Eternal optimist

I don't think the quality of handwriting has anything to do with this problem.

They like two divisions because it makes for important divisional games near the end of the year. Under a single division, the race this year wouldn't have been nearly as tight. Not saying it's right - just I think that is their logic. Personally I think they should keep two divisions, but remove the one-team limitation for the crossover rule, that would mean this year both EDM and BC would make the playoffs crossing over through the East, and the worst of the three (HAM) would've been eliminated. I agree it's stupid for a sub-.500 team to host a playoff game.

But... but.... he didn't have 300 yards...

HH to Drew Tate for not signing with us and gracing his presence elsewhere.

Literally when I read that name I just associate it with "when Calgary was bad".

Although the playcalling is suspect at best, that is largely his role in our regular offense, so I don't have any problem with that - for this year. If it persists though and becomes chronic then it is absolutely a problem.

Here's the clip of Ben Cahoon kicking a FG in overtime against the Argonauts on August 2, 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoPHuQsdGzE Here's the box score of the next game (August 9, 2007), where Ben Cahoon had two touchdowns: https://www.cfl.ca/games/1419/calgary-stampeders-vs-montreal-alouettes/ What am I missing here?...

I call BS. Ben Cahoon did it in 2007, I'm sure there's other examples.

I guess the logic here would be they could celebrate a .500 season? 9-9 does sound better than 8-10, though missing the playoffs is still missing the playoffs. No issue with him being a jerk to their backups - they're a divisional rival let their team crash and burn all they want.

Playoff games are meaningful absolutely, that said I'm just going to have to agree to disagree at this point - I don't want to hijack this thread with such a menial argument.

Why? Both clubs know this game is meaningless, it doesn't even affect how we finish in the standings. This game, and its results are nothing more than a formality.

No, but why risk it? It's still football, which is a very violent game, even if kickers (mostly) manage to stay away from it.

This makes a lot more sense, I always forget he's our backup punter. Lots of players can play multiple positions, just don't see it in professional leagues much anymore. Randall Cunningham (NFL QB) even had 20 punts in his career for the Eagles - he even had a 91 yard punt (longest in Eagles history) once.

Sure hope so.

Per the Bomber game preview: https://www.bluebombers.com/2018/11/02/game-preview-wpg-edm-3/ Players to watch: #84 Ryan Lankford, WR: He’s established himself as a receiver and returner in parts of four years in the CFL. Why on Earth would we be starting Lankford in this game? Missed opportunity to give some of our younger (future) players some much needed experience in a regular season CFL game that is otherwise meaningless. Am I missing something here?

Storytime: Of similar hilariousness, I remember two uncles at Christmas arguing about what would happen if a pingpong ball was put into a microwave (days before google); Uncle A: Due to the manufacturing process, the ping pong ball contents would explode due to them being somewhat pressurized. Uncle B: The ball would puncture, then the contents inside the ball would cause it to collapse in upon itself, sort of imploding. After about 30 minutes of arguing, they of course decided to put it to the test. The result was actually neither, it just smoldered into a little shell of its' former self and was nowhere near as exciting as either posited theory. Also, the smell was absolutely rancid... I remember my aunt being so ticked because it ruined her microwave. tldr; don't microwave a ping pong ball.

I just want to see more of Simonise personally.

Obligatory "budget will balance itself" comment.

What how could you, none of those players are 'Riders... didn't they (and their fans) tell you already that they are clearly the best team in the league? Haven't you been reading all the other threads on this site?

Are you seriously arguing over $12 a month?

Either such a tax leaves the poor out in the cold (by hurting them on essential services), or the tax is levied more on the rich, it can't be both. As I mentioned before it is still an avoidable tax, as even with essential services (groceries, for example) if the carbon tax weight were so substantial alternatives would emerge or become more viable - such as buying groceries locally, instead of mandarins shipped from China.

Oh good then, glad that's settled! The government already has this tax break specifically for people living in remote areas of the north, it is called the Northern Residence Deduction: Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-255-northern-residents-deductions.html Also, the carbon tax implementation is supposed to have a rebate portion, specifically so the poor that would be paying carbon tax on necessities, get a corresponding tax break on those necessities. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-carbon-tax-plan-trudeau-1.4874258

Let me see if I understand you here - you're against a carbon tax because it will disproportionately affect citizens living in colder or remote climates due to the increased costs associated with transportation and basic necessities. Can I posit this question to you - if the government were to offset the costs for those citizens, thereby only curbing excessive pollution only by those that could afford it (without putting the same burden on the poor) - would you still be opposed to the carbon tax?

According to Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, extreme estimates state a carbon tax would increase costs for Canadian households that use the most carbon (that is, those that are the most wasteful) by $1,141 for your average Canadian household. For starters' that's less than $100 a month... for the upper-class... and secondly, the people you're referring to (the poor that wouldn't be able to afford it) wouldn't be in this realm, since if they're that poor they wouldn't be consuming carbon (or other items) at such a high rate to begin with. (source https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/carbon-tax-canadians-cost-prices-1.4753664) As for it being a tax on essential services, they already implement environment levies on all sorts of items to encourage responsible behavior. The best example I can think of is the environmental levy on car batteries - you pay the levy up front, then when you return the old car battery (for recycling) you get your money back. If you didn't have that tax, there would be a lot car batteries in landfills. Lastly - aren't all taxes taxes for essential services? Isn't that the whole idea?

This is no surprise, most politicians are older in terms of age... this rift isn't helped at all by my apathetic millennial generation, the majority in office are less eager to do so because imposing taxes generally is political suicide. His proposal is a consumption tax, you know what's the best part about that? It's avoidable, similar to tobacco tax (which adds about 50% to the cost of cigarettes) and taxes on alcohol... if you don't like it, don't buy stuff subject to carbon tax. A carbon tax would nudge people's tendencies and actions in the right direction, you'd see less SUVs and shiny new trucks on the road. As for not making a difference, his point is that it needs to be a collaborative global effort - someone has to take the first step. Might as well be us.