StevetheClub

You provided your thoughts on news organizations from both sides of the spectrum and made clear statements about how you view the far left and right; I don't think my comments are a stretch. That being said, if I misunderstood you I misunderstood you. No biggie. **edit: Amen to the arrogance of the far left. Preaching to the choir there.

Sorry, I'm not following. I agree with you that the far right seems to be "taking more and more ground from the conservatives". The point I was trying to make is that you seem to be letting the far left off the hook. The far right is "nuts" and "bigoted" whereas the far left is simply something you "can't relate to". I think that the far left is just as destructive and increasingly pervasive as the far right - we only just have to look to our universities in Canada and the US to see evidence of this - and as a social liberal I find this very sad to watch.

I try to spend time reading both Fox and CNN. I think regardless of where you stand if your goal is to be informed and not just entertained then I think you're doing yourself a disservice by only reading what you agree with. And as someone who reads both, I find their respective leanings very clear and think they both have their fair share of contributors who sit on the far ends of the spectrum. It sounds like you're implying that consideration for you we treat each other is a liberal value, which is unfair. As a liberal, I would say that the far left is doing just as much hijacking as the far right and that those closer to the middle on both sides value how we treat each other.

Indeed. I thought maybe the first post was a lapse in judgement and that there'd be some back-tracking after Jacquie responded. Did not expect to see doubling down on the ignorance.

Not sure what the big deal is. He is currently overseeing two offices and it sounds like he and/or his superiors would like him to shift to one, which sounds like is typical.

We flew Calgary to Cancun direct with WestJet Vacations in January and the experience, from booking to touching down, was our typical - i.e., very good - WestJet experience.

There is definitely growing evidence that psychotropics can, and often, do more harm than good.

I'd take The Wire over The Sopranos, but it's definitely up there.

You quoted a response that said he should resign for denying the Holocaust and then called a defence of him not being a Holocaust-denier silly, so I think it's reasonable to think that you thought he was denying the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a pretty massive gaffe (any implications that I was minimizing his choice of words was unintentional), I just don't think it's helpful - in fact it's counterproductive and unneccesary - to go to such extremes when criticizing him.

Calling him an Holocaust denier is an over-reaction. It's clear that's not the case. Calling him out on a very, very poor choice of words. That makes more sense.

I'd be interested in how many of the 50 beds for mental health services added to Victoria hospital are just re-allocated beds. Sad that mental health issues weren't given more attention considering how ill-equipped hospitals, especially ERs, are to treat mental health issues and yet they see so many. I know I'm biased, but I think addressing mental health-related visits would go a long way to improving services overall.

Hear hear!

Probably all very true. The logic of the Trump supporters is mind-boggling, but I have no doubt the writer is bang on.

I think you're absolutely right in why Trump one. I disagree with their logic, but if there's one thing Trump did well is he tapped into that anger.

In some ways I couldn't agree more, the problem I have is that you don't seem to practice what you preach. Apply your own advice to the Alberta NDP and federal Liberals and I may actually want to be a part of this thread more often. I don't want to pile on you, so I'll also say that I think that much of the anti-Trump crowd is also going overboard with their apocalyptic fears (not people here, just reactions I've seen elsewhere). One of of my favourite responses: http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html?utm_source=List&utm_campaign=7ddada973f-okay_2016_11_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5b568bad0b-7ddada973f-52034077&mc_cid=7ddada973f&mc_eid=14cb952ac7

Agreed, Nichols as MOP is a bit of a head-scratcher to me. I'm not even convinced he's our MVP.

If, and this is a big if, he's not talking out of his ass and his team is uniquely affected by the mic because they run an exclusively no-huddle offense then perhaps he has a point. But I'm not in a position to know how much of what he says is just excuse and how much is a legitimate, unique concern.

Exactly. If the legality of a substance was based on its harm to individuals and society as a whole (and conversely its ability to help) there would be a lot more psychotropic drugs that would be illegal and a lot more recreational drugs that would be legal.

I was thinking about the other thread regarding our awards nominees and was wondering if Medlock has a place in the MOP discussion. Perhaps he'd have a stronger case if the award was for MVP instead...

Or how after 17 unanswered points Rod Black said it's been back and forth all game.

I'm hesitant to keep posting in this thread because I don't want to take away from discussion of the game itself - I would actually recommend the mods move it to it's own thread - so this will be my last comment in this thread. I'm trying really hard to be tactful, but I'm honestly not sure if you've read any articles on this based on what you've written so far. The point, from the parent's mouths themselves, is to bring attention to a ridiculous policy. There is nothing in any of the articles that I have read that indicates that they are trying to get attention for themselves, or get free tickets, or whatever. I don't feel like going through the thread and quoting every else, but it's also not about privilege or entitlement. Damn right they can still complain and with the NHL trying to pay them off they should complain louder. Because not only is the NHL going to do nothing about their insensitive and out-of-touch policy, they tried to bribe them with tickets on the condition they stay quiet. Of course, the NHL has every right to have stupid policies, just like these people have the right to bring to light one policy that goes against the standard practice at every other similar venue.

The thing is, none of what you wrote is actually true (although I suppose I'm not convinced it's a human rights issue, so perhaps that and yeah, we agree the kid shouldn't need a ticket, so there's that too). What I mean to say, is that I don't see anything in the article that states they want free stuff. Everything I see points to them wanting to right a wrong policy. And breastfeeding is not just a milk delivery system. It is a more complex interaction than that, and a mother shouldn't have to compromise on this.

As for those who say it is a child protection issue, the kid could wear protective gear, like many do of that age at events like this. There's no reason for CFS to be called.

It's unfair, and potentially discriminatory, to tell a woman who is breastfeeding her child to either pay for a ticket or she can't go. There is plenty of precedent for this and the intensity of the reactions in this thread is honestly confusing to me. The practice of allowing a child under 2 to sit in a lap and not pay for a ticket is quite common. Airlines and athletic venues everywhere, including our own MTS Centre, have a policy allowing this. Certain events where quiet is both important and expected, such as the opera or live theatre, have no babes-in-arms policies and given the context this makes sense. For a hockey game or a flight this does not make sense. Nowhere in the article does anyone say the mother is not allowed to breastfeed, that is very clearly not the issue. The issue is being forced to buy a ticket for the child who would sit in her lap. Again, it is common practice to not have to do this and why the NHL would do this does not make sense. As to what the problem is, the problem is that the policy is still not to allow this, which is, again, unfair and potentially discriminating. They are standing up for breastfeeding mothers everywhere and for that, I say good on them.