bluto

In what way is the willingness to take an annual operating loss not spending?

But then we'd be blocking Chad's inevitable triumph at Grey Cup after which he will be given an engraved invitation on a silver platter written in iambic pentameter to attend the NFL training camp of his choosing and be anointed as their QB1 so that he can escape his "**** contract" and miserable training facilities. (OK, that last part is true...)

As a lifelong Argo supporter, I am conditioned to expect the worst. Usually it doesn't end up that way but it sort of ends up as an ownership and media apathy which borders on malevolence. When you consider how easy it would be for MLSE to cross promote this Club. The oldest professional sports franchise in North America. The 18 time Champions. In its 150th fricking year this year! ...but it's been crickets and vague promises of special events, commemorations and fan bonuses. We'll see where this ends up. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

Been saying it for years: The Lions should be yellow. The TiCats should be orange. These teams having the wrong colours for their animal mascots is just dumb.

They are well done. Just a shame they're the wrong colours.

Or Warrick Dunn. (Always thought he'd have been amazing in our league)

Well when we win the East...

And I'll just be over here hoping that he is even half as good this year as he thinks that he is. Because what other choice do we have at this point. (I mean... If he is, we win the East in a walk.)

I facepalmed so hard that I saw stars.

For those of us who don't follow College/Uni sports, is this as big of a schemozzle as it sounds like it is for SFU and its athletes?

He'll be in Winnipeg on April 22 if you want to see him (his Calgary show on the 27 may be better for you, Noeller). He's from Hamilton though, so put your wallet in your front pocket and guard your beverage.

You'd be double-jointed?

jealous.

You work less than 70 hours? Slacker. Seriously, some folks need to accept that some rational people of good morals actually believe that government is way too big, way too expensive and makes itself moreso by the year with no process to check the growth. It isn't a weird take.

I think that past governments (ie: ones that were all by degrees smaller) did that just fine. Sure... but fundamentally I choose which ones to have a relationship with (or not). It isn't the same.

I'm being genuine when I say this: It actually saddens me that my fellow countrymen consider my wish for a government that could fit in the box that it came in to be nonsensical.

Why strawman me? I am also for inclusion. So long as it is voluntary. I said it because calling all conservatives scumbags seemed a bit OTT. And I don't care to give you examples of a thing that I don't believe exists... as I have already explicitly stated that I don't believe it exists.

I never said the PCs are what I want. Nor would I. I explained how I don't have a party or prominent leader who reflects my values.

Sorry man. You'll never convince me that the morality of a government who can use force/violence/confiscation/imprisonment on me if I don't just hand over a greater share of what I earn through my labours every year is equivalent to some greedy, for-profit organization who I can elect to not use. You're acting as if I'm defending a greedy CEO on a yatcht lighting his cuban with a picture of Borden (although I doubt our new currency can still do that?)... that's not happening. So doon't strawman me and I won't strawman you. If I choose one food option over another, nobody can confiscate my house, garnish my wages or put me in jail. It's flat out evil. I have grave moral qualms with using force to confiscate money, property or labour. I bet that you do too.

Because to me, it is. Government employs force. I can voluntarily not support anything which I choose not to support... except for my government, which wills itself a greater share of our money every year.

It is the biggest problem. And it only increases in size and expense. Which in turn necessarily limits your freedom through taxation and its sinister twin debtload (taxing your children). I don't see this view as in any way controversial nor as capable of being denied. I further believe that it is the worst and most pervasive form of immorality in my country.

You'll never see me try to convince you of that. Speaking for myself, I'm a voter who hasn't had a party with anything remotely near my values and beliefs for a few decades. Some have talked like they sorta-kinda did... but if given an opportunity to govern they did what every Canadian politician does: increase the size of my government.

Yeah! Those rotten scumbags with their...(checks notes)... desire for a limited and less intrusive government!

Nobody tried to diminish TJ Heath as a player. And nobody tried to downplay the value of what a #1 is worth. I don't know how what I said could be taken that way. I only registered my surprise that anyone would've called that trade a kings ransom that paved the way to a dynasty. Opinions may vary of course, but I think that's a pretty out-there take.

Honestly I'd never thought of the deal as anything that amounted to much. Certainly for us, but I really didn't see a great profit for the Bombers in it. We had to pay a price for a guy who some thought may have become our next starting QB after Ricky finished. He absolutely did not. Bombers have the most wins in the league and 2 'Ships since then. Was the trade a fundamental part of building that run? I'd say not. People are welcome to disagree.