Could Canada survive.....
- Thread starter scratch
- Start date
"I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."
No, the proof is not self evident, or else nobody would be asking you to prove it, because we'd see it for ourselves. As mentioned before in another thread, just because you claim something is proof, doesn't actually make it proof.
Of course that's all you will say..... because that's all you got.
Nothing.
Added:
And if you don't want to "out" people who apparently agreed to your little inward circle of ingoring, and those people don't have the ballz to stand up and voice themselves in your and their defense..... then that says more then enough about that now doesn't it?
Oh yes.... by the way, it just crossed my mind that you completely canceled out your little agreement with your other buddies by actually responding to him and not ignoring him as you claimed you guys were doing.
But back on track it's apparent that most here agree that we very well would survive without the US and they're not as important as some would hope. Perhaps important to the current trading system, but it's not like there arn't countless other opportunities out there to trade with other people, or to completely change our processes to suit our own needs.
Trading with the US has just been more easier and a quick solution with consequences currently showing what happens when you revolve most of your trading with just one nation.
A few years back I knew trading mostly with just the US would eventually end up this way..... I'm just suprised that nobody in the government and marketing didn't clue into this earlier..... then again, it is our government I'm talking about.
. Most of the good actors starved up here, and only after going to Bushyville and "making" it are we proud to say, "Hey, he/she's from Canada, eh!!
8O
Name the 6 original teams.
Montreal
Toronto
New York
Chicago
Detroit
Boston
Any there from the States?;-)
We should keep the rights.
You have named the original six teams, and the last four are American based.
We keep the original six and add Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City, Moncton , Halifax and St. John's.
Four divisions of four teams.
We could work with that.
Each division winner goes to the semi-finals and those winners go for the Cup.
I think cons run away from a fight.
Let's see, your little band includes Risus (coward), Colpy (whom I'm ignoring anyways because he cries every time I tear down his thoughts) and you (owned by me everytime we have debated).
Hardly most members as you have claimed.:roll:
Run, it only proves my superior intellect over you and your simple cowardly friends.:lol::lol::lol:
And Nugg,
Just a few changes to boot:
-- regular season games ---- 60
-- regular season games ---- three periods, no overtime or shootouts, each team gets a point for the tie
-- post-season ---- best of five in semi-finals with overtime
-- post-season ---- best of seven finals with overtime.
This would keep the season in the winter months and make the teams more competitive as less positions would need to be filled with 16 teams and the competition for those positions would be fierce.
regs,
scratch
So how do you intend on paying the players and the rest of the people who make the game possible?
Boring, nobody but a soccer fan wants to pay money and spend time to se a tie at the end. Mkae overtime a full 20 minutes and end in a shoot if no decision has been made after that.
Again, revenue is key not only the money and jobs it generates for local economies, more hockey the better, only a non-fan would suggest such a thing.
Agreed.
Huh? How does any of this make them more competitive?
Why do we not want hockey in the fall or spring, we have football in winter and basketball, hardly winter sports.
Good thing you guys aren't running things....geez, even an American gets it.:lol:
regs,
scratch[/quote]
[/quote]
Obviously we do not see eye to eye on this. Perhaps a poll.
Curiosity begs...how old are you?
scratch
Just would like to know if you watched games from the mid-fifties until today.
Did you enjoy listening to Danny Gallivan or the Hewitts or Lecavalier doing the play-by play.
Watching a game on a 17" b&w Dumont or RCA.
You espouse the 100th anniversary of the Les Canadiens.
But were you there to see or were you actually in any of the arenas to enjoy the people or sights or great concession food?
Like a lot of guys from that period said they would have played for just room and board.
scratch
No, I grew up watching the Habs of the 70's, their most dominant period and the most dominant of any team in any sport.
So because players in the old days would play for rent our current players should? I hope for your sake that isn't the argument you want to present.
Granted the Habs of the 70s were good , but not the Habs or Buds or Bruins or Wings of the 50s and 60s.
Good for them that they are being paid more but they no longer have an allegiance to the team, they won't play their entire career for one team. They put themselves up to the highest bidders like `hookers`.
Personal trainers, pampered BS.
The venues are more attractive than the game itself which has been watered down to a joke. No more donny-brooks. No more clearing of benches. No more of a city and nation gone wild over the suspension of one player.
It is now a business like every other sport. Very sad IMO.
But you TAKE YOUR OPINION TO THE BANK AND LAUGH FOR I'LL CONTINUE TO WATCH THE REAL GAME ON ESPN or NHLNET RETRO.
You have sold yourself out. Your choice. Your problem. Our loss.
If you ever played the game as I did and was property of the Canadiens from age thirteen on you would understand.
I sincerely feel sorry for you.
scratch
Why would we want to get rid of all the American teams except the original 4? Colorado is a huge hockey market, Minnesota is a strong market, New Jersey, Philadelphia, even the SouthCal teams are strong markets. The NHL just needs to prune the weak markets