The Unknown Poster

Turning the more popular Ambrose heel on the less popular Roman would be a poor decision.

Well said. Sadly those that don't get it won't get it.

OT is entertaining but stupid. People don't want bigger nets but they are okay with a gimmick like that? It's awful. Shoutout a gimmick too. Bring back ties

Well Owens is their top heel now. That's for sure. WWE wants no one over but the brand so now they suffer the consequences. Hunter comes out of retirement, just watch! lol

I dont know who is out there to be honest. I believe Jeff Hardy (who they want back) is injured. Kurt Angle (who they dont want back) would be a tremendous surprise CM Punk would be huge but isnt going to happen. Del Rio is already back and barely compelling. Rey Misterio has a good spot with AAA and Lucha Libre but WWE would take him back. Dave Batista isnt overly interesting and doing well in Hollywood and also is pretty sour on WWE Chris Jericho is available and friendly but not a big surprise. In their own company guys like Finn Balor would be interesting but not *huge* as far as moving the needle. Daniel Bryan would be the best as a babyface to keep the crowd hot but WWE doesnt want to clear him (this might change their minds). Sting is hurt. Short of recalling John Cena early, Im not sure what options they have. And Cena is still Cena. Not compelling. Brock would work if he dominates the tournament and wins but it would mean paying him a lot of money. The other option is to pay homage to Survivor Series 98 (my favourite PPV as far as pure creative goes) with Roman playing The Rock, the Authority playing the Corporation and either Ambrose, Bryan or Owens playing Mankind.

Well tournaments are generally the same regardless of which show they are on.

Agree to disagree, and you're welcome. Sorry man it's true, I am not an expert on the Niqab.

Are you talking about Justin Trudeau?

Joe is well past his best-before date.

Exactly. On the subject of Freddie Mercury, he kept his sexuality as somewhat of an open secret. Being gay was illegal not long before Mercury was a star. He also kept his AIDS status private but shortly before his death he felt the need to issue a statement admitting he had AIDS and asking the world to fight the disease. I dont understand the people that feel the need to express the "who cares" attitude. Worse when they pretend they dont have prejudice on the subject by listing all their gay friends or saying they just consider it a non issue. Its great if thats true but its not the way of the world. It was just THIS YEAR that gays were allowed to be married in the US and to this day have to fight to exercise that right. im from canada, i really more care about what goes on in canada, the US people have never been a shining example of accepting ppl whatever the case Which means what? Is the NHL not a league operated in both Canada and the US? Or you mean you dont care about the plight of gays unless they are in Canada?

Nope, sorry. You dont get it. Im not faulting you for not getting it. But it would be like if I googled nuclear fusion and then posted on a discussion forum for experts. I might think I get it, but I dont. You dont. Sorry. Lol at your lack of self-awareness for posting this. How long did you argue the niqab issue when you had no clue what you were talking about? Also, this isn't an apt analogy unless you consider the contributors to this thread experts is gay issues. I chose a particularly silly comparison on purpose. lol Plus, while Im not an expert on the Niqab I was not clueless. Regardless, point is the same. The poster I addressed has no understanding of the issue in question. That much is clear. But great contribution!

Exactly. On the subject of Freddie Mercury, he kept his sexuality as somewhat of an open secret. Being gay was illegal not long before Mercury was a star. He also kept his AIDS status private but shortly before his death he felt the need to issue a statement admitting he had AIDS and asking the world to fight the disease. I dont understand the people that feel the need to express the "who cares" attitude. Worse when they pretend they dont have prejudice on the subject by listing all their gay friends or saying they just consider it a non issue. Its great if thats true but its not the way of the world. It was just THIS YEAR that gays were allowed to be married in the US and to this day have to fight to exercise that right.

Nope, sorry. You dont get it. Im not faulting you for not getting it. But it would be like if I googled nuclear fusion and then posted on a discussion forum for experts. I might think I get it, but I dont. You dont. Sorry.

Powerboming Kane = not a good idea With John Cena, Brock Lesnar, and Randy Orton among the major stars on hiatus for various reasons at the moment, the timing of this injury could not be worse. One WWE source noted that some phone calls are likely already being made to some very big names. Seth's reign was a total flop. If they are smart they do one of two things: Write Brock a blank cheque and he wins the tournament. or clear Daniel Bryan and he either wins or is screwed by Roman in a heel turn. FOrcing Roman down our throats, especially now isnt a good idea.

Why dont you just not comment then? You dont care. You dont understand. And you dont have a reasomable, well thought out discussion point. So ignore this and every other related thread and discussion and move on. This isnt for you obviously.

Yes and many gay people afraid to come out because of people like Goalie and Taynted. Sad really.

Well Im sure we'll get into the "your opinion vs my opinion" debate. But good God what ignorance. This is what prejudice looks like in 2015. Not so subtly hidden behind "yeah but what about me, what about my rights" garbage. Go ahead and flame.

Do you think Ellen Page's comments indicate she thinks it's anyones business what she does in her bedroom?

Too many face palms.

Yeah! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JlDzEpk6B_g

I'm afraid you don't understand the issue. Which is fine.

I wonder too. I recall the 2014 Draft where Chevy said there was some deals discussed that required ownership-level approval. But the fact they pulled the trigger on the trade so quickly after the Track-Gate incident just makes me wonder if they were hoping they could keep Kane (and Buff) and everything would eventually work out.

With all due respect, if you dont understand the importance of this, thats okay, but best to just keep it to yourself and move along. There very well are likely some athletes that are gay who dont hide it from their friends/family and feel its no ones buisiness. But there are undoughbtably many who feel they cant come out for fear of what might happen. Thats the point. Ellen Page said it like this: "I'm here today because I am gay," Page, 26, told the audience, "and because maybe I can make a difference, to help others have an easier and more hopeful time. Regardless, for me, I feel a personal obligation and a social responsibility."

Interesting. What exactly was the Jets' plan? had it not come to a head, were they not going to move Kane? They would had chosen Kane over Buff? Oh well, Im sure if Kane was asked about Buff's feelings he'd say it was just racism. Right?

National Post Tasha Kheiriddin I wasn’t going to write about gender parity in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s new cabinet. I figured I had said everything I had to say about the issue on CBC Sunday night and Twitter the next day. Quotas are wrong, demeaning and a political sop to female voters. Next issue, please. But the fawning reaction from some of my media colleagues over Trudeau’s appointment of 15 women has pushed me over the edge. Sorry — I respect you all, but I feel like I’m trapped in a time warp, back in the days of U.S. President Bill Clinton. During his presidency, 44 per cent of Clinton’s cabinet and sub-cabinet appointments were women — and in the eyes of the feminist establishment, that made him immune to criticism, on policy or anything else. The only thing worse is the historical revisionism that assails one at every turn. Overnight, Canadians seem to have developed collective amnesia about the role of women in the previous Conservative government, which, while far from perfect, wasn’t minimal either. In former prime minister Stephen Harper’s nine years, Canada had two female environment ministers, two female health ministers, a female labour minister, public works minister and heritage minister. Those are the same portfolios for which Trudeau is now being credited with appointing women — as if they had never held them before. In his last cabinet, Harper also named a woman to the national revenue, transport, social development, foreign affairs and consular services, western diversification, seniors’ and fisheries portfolios. (On a historical note, Canada’s first female justice minister, Kim Campbell, who went on to become our first female prime minister, was appointed by a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney. The first woman ever appointed to cabinet was Ellen Fairclough, appointed by another PC prime minister, John Diefenbaker, in 1957.) Even the current head count is not overwhelming. Trudeau appointed 15 women to his cabinet. Harper, in his last cabinet, appointed 12. That’s despite the fact that he had fewer women than Trudeau to choose from. The main difference is that Trudeau’s cabinet was capped at a more reasonable 30 portfolios, Harper’s at a bloated 39, including a slew of ministers of state. So percentage-wise, Trudeau hit his 50 per cent quota of XX chromosomes. But to achieve this target, Trudeau changed the number, titles and composition of cabinet portfolios. For example, he took on intergovernmental affairs and youth himself, taking those two out of the equation. He also cleverly split some up. The Ministry for the Status of Women, for example, became a portfolio on its own, instead of being occupied by another minister, as was the case under former labour minister Kellie Leitch. Others, such as multiculturalism and seniors, disappeared. As for the Western diversification and other regional corporate-welfare portfolios, they appear to have been consolidated under economic development. For the most part, this reorganization is a good thing. But do taxpayers need to fund a stand-alone ministry for the status of women? No. Some may argue we don’t need this ministry at all. But separating it out allowed Trudeau to add another woman to the list. (It might have been more counter-culture if Trudeau had appointed a man to the role, but never mind.) And for all the brouhaha about women, from a cultural perspective, the cabinet is surprisingly not very diverse. While two aboriginal-Canadians and four Indo-Canadians were appointed, there is no one of Asia nor black descent. Everyone else looked kind of, er, pale. But this isn’t how one should take the measure of a cabinet. Yes, it should have diversity, not for diversity’s sake, but because as any business knows, a range of perspectives makes for better decision-making. Merit should count first and foremost, even if, as we know, it is sometimes not the main criterion. One of the most important criteria in this cabinet — and any cabinet, for that matter — is actually loyalty, which crosses gender, cultural and geographic lines. This whole conversation is unfortunate, because it obscures the real story of today. What I wanted to write was this: Trudeau’s picks were all competent and qualified. Many bring compelling personal stories and experiences to the table. The ceremony struck the right balance of pomp, circumstance, homage and levity. It represents a promising start for his government and I wish him well because he has a daunting task ahead of him. But that got drowned out in a sea of tweets and TV commentary about how fabulously female this cabinet is. Which is what the Liberals probably wanted, because it is a feel-good story and a vote-getter, too. Still, one wishes the feminists could stop crowing and see past the politics. Or maybe, like in the Clinton era, sadly, they just don’t care.