The Unknown Poster

Id rather stu protect the puck and not be scored against then hit a guy and get scored on.

Syed Farook worked for San Bernardino County as an inspector in the Public Health Department. Let that sink in for a moment. #SanBernardino

Sigh. I don't know how I feel about this now. The humor and "historic meeting" seem so forced. Ugh https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fis-9Zqu2Ro&feature=youtu.be

Liberals might be finding it's easier to complain and make promises then to govern. OTTAWA – The finance minister is highlighting three economic priorities for the new government — but the Liberal campaign vow to cap annual deficits at $10 billion is apparently no longer among them. Bill Morneau avoided a question Wednesday when asked about the party’s promise to keep annual shortfalls under the ceiling. Instead, he told reporters that the government will focus on its election pledges to invest in infrastructure, lower the federal debt-to-GDP ratio and balance the books in the fourth year of their mandate.

Jagr: Fans-I appreciate your votes for All-Star game, but 3 on 3 would kill me,and i don't want to die yet:)Thank you for understanding. Too old:) Selanne: @68Jagr I vote you bud! You are not that old yet! And you are SO much smarter than this days kids anyway!!! Keep it rolling my friend!

Both goals against Helle in his career can be blamed on Stu. Great game. Scheif was tremendous. D playing better. Perhaps tightening up for the rookie. Thinking the same about 3rd line. I like Thorburn as much as the next guy but Ehlers-Burmi-Thorburn? One of these things is not like the other. Perhaps Lowry can ply himself back to the 3rd line.

You mean after he got it wrong and then bowed to public pressure? The good news he's still focused on the most important issue facing Canadians. Climate change.

Moot point. No one is making you engage in this thread

One of the suspects involved in the San Bernardino shootings has been identified as Syed Farook, an inspector with the county health department, who abruptly left the event at the Inland Regional Center before the shootings, multiple law enforcement sources tell CNN. The sources said the residence in Redlands, California, surrounded by law enforcement is connected to Farook. It is that house where the chase began that led to the shootout with the occupants of the SUV. The sources could not say for certain that he was in the SUV, if he was a shooter, or that he is one of the dead. The sources did say that Syed Farook is known to be a U.S. citizen.

Well their ethnicity and immigration status might be relevant to the topic of their seemingly low pay. But that would require evidence not available (or revealed). I think a chef is more akin to an asset expense in this scenario. Im curious if the PM pays for groceries as the President does. I won't eat his lunch over it. But the nanny thing is pretty obvious. And Steve, you said you don't think he planned to use the budget to pay for nannies. But it was his decision to hire them on taxpayer pay roll. He knows they're nannies. So he clearly intended them to be paid by the taxpayer.

In a perfect world. Because then it makes the cash diminish as their skills do and makes them more tradeable if need be in the future. But then you're outlaying more now because Ladd wants $6.5 per year. So it you're giving him $3.25 later (I think lowest year cant be less than 50% of highest year), Im too lazy to do math but I bet thats a lot of money over the first three years. And no way does anyone give them 7 (or 8) years. I think most GM's would shy away from that now, for 30 year old players.

They have 3 kids. I guess their kids are a handful. lol

Confused...Ehlers shoots left. Ehlers was drafted as a Left Wing that could play either side. He's been playing RW for us. Petan was similar in that he could play any forward position (if I recall).

Just awful Wednesday's San Bernardino, California, shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center, a facility for people with developmental disabilities. It is unclear how many people were at the facility at the time of the shooting. The center's Facebook page says it employs nearly 670 staff members at its facilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, providing service to more than 30,200 people. There were reports from the sheriff's department that there were one to three suspects. The fire department said it was responding to a "20 victim shooting incident."

The choice might not be simple but it's pretty straight forward and the same choice many parents all across Canada make every day. Do both parents return to work? Does one stay home to raise kids? Part time or full time? Can they afford it? Can they make the sacrifice if they deem it worthy? etc etc. The words I used to describe the role of First Spouse was taken from Wiki, for what its worth. Im not minimizing it at all. But the choice remains for the spouse to choose to decline if the need for child rearing is of personal importance. Paying to take the kids to Paris and to Museum's and whatever else is pretty elitist behavior, Its great that the family is of the means to provide those sorts of perks to their children. But pay for them. They had two nannies before becoming PM. They have two nannies after. The work load since winning the election is moot. As a family, they made the decision to hire nannies to assist them. Im unfamiliar with Mrs Trudeau's work and its really none of our business outside of the work she does on behalf of the government, party or her ceremonial role as PM's spouse. But the point is, they paid for the nannies before, they can pay for them now. I'd like to hear your explanation for why child care is the same as groundskeeper or driver or security. Im legitimately intrigued by that point. Those positions exist before and after Justin's job as PM. If the government maintained an official National Nanny then I could see the justification although it would still be silly. These were personal employees of the Trudeau's who they slid over to taxpayer coffers under the guise of "special assistants". It stinks. And because of his campaign position, it makes him a hypocrite. A stronger word might be liar. But Ill stick with hypocrite for now. For comparison, the US President foots the bill for many personal expenses, including vacations and groceries consumed in the White House (as well as personal items). The President receives a government expense account for some items.

Yeah....I saw that too. Not sure what to think of it. Mick is pretty much a corporate stooge at this point. He lambasted RAW last week...and then news breaks his kid may end up on creative so it sort of came across either stupid (ie. getting your son heat before he even starts) or self-serving (bury RAW now and then note how much its improved after your son gets there). Though many new hires to creative dont last long. I dont know Dewey but unless he has some formal training in writing, I doubt he lasts. "Idea guys" seem to exit the quickest. WWE creative isnt an equal group of people in a room story-boarding ideas. There is a hierarchy and politics. Dewey likely gets a tougher go of it for being Mick's son. Noelle would be the better bet for making it though. She's a fan and she's attractive and she's done some interviewing and whatnot. She commented that she trained a little but wants to explore other areas before returning to training. Which to me sounds like she did not like the work involved in training. But as a pretty face, if she's talented she'd be fine as an interviewer. Im waiting for the inevtiable vignette of Dewey walking into the Authority's office and Hunter doing the introductions. "Kane...Dewey". (ECW fans will get it).

Well I think if you apply common sense (dreaded term, I know), you can easily tell the difference between reasonable discussion/complaining and obnoxious whining. "NannyGate" is clearly relevant. And not just to the specifics of a wealthy family getting free child care but the entire discussion of child care and child care benefits.

ISIS releases a new video in which a militant beheads an alleged Russian spy and threatens Russia. (CNN)After the November 13 terror attacks in Paris, France asked its allies to bump up their military offensive against ISIS. Now Britain and Germany will decide whether they will. The parliaments of both countries are debating their leaders' requests for greater military commitment against the terror group. And the measures are expected to be approved. The UK proposal would add British warplanes to the airstrike campaign against ISIS inside Syria. Currently, the UK is carrying out airstrikes only in Iraq. The German plan would activate 1,200 troops in anti-ISIS efforts, but in a support role, not direct combat.

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom? Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either. But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home. And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care. No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys. The choice is not that simple and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say we both know it. The role of the PM's spouse, though not formal, has certainly evolved and comes with great expectations. It's essentially a more than full-time volunteer position. Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it. Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care. Actually, it does, I have no doubt that they now have much more on their plate. And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means. "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said. Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers. I'm on the fence about this. It does seem like it was more for optics than anything that he so publicly rejected the benefit, which I'm not a huge fan of. He was trying to make a point at the time and it has certainly come back to bite him in the butt. Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not. And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer. If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it.... While I do think framing it as attack is extreme and I don't think her parenting ability, nor those of anyone else who rely on outside childcare, should be judged I think it's quite a narrow view that does not include her and her role in the discussion. As for how they are paid, it's my understanding that their salaries come out of the same budget that past PMs have used for the same expense. In my opinion, and apparently in those of previous PMs, childcare is just as necessary a household expense as all of the other professionals mentioned. You're wearing very Liberal-coloured shades my friend. You're acting as though Mrs Trudeau had the role of Wife-of-PM thrust upon her. It was a choice. As a public figure, some spouses will, from time to time, participate in various ceremonial, diplomatic, or partisan activities, alongside the prime minister. Most seem to engage in charitable causes and occasionally play host to functions involving dignitaries. None of this, ofcourse, precludes the spouse from taking an active role in parenting. But that's not the point. The Trudeau's had two nannies before taking office as PM. You say they have much more on their plate. So why not hire more help? Two is enough I guess. The same two they paid before taking office. So why cant they pay now? Are you suggesting they had two nannies before taking office that they didnt need but now they do need them as a result of all the work we force them to do so we should pay? Keep in mind, this was Trudeau's position during the campaign: The Liberal leader maintains it’s wrong to give the benefit to wealthy families that don’t need help raising their kids. And to underscore that point, he’s going to give his own family’s windfall to charity. With three young children, one under the age of 6, Trudeau is entitled to collect annual UCCB payments of about $3,400. In an interview Tuesday, he said he’ll give that money to La Maison Bleue, a charitable group in his Montreal riding devoted to helping vulnerable women during pregnancy and the early days of motherhood. Child-care benefits should go to families who need the help, “not families like mine or Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s,” Trudeau told The Canadian Press. Your argument that its the same as previous PM's is moot. No PM should get taxpayer funded child care. Also, it would seem (though cant say for sure with malicious intent) that this was hidden under the guise of "Special Assistant". So if you're saying well previous PM's had special assistants, is this what your money should be paying for: One of the women hired was with the Trudeaus this past week on the prime minister’s foreign trip that wrapped up Monday at the UN climate change conference in Paris. She posted photos online of the couple’s two children who came on the trip. There were also shots of her with the Trudeaus’ youngest child on Facebook visiting museums and at the hotel where they stayed in Paris. Your final point is child care is as neccesary a household expense as others mentioned. The professions mentioned are: cooks and cleaners and snow shovelers and gardeners and drivers and security guards. You think child care is the same? The difference is that those other professions are for upkeep and service of the asset (ie. grounds/buildings) owned by Canadians and have no bearing on the person in office (whether the PM is there, the grass still needs to be mowed) or are non-negotiable in the sense they are for the safety and security of the position (ie. PM). We dont own his kids. They arent serving Canada. Its fair to provide security for them. Its not fair to pay for their nannies. But dont worry, Chatelaine helpfully provides an alternative to taxpayer funded nannies: There is another option, of course: When he’s working, the prime minister could bring his children to the House of Commons and let them run around during Question Period. There you have it. Either we pay for this rich family's nannies or they must run around the House of Commons. Makes sense. Every other two-career family in Canada has to take their kids to work. They cant manage without free nannies.

We have one. His name is Blake Wheeler.

@Logan - reading online that an action figure of the cloaked Batman from the teaser is labelled "Knightmare Batman". So you are probably correct in that its a dream sequence.

Going against a lower-rated Monday Night Football game, the ratings for the Monday, November 30th edition of WWE Raw were up to 3.16 million viewers, up from last week's record low by 210,000 viewers. To put the number in perspective, 3.16 million viewers tied the November 9th show for the second lowest watched non-holiday episode of the show since 1997. The Cleveland Browns vs. Baltimore Ravens game on ESPN drew 10.11 million viewers, down four million from the week before when the New England Patriots played the Buffalo Bills. The third hour dropped by 300,000 viewers from the first hour. The main event of the show was the new League of Nations faction (WWE Champion Sheamus, King Barrett, U.S. Champion Alberto del Rio and Rusev) teaming with WWE Tag Team champions The New Day to battle Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose, and The Usos in a handicap match. The three hour breakdown was: - 8 p.m. 3.31 million viewers - 9 p.m. 3.19 million viewers - 10 p.m. 3.01 million viewers ****So, not a disaster...but almost a disaster. The trending collapse continues over-all. WWE also sent out a fan survey asking a variety of questions to try to determine why fans are not watching. Which is interesting since they have a plethora of data to tell them exactly why. To me it sounds like a witch hunt to pin the collapse on anything other than lousy creative and a played-out presention/production. On my part, I thought they tried harder on RAW this week. Im a sucker for heel factions (anyone who attends my shows for years knows there is almost always a strong heel faction) but this League of Nations is not exactly elite. Ambrose continues to be the most over babyface but is being used to try and give Roman the rub. Swimming upstream. Anyone with the Network should be watching Breaking Ground. Its a tremendous show (narrated by William Shatner). And its an interesting look into the "mind" of the WWE. Head Coach Prince Albert tells new recruit ZZ that WWE is a "professional spot" (WWE rejects this in favour of being "entrainment", Assistant Head Coach Sara Del Rey tells one of the women that she can take the assigned promo and use her own verbiage (this is not the case in WWE). Also, one episode showed Winnipegger Sarah Stock coaching a class of women. She was identified but had no "inset" comments on camera. She's a great worker and really should be working on RAW and not just coaching in NXT. Shes a sweetheart too.

When is JT back from his Paris climate party? He's got to get the wife and kiddies home too, as they all went to Paris with him on our dime, along with the nanny. He's far too concerned with the climate change fairy tale, and giving away control of Canada's economy to EU bureaucrats to be worried about nanny-gate right now. I would expect that he will hope that this whole thing blows over, and if not, Plan B, start paying for the nannies, then back-door expensing them back to the taxpayer. Interesting point. Some people made it an issue when the Harper government flew secure vehicles at the RCMP's urging for state functions but what about the PM taking his family along on vacat...uh I mean Climate talks? Personally, I dont see that as a huge issue but the hypocrisy is interesting.

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom? Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either. But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home. And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care. No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys. Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it. Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care. And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means. "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said. Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers. Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not. And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer. If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it....

Considering their incredibly defensive posture on this Nanny thing, I'd say it doesnt feel very good. Not to mention the whole Syrian refugee thing where there was no issue with timing and no issue with security...until there was on both counts. Goes with the territory. Im sure the Liberals will get used to it and be less silly in their responses. I expect Trudeau will announce he will pay for nanny duties by late Friday.