The Unknown Poster

I think they are treating Wolverine going back in time as a reboot as they had to reboot as the actors are getting old. Makes more sense than the Star Trek reboot. But have they recast someone as Wolverine? I have a sneaking suspicion Hugh Jackman might make a cameo in this film. He said the upcoming Wolverine film would be his last. Im liked the Days of Future Past film and how they managed to combine the two different X-Men eras. It was just odd in how Wolverine returned to "present" and everything was different and the film franchise continues...but from the 70's. And I agree about Star Trek. They screwed the pooch big time. I've exchanged "pleasantries" with writer Bob Orci about those Trek films several times.

There was tree core studies done as well to learn about climate over long periods of time. But ofcourse, both sides believe the results serve as evidence to their claims. Someone made the point that we only have concrete weather studies for a pretty brief period of time. I think thats an important point. And KBF's links to the "Ice Age" stuff from the 70's....its exactly what we were taught in school. I was very young and terrified. I remember going home and asking my parents if we were really going to all die in an ice age and could we please move south. I think we all agree we should be kind to the earth and attempt to develop better technology to this end. But Im still on the side that the Climate Change guru's accept speculation as fact and we should temper the zeal a bit.

The timeline of the X-Men films confuses me. I think I own the entire series though so perhaps Ill have to review

I watched that a few days ago and saved the video. Very interesting. I love seeing that.

How is Petan doing on the Moose?

I'm watching an interesting documentary on the Roosevelts. Teddy sought to take action for which he had no constitutional right. Angrily he told a challenger "the constitution was made for the people, not the people for the constitution".

Jets shouldn't be celebrating too much about that one.

Lawless reports Buff's people and the Jets are talking which is a new development. Interesting....

Great posts BB. And KBF. Some smart people here.

By real I mean the production aspects. They could show the most Dastardly thing imaginable and then cut to the announcers for some barely relevant exchange that includes joking and quickly moving on to something else. No urgency. No seriousness. Overly slick. Too many cliches. The in ring action has never been better. And you don't need to be like UFC in the ring. No one expects that and in fact no one wants that because UFC is boring more often than not. WWE's huge advantage over MMA is that they control the match and they control the outcome. They just suck at the emotion and promotion. When Batman fights Joker I know it's not real but I'm still entertained. I can suspend my disbelief for two hours. One issue with the advent of CGI is when scenes don't look real and takes the viewer out. Wrestling is very good at the work part of matches. As an audience we want to suspend our disbelief for three hours. WWE just doesn'tet us.

They have to change the constitution. The Supreme Court doesnt decide laws, the government does. The Supreme Court interprets the law that the government decides. They have an obligation to uphold the constitution and make sure laws done over-step. Change the constitution and the Supreme Court wont have an issue.

I agree that surveys arent going to help much because they are surveying people that still watch. They need to reach the people that stopped watching. Either way, they have a lot of information available to them, from demographics of their ratings to very detailed viewership information concerning the Network. I think they are just in denial and going through the motions of a company trying to figure out whats happening. The fact they generate a significant revenue and are in no threat to go under puts less pressure on them to be reactionary where they were in the past when they had competition and felt a sense of pride to compete and be very reactionary. I would disagree about the smarks to a degree. If you can entertain your toughest to please fans, your easiest to please fans will be just as entertained. Im not saying inside references or things like that, which WWE did all the time in the Attitude era, but the audience that is smarter to the business wants better wrestling, better story telling and more engagement. I think WWE's biggest problem is that they stopped pretending wrestling was real. Its more of a parody/variety show now. Its closer to SNL than UFC. WWE pretty much winks at their viewers that everything that is happening is fake. When I go to see The Avengers, I know it's not real, but I dont want Stan Lee to appear on screen and remind me of that fact. They need to present RAW as if its a legitimate sport. part of that is to stop over-producing their shows which is very hard for them to do. Vince and their Exec Producer Kevin Dun are control freaks. They need to stop scripting promos. They need to stop being so "polished" and they really need to go with the flow more. They cut off their nose to spite their face way too often.

Hmmm well hopefully it only adds to his development.

Just surprises me that he'd go from the Colts where the Jets clearly have a good relationship with management, to another team.

Barrie Colts trade #Jets prospect Brendan Lemieux to the Windsor Spitfires #OHL Uhhhh what?

I believe it takes a 2/3rds of both houses or 2/3rds of the States to amend the constitution. It's not impossible but its not easy. Its been done numerous times though. My suggestion is, Obama could easly dedicate himself to this cause. He might fail...but even in failure he makes the issue a forefront issue. Its going to be way harder to go from 0 to 60. He has to start the acceleration process. The President carries a lot of weight. I understand the partisan nature of politics but there is weight behind the President and his allies. Promises can be made, quid pro quos, etc, to gather votes, gather steam, rally the power of the people to pressure their representatives and/or their governors. He has nothing left to run for. Pick a hill to die on. This is a good one. This issue wont go away. it will get worse. Momentum will grow. He can choose to drive the bus or be running after it.

Dude, if we could terraform Venus then Terran climate change would be ... simple. Venus is a nasty place. It'd be easier to terraform the Marianas Trench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus Seems simple enough.

In recall hearing as a young lad, ideas for terra forming Venus. Let's get on that. Im sure a focused effort at space exploration will lead to a lot more technological advances than gathering a bunch of elites to spout a lot of hot air in Paris. I wonder what Trudeau has done to decrease his carbon footprint. Well, I heard he recently got two nannies off his payroll....

I chuckle at the idea of ever having the need to over-throw the government. I guess it could happen. But I doubt it. For every person who'd come up with a reason to simply take control of government "for the good of the people" (let's say **** Cheney) there is way more that wouldnt let him. I read all over how 9/11 was a plot by Bush and Cheney to eventually declare martial law and become dictators. They didnt. They wouldnt. It just wouldnt happen. And some nut jobs with armouries in their backyards wont stop it if it does. The founding fathers could never, ever have envisioned the sort of weaponry the average person can get their hands on. How many changes to the constitution have they made since the 1700's? And yet for some reason this one issue, which isnt clearly spelled out, is the sacred cow? No way. Get rid of the guns. The fact Obama isnt using every remaining moment of his term to make this a reality tells me he's just riding it out. He seems utterly clueless. About guns, about ISIS, about a lot of things. What a shame. 50 years from now historians will look back and grade Bush a lot higher than Obama.

What is the cost of adapting to climate change? What is the cost of effectively forestalling it? If you look at this stuff in purely economic terms, you want to select the cheaper option, right?(and I don't believe that you should look at these issues as pure economics: there are large human costs involved, which is why the KBF argument about climate change investment vs, say, malaria investment, is actually a pretty effective one) Additionally, if we are investing in alternative energy technologies today, won't that make tomorrow's natural replacement of fossil fuels easier and cheaper and less disruptive? Aren't those investments good ones for the future even if climate change is not a disaster? isnt this an organic thing though, the development of better technology? Could we realistically say, if we wanted to make a car run on unicorn tears and good wishes we could...? We just have to want to? Doesnt the development of electric cars and better fuel cell technology work against big oil and yet we have undertaken that development and made advancements. Can we not continue down the path of organically developing replacement for these things? And empower corporations to want to make those changes and advancements?

How disgusting. And for what? Its really just about money. They cant truly believe their nonsense. Like I said, if they really believed the world was at risk, then they'd all be leading by example. How is their carbon footprint looking? And whats the end game? To say "yeah well we know the ice caps were melted before and will melt again and there is nothing we can do about it but lets put it off by 100 years?" Id we're going to spend billions of dollars on something we can never win, let's spend it on space travel and learning to live on Mars.

The U.S. is built with checks and balances so power doesn't get out of control. You're absolutely right when you say the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have the means to fight tyranny.And tyranny appears to be approaching. 'Every now and then the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' No, tyranny is not approaching. And no, the "people" will not over-throw the government. Its moot.

Pens are a mess. They will need to part with Malkin or Crosby to reload. Otherwise they won't win another cup until they go through a full rebuild after those guys are done.

Fayne (EDM) and Semin (MTL) clear waivers.

Do I get my CPC card revoked if I say I am Intrigued by this idea? CTV With all the new initiatives on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plate – bringing 25,000 Syrian immigrants to Canada, legalizing marijuana, setting up an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women – how about an easy win, like giving every Canadian adult $15,000 a year? Don’t laugh. It’s something Finland’s government is seriously considering as a way to reduce poverty and unemployment in that country. According to CNN Money, Finland is looking to give every adult Finn a monthly stipend of 800 euros (which works out to about $1200 Canadian) as a replacement to existing state benefits. So, this would replace welfare, employment insurance, child tax benefits – anything that we may be currently receiving. Instead, we’ll each get a flat cheque from the federal government each month. The logic behind the idea is that the current welfare system in Finland is extremely complicated and expensive to maintain, and removing all the infrastructure required to maintain state benefits would result in a massive savings for the country. And they believe it would encourage people currently living on government benefits like welfare to look for work, because many currently make more on welfare than they would taking a low- or minimum-wage job. With the stable, monthly cheque coming in, they would be more inclined to take low-paying jobs to improve their incomes without the penalty of losing their benefits. As for wealthiest people receiving the cheques, they would pay most of the stipend back in taxes. It’s a scenario that sounds eerily familiar to Canada. Our welfare system has been described as “a box with a tight lid” by former chief economist Don Drummond because people must become destitute before they qualify, and once in the system, there’s little motivation to get out of it. “You have no means to absorb setbacks in income or unexpected costs,” Drummond said. “You can’t afford to move to where jobs might be or upgrade your skills.” Each year the Canadian government pays out over $11 billion a year in social assistance, and the bureaucracy required to maintain social programs like welfare and employment insurance cost millions each year. Replacing these costs for a small, centralized department focused on issuing monthly cheques would represent a huge savings for the government. Between 1974 and 1979, Canada experimented with a similar project in the city of Dauphin, Man., in which the social programs were removed and the city’s poorest people were given cheques to boost their incomes to a livable wage. In five years, poverty in the city was completely eliminated and unemployment levels disappeared. Unfortunately, Joe Clark’s Conservatives eliminated the test program when they took office. Finland continues to carefully examine the idea, with a finalized proposal expected for 2016 and a pilot program slated for 2017. In the pilot program, some people will receive 550 Euros ($813 CAN) while maintaining some of their existing benefits, like housing allowances. According to CNN, 69 per cent of Finns are in favour of the system. It’s a program Canada would be wise to monitor closely.