one of them covers The oppression of blacks in America, in fact it starts with slavery then ends with status quo, or perhaps the continuing power struggle of every black person in America that still harbors both racial/radical profiling on a daily basis without any support from it's powerful government? But - that is getting too personal a focus on topic.
The industrialization of America that compensates for the purpose of exploiting resources without any remorse, which begins with foreign policy such as the Regan Administration did against the USSR otherwise known as the cold war.
The civil rights movement which we can equate to how each American has its birthright held to such high standards, it so created a nuclear program. The first of it's kind. Ever!
War, by the way, that has made the US military a force to be reckoned with the US single handedly pronounced any declaration of war to be permanently waged only if it makes a fair load of lucrative ends. Yes, a means to an end, but only as a MEANS.
Conclusion:
It is little wonder no one in their right mind would care to pay in excess of $200,000 to a major US college. The price you pay keeps any student from feeling guilty of the bullshit they have to spew out. Pump it up.
Anti-Americanization (translated into non fictional terms) = we've had enough, to put it nicely. . . you believe you've reinvented the wheel, but your training wheels are about to fall off.
=======================
quote:
“Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”
=====================
They used the word concept, instead double talked it as 'right'.
Proof:
They've expected the reader misuse the word concept, replacing it as 'right'. Therefore, moot. Easy enough fallacy to grab, unless your insolent of virtue or just performing multiple depository in your anus.
Honestly, I wonder sometimes what people have left in terms of intelligent value. I should choose to keep the faith. But when you read something of so little favor, it insults your intelligence, that it begs the question, it reminds me of where the time has gone.
=======================
Oh the irony!
Seriously, if we're not contingent on the actual meaning, there is a course of action you can take other than demeaning or degradation of sorts. Was anything done to you merk, dealing with the subject of the matter which I provided you?
The meaning was simple. . . I accuse the author of the source which you quoted with a questionable use of language. Proof: that if you (agree with me) . . .then for starters. . . we take the word 'right' then replace it with the word which the author used as 'concept'. What I imply by demonstrating this to you, is the author in question deliberately manipulated the reader with a false idea. That being - 'freedom of speech' - as refered to it was a 'concept'. My conjecture is that unless you see past what the author's intent truly is, is to manipulate the reader into thinking of something that cannot be true. It is a matter of principle. In my mind, you cannot prove freedom of speech as a concept to begin with. It is an inherent right of the individual.
====================
After reading some of the unintelligent forms of responses given by merk, and hap being humble, yet open, courteous and honest against belligerent proxy.
Honestly, merk, between you and I. . . you show little respect. However, my personal choices do not reflect the same type of typical American folklore that you've offered the discussion. It is not common for me, or a person of the 'least/lowest denominator' to stand up and fight for freedom.
What I am referring to is the type of response you repeatedly give to myself, in a manner of insulting my intelligence.
What I would also like for you to understand, is that the respecting opinions of others is by and large the number one issue here.
First of all, if you take a fatalist argument and then proceed to make a tangent about how blacks are better for the struggle they've endured, they've survived and should be proud. Wouldn't this also equate to how suffering was not only needless, but it has no place in historically reliving such peace of mind? The point you made as arbitrary as it is - is senseless contextually in the use of history, should not reflect the will of a people that were oppressed undeserving of it. What I found equally repulsive was your use of an explicitive to arrogantly displace the 'normal' stereotype of black's in america as 'horse shit' because they weren't given the freedom they had, they stuck around long enough to earn things.
If you seriously read my responses, I directly accuse you of ethnocentric american indulged exhibitionist type of rhetoric only to display your points.
Quote
you just can't sell as many books if the subject is not America.
Just, wow. Sheer brutal ignorance.
P.S. And that mike, is how one does things around here. Canada, eh.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
comfort in the age of reason - pure intellect - & the virtue of social distortion
re; America's final solution
Let's repeat the obvious as if you thought about what the answer might be, but you've asked me anyway only to provoke thought shall we.
The "ulterior motive" to modern day warfare otherwise acting as a disguise, is a mask we do not see or hear, in other words, the fact present in a more rational sense is what would be the propaganda known as the 'American dream'. The American Dream is what I would define as in my opinion the final solution toward supposedly a collective, or in our review of what entails quasi-cohesive (group dynamic) which as is a process of this condition. In actuality it is a misnomer, offered as a belief of potential though replaced with a examination of how false beliefs end up in practice. (1) the condition of an american dream is that every participant recognizes . . . (2) recognizes. . . a construction of an increasing "wish fulfillment" no matter what the cost. This depends on how you think of why the 'american dream' is imagined. It's divided in manner no matter how ordinary or demoralizing (e.g. unilateral warfare) the cost. Therefore, there's a "all for one / one for all" mentality that if breeched meaning "it's okay if you do it - but not okay if it's done to us." - A typical fallacy that is common to the shallow minded kind of a group cohesion unless its used to benefit the one true element of the american dream. - That is to say what we are talking about is competition, which by most western standards translates into characterizing a false belief through satisfactory (i.e. 'final') solutions. It's in an essence of "you scratch my back / I'll scratch yours." However, let's dig up our confessions in the back beside the boneyard tree, because as history indicates a mans character interprets power though any means eventually leading to corruption of the individual self.
If you look at history, the nazis perfected napoleans system of war, a carbon copy if not exactly ripped off Napoleans conquering Europe for liberty, rather than world supremacy, but let us digress the murders are blood on the hands of slaves were not uncommon either.
The system of marxist proletariat thought, elevated into the industrial revolution, compared to the social desolation of church generating state privilege. This kind of society created a revolution, weakening the power of the poor widening a rich gap of the bourgeois. Therefore, the rain stopped so to speak. As The Nazis perfected a system only associated through an unabiding population for propaganda. The political trick, as we would view this revolution of propaganda was what drove history, to a Hitler Germany. Idolatry, on such a massive scale, yet in the present date over generations has been what American ideology has centered itself on, making itself a machine driven propaganda campaign of what everyone without cause, living, breathing, idealism of the American Dream. It is a prophecized mentality, through a hear no evil see no evil mentality, much the same as a Bible's proverb return to the promised land. All of the time, there is a loophole to be found, and evolution restarts itself with America's paradigm of our past-present-future idiom.
We do not register the fact that the American Dream is a isolated group of people simply carrying a torch of silver lining on every turn.
Let's repeat the obvious as if you thought about what the answer might be, but you've asked me anyway only to provoke thought shall we.
The "ulterior motive" to modern day warfare otherwise acting as a disguise, is a mask we do not see or hear, in other words, the fact present in a more rational sense is what would be the propaganda known as the 'American dream'. The American Dream is what I would define as in my opinion the final solution toward supposedly a collective, or in our review of what entails quasi-cohesive (group dynamic) which as is a process of this condition. In actuality it is a misnomer, offered as a belief of potential though replaced with a examination of how false beliefs end up in practice. (1) the condition of an american dream is that every participant recognizes . . . (2) recognizes. . . a construction of an increasing "wish fulfillment" no matter what the cost. This depends on how you think of why the 'american dream' is imagined. It's divided in manner no matter how ordinary or demoralizing (e.g. unilateral warfare) the cost. Therefore, there's a "all for one / one for all" mentality that if breeched meaning "it's okay if you do it - but not okay if it's done to us." - A typical fallacy that is common to the shallow minded kind of a group cohesion unless its used to benefit the one true element of the american dream. - That is to say what we are talking about is competition, which by most western standards translates into characterizing a false belief through satisfactory (i.e. 'final') solutions. It's in an essence of "you scratch my back / I'll scratch yours." However, let's dig up our confessions in the back beside the boneyard tree, because as history indicates a mans character interprets power though any means eventually leading to corruption of the individual self.
If you look at history, the nazis perfected napoleans system of war, a carbon copy if not exactly ripped off Napoleans conquering Europe for liberty, rather than world supremacy, but let us digress the murders are blood on the hands of slaves were not uncommon either.
The system of marxist proletariat thought, elevated into the industrial revolution, compared to the social desolation of church generating state privilege. This kind of society created a revolution, weakening the power of the poor widening a rich gap of the bourgeois. Therefore, the rain stopped so to speak. As The Nazis perfected a system only associated through an unabiding population for propaganda. The political trick, as we would view this revolution of propaganda was what drove history, to a Hitler Germany. Idolatry, on such a massive scale, yet in the present date over generations has been what American ideology has centered itself on, making itself a machine driven propaganda campaign of what everyone without cause, living, breathing, idealism of the American Dream. It is a prophecized mentality, through a hear no evil see no evil mentality, much the same as a Bible's proverb return to the promised land. All of the time, there is a loophole to be found, and evolution restarts itself with America's paradigm of our past-present-future idiom.
We do not register the fact that the American Dream is a isolated group of people simply carrying a torch of silver lining on every turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)