kelownabomberfan

Good that he at least has someone to give him some perspective as opposed to the "RIDERS ARE THE BEST TEAM IN THE UNIVERSE" perspective from Sask media and fans.

Those are some acute observations right there... There's nothing cute or acute about a Rider fan... Tell me about it, I LIVE with one....You have our deepest sympathies, what with having to use small words when conversing and all..... Words like "soap" and "bathe" and "change underwear".

Thanks for those memories! I had to admit up until seeing the Jets live, I hadn't really cared much about them, as they weren't on TV so the only team I got to see every Saturday night was the Toronto Maple Leafs or the hated Canadiens, or the Canucks in their ugly green uniforms, and then their ugly orange and black colours (remember those ugly uniforms?). When Edmonton and Winnipeg joined the NHL, it was a whole new ball game. Boy did the Jets suck the first few years though, after being totally gutted. If the Jets had been able to keep that team together they had in 1979 they would have been one of the top NHL teams.

Those are some acute observations right there... There's nothing cute or acute about a Rider fan...

Well to the standards of Winnipeggers. You know those whinging bozos from the center of the universe....(yes I am baiting Bluto here)....

yup. Could players and their wives also not time these things a bit better - ie use birth control so that your kid is born during the off season? If you play for Winnipeg, you know you are free from mid-April until September so that's a prime time to target for kids to be born.

so with this announcement are we going to hear a lot of whining and crying about the "hill billies getting the Cup" again from Toronto like we heard about Regina?

I don't remember players ever missing games for the birth of their kids in the past, but we are now in the touch-feely 21st century so whatever. It sucks because the Jets really needed him but on the other hand they probably aren't going to make the playoffs anyway so who cares.

I was thinking yesterday about my first ever Bomber game and my first ever Jets game, and wondering if anyone else here remembers their first ever games. I can't remember the exact year but I believe I went to my first Bomber game in 1979, and I think that the stands had just been renovated at that time to add a second tier. I do remember that the Bombers played the Ottawa Roughriders and lost, but the game was in June (went straight to the game from school) so it was an exhibition game. I had no idea what that was at the time, vs a regular season game, I just remember that I loved being in the stands and I loved football. I had seen it on TV before but it wasn't until I watched a live game that I knew this sport was going to be something I would enjoy forever, and that I would forever be Blue and Gold. My first Jets game I think was in 1978. Bobby Hull scored his 999th career professional goal that night, on a set up from Ulf Nilson, a nice floating pass along the blue line that Bobby skated up to at full speed and hammered home with his patented slap shot. The Jets lost that game to the Cincinnati Stingers 6-1, and I knew I was going to be a Jets fan for the rest of my life after that too.

What about Mr. One-ACL?

It's not a coincidence that their first game is against Winnipeg. If anyone is capable of handing a new franchise its first win it would be the Bombers.

Glenn did play for Hamilton at one time, so wouldn't that make him a vet of Hamilton? I'm not defending Friesen here at all, just curious what the protocol is. I realize that his last team technically is Ottawa, but he never played there, so would he really be considered, at this point, just a Calgary vet?

so you're saying that seeing him in Hogtown is a longshot... The more I hear about Creehan the more glad I am that he is gone. Not sure how he pulled off the 2011 defence we had, though it looks like it was more because of Burke and in spite of having Creehan on the staff.

I was curious though as to why the US "environmental" group the Tides Foundation has spent so much money on protesting the oil sands. Ezra Levant exposed how they paid the Native chief from Alberta who traveled with Neil Young $50,000 to show up at some rally in Toronto. If this Native chief is so concerned about issues with the oil sands, why does he need to be paid to show up at anti-oil sands rallies? And why is a US charity paying him to do it? And why is Neil Young, a former Winnipegger now living in the lap of luxury in California, coming up to Canada to tell everyone else how to live, and to criticize the government because they cared too much about money? Like Neil is suffering living in the USA? The whole thing didn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is curious to see US interests funding anti-Canadian business activity while the US president fights against a pipeline that would benefit Canada (and the US too, they get to refine it and sell it). Meanwhile, more and more oil is being transported by tankers on railways, which is so much less safe than a pipeline. Which is just so dumb.

Well, here's how he tells it in his blog...not sure who at Husky Oil he talked to but anyway...he still comes off sounding like a loon... http://www.lincvolt.com/lincvolt_lincvoltgazette

That whole Neil Young thing was quite sad. The guy should stick to singing songs and not messing with the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians, and billions of dollars that are flowing into the Canadian economy. It's easy for some super rich dude to show up here and tell everyone they should go live in a cave, while he trots back to his mansion in California in his Lincvolt car. That car that he drove on his "Hiroshima" "odd"ysey up to Fort McMurray was bragged about by a lot of enviros as showing how "cool and hip" Neil is on the environment, but the reality was that car ran on some kind of special kind of fuel, and when he ran out of bio-fuel in Red Deer he threw some big hissy fit on the "husky oil" people and then accused the Canadian government of caring too much about money because they didn't have his special stupid bio-fuel available in gas stations in Canada. Good grief, how out of touch with reality do you really have to be to be that stupid? That car of his also burned down in a warehouse last year and burned up $1 million worth of his memorabilia with it. Anyway, I felt sorry for the poor kids in Red Deer who had to deal with this crazy old man suddenly descending upon them screaming at them because they didn't have bio-fuel for sale.

And imagine the spin-offs if that space race had continued to Mars, instead of being wasted on this stupid climate change crap. For a trillion dollars we could have put people on Mars by now and be terra-forming it already for colonization. Instead here we are still spending billions upon billions of dollars because our earth was supposed to be heating up and instead it seems to be getting colder. So very dumb.

I think if you ask most people if they think man made climate change is real and a real problem, they'd say "yes". Then if you asked them how much they would be willing to pay to "fix" it and if they'd be prepared to radically alter their lifestyles to correct it, they'd say "zero" and "hell no". It's like the benefit plan at work. People all scream they want one, but when I tell them how much it would cost to go 50-50 they say "oh well that's ok". People want all kinds of stuff, but there's only certain things they will actually pay for. Stopping man-made climate change isn't one of those things.

Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic, but the point of my post was that I quoted an anti-oil sands Green party MLA who is also a climatologist. And even HE says that the effects on the GHG emissions from the oil sands are minimal, and that the real danger is coal. But this is a Canadian looking at it from a Canadian perspective. Who has billions of tons of coal and burns millions of tons a year for electricity? The USA. And yet who is opposed to the Keystone Pipeline? The USA. Total hypocrisy on their part to oppose the oil sands when their coal burning is far worse than any oil sands. It's all politics, not science.

I also hate how the warmists, especially in the US, attack the Canadian oil sands so much. If you look at how much coal the US burns, and the Chinese as well, the output of emissions far exceed the oil sands. It's blatant politicking in my view. Here's a study from Andrew Weaver, who is a Green Party MLA and a former professor at UVic, which shows just how little the oil sands contribute to the "man made" climate change warming: http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_Oil_Sands_climate.html I always throw this back in the face of the anti-oilsands people and they walk away muttering and change the subject. Their usual MO is to just say that whoever is contradicting their blarney is "in the pay of big oil" but they can't say that about a Green Party guy. That's the part that gets them. Leave the oil sands alone, and focus on coal. It is just plain awful for the environment in every way.

fine! Did you read that Matthew Ridley lecture I posted? You can pretty much substitute what he is saying for my opinion. He agrees that it is a thing too.

I think it had a lot to do with that glowing ball in the sky that warmists always want us to ignore. The energy it puts out isn't static, it's always fluctuating. The problem for the warmist types and especially the politicians is that they haven't figured out a way to tax sunshine. But they have found a way to tax CO2 outputs. And so once they figured that out, it was then all about convincing the general public that CO2 was bad. It's not bad. It's a harmless gas that all plant life requires to survive. And once the mechanisms of funding were put in place, and the bureaucrats were comfortable, it became all about how "the science is settled" and how anybody who doesn't just bend over and accept it is a "climate misinformer" and a "denier". The vested interests are now entrenched, and so we have to keep the status quo going, no matter that none of the predictions from the IPCC or any other warmist entity have ever come true, or no matter that the earth isn't warming, and the ice caps are not melting. It's irrelevant now. And the next generation currently coming through our schools has already been brain-washed. I hope that this CO2 nonsense dies the same death that acid rain and the ice age fraud died, however this time there are millions of people involved. It's almost become too big to fail now. What will have to happen is for the entire global economic system to have an even bigger shock than 2008, such that people just won't give a crap about this stuff, as they'll have way too much other stuff to worry about, and funding this nonsense will be the last thing on anybody's mind.

I think the cold we're experiencing is just proof that the entire greenhouse gas theory is requiring a lot more work and a lot more modeling. I know that the climate change movement is desperately trying to explain away the coldness and change all of their theories around to try and account for it. It's the reverse of what the guys in the 1970's did with their old papers, they just crossed out "cooling" and wrote in "warming" and changed "pollution" for "CO2". Now they are erasing their cross-outs and going back to their 1970's theories. The issue here is that there are billions upon billions of dollars at stake. Huge huge money. The Goddard Institute which is a part of NASA, which was supposed to be working on advanced spaceflight, now receives $4 billion a year in government cash to "study" global warming. That's just wrong I think. I also think as long as Obama and fellow warmists control the White House, that money will keep flowing, no matter how cold it gets or how much the earth doesn't continue to warm, and no matter how less severe storms get. The Democrats and Obama are so politically invested in this unproven hypothesis, they'd look like fools to pull out now. It was like Vietnam for the Americans, even though they knew in 1968 that the war was lost, they continued for another five years to pour men and money into it because they couldn't admit they were wrong. They same is applying here too.

LOL - I never said that his work is fraudulent, though I'd like to see his data. You would think that a scientist responsible for hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being spent would be required to show his work. It is troubling that he has never been forced to do this, given how much hysteria has been driven from his hockey stick. Al Gore won a nobel prize doing up a movie full of complete fabrications, with his showpiece being the hockey stick. Steve McIntyre has completely disproven it. So it will be interesting to see what happens in this case. Speaking of which, here's a hilarious article written by Steyn this week on the case, called "Defaming for Beginners": http://www.steynonline.com/6178/defaming-for-beginners

And it was some of the same shysters trying to sell that blarney in the 1970's that are responsible for the trillion dollars that have been wasted on this global warming scare. Look it up. When I was growing up I vaguely remember the ice age scare, but as that failed to materialize the next scam was acid rain. When that failed to kill the earth the junk scientists had to find a new way to find funding, and walked into the open arms of politicians who know all too well that the best way to control people and wring money from their pockets with taxes is via fear. So they cooked up this "global warming" nonsense. It's amazing how often I hear people parrot mantras that have been fed to them by the man-made climate change establishment. "The earth's climate is changing, it's indisputable" - yet four different satellites that measure these things all corroborate that the earth hasn't warmed in almost 18 years. The past decade has been one of the least active for hurricanes the earth has seen in the past 100 years. You have to remember, the technology to measure the strength of tornadoes and hurricanes is relatively new, and so of course, now we are going to have "record" strength storms, as the viability of previous records going back even 50 years are not very reliable. The weather has been politicized, and the sole aim I see now whenever there is a storm is to try and tie it to global warming, even if there is no tie whatsoever.