Anti-war protesters planning rally at Rogers Arena
- Thread starter Johnny Utah
- Start date
First of all Don is a commentator not an official news person. Will the CBC as him not to
be a commentator. We hear people talk about homelessness and other unfortunate
situations, we hear the sports people talk about hockey people who pass away should they
say nothing to the families?
Everything goes be president in a democratic society. This goes back to the days before TV,
it was radio and Foster Hewitt, the first great play by play announcer said opening his
broadcast. Hello hockey fans and shut In's coast to coast welcome to hockey night in Canada.
Well it was something close to that anyway. With that statement commentary became part of
the broadcast we call hockey. Cherry is also saying hello to those serving in Afghanistan, as
they are listen or watching the game of satellite.
Let me see, its OK to say we are sorry for your loss to hockey families, and other people of note
but don't you dare say hi to our soldiers fighting overseas? Don't these people have a life?
Don Cherry is an act, just like the wrestling, and whether you like him or not, some people are
really ticked because he says what some are thinking.
I think Cherry has a right within the context of the broadcast to say what he says whether I like it
or not. And no we don't want to give the protesters equal time on a hockey show they are not
part of the broadcast team. Besides the 10 people or so whining, would end up getting more time
politically than the Green Party got in the last election debate.
If the CBC lets the people debate Cherry on the program they risk having hockey people real fans
ticked off. If the tell Cherry to be quiet they are siding with the demonstrators. In two weeks this
will be a small side show of hollow words, and the CBC should let it pass and take the increased
ratings and enjoy it. I have nothing against serious people with serious issues staging demonstrations
for social justice or whatever I have even participated in a few. In my opinion these people are little
more than a handful of flakes looking for an issue that will soon pass them by with about
10 seconds of fame.
be a commentator. We hear people talk about homelessness and other unfortunate
situations, we hear the sports people talk about hockey people who pass away should they
say nothing to the families?
Everything goes be president in a democratic society. This goes back to the days before TV,
it was radio and Foster Hewitt, the first great play by play announcer said opening his
broadcast. Hello hockey fans and shut In's coast to coast welcome to hockey night in Canada.
Well it was something close to that anyway. With that statement commentary became part of
the broadcast we call hockey. Cherry is also saying hello to those serving in Afghanistan, as
they are listen or watching the game of satellite.
Let me see, its OK to say we are sorry for your loss to hockey families, and other people of note
but don't you dare say hi to our soldiers fighting overseas? Don't these people have a life?
Don Cherry is an act, just like the wrestling, and whether you like him or not, some people are
really ticked because he says what some are thinking.
I think Cherry has a right within the context of the broadcast to say what he says whether I like it
or not. And no we don't want to give the protesters equal time on a hockey show they are not
part of the broadcast team. Besides the 10 people or so whining, would end up getting more time
politically than the Green Party got in the last election debate.
If the CBC lets the people debate Cherry on the program they risk having hockey people real fans
ticked off. If the tell Cherry to be quiet they are siding with the demonstrators. In two weeks this
will be a small side show of hollow words, and the CBC should let it pass and take the increased
ratings and enjoy it. I have nothing against serious people with serious issues staging demonstrations
for social justice or whatever I have even participated in a few. In my opinion these people are little
more than a handful of flakes looking for an issue that will soon pass them by with about
10 seconds of fame.
He's an entertainer. As long as the ratings are good, the CBC should let him talk about whatever he wants to talk about. Anybody that doesn't like it can apply to the CBC for an on air job and try to replace him...or they can protest. It's a free country....still.
I'm not your Google b!tch-do the research/educate yourself and Be Happy-or as happy as someone like you can be.
LOL!!!
Didn't have to. I read the link. Taught me you're as full of it as your come-back.
Now that would be something I'd like to see. Protesters going out on the field during half-time.
Mark David Chapman
Research is clearly not something you can do. You have in this thread alone posted links to stuff that certainly doesn't back up any claims you make and more than not, have nothing at all to do with the claims you make. Maybe if you did more than simply google the first thing that pops into your head and then link to the first thing that comes up without reading a damn word of it, you would not make such embarrassing mistakes.
I suspect that's asking a lot from you. I bet you couldn't even get to this part of the post without clicking on reply to fire off yet another inane blathering.
First let me say, that this thread has been overwhelmingly fun to read. And my opinion is, as distasteful as I find the protesters ambitions to be, they have every right to say it. (Mark and I both believe in that, so much so we decided to defend that principle with our very lives.)
It's their goal that I find repulsive.
Seems to me that there's some inadequacy issues at play there. Either with the fact that you've penned a novel or have actually served.
You mean that kind of name calling and immaturity?
Pot, meet kettle...
That kind of labeling and running?
Until then, expect cannibal trolls to be at your heels.
It's their goal that I find repulsive.
I couldn't agree more. Funny how you and Cannuck have the same opinion here, but he just can't seem to get by that grudge of his to see that and agree with you.
Seems to me that there's some inadequacy issues at play there. Either with the fact that you've penned a novel or have actually served.
No, what they actually did was prop up warlords friendly to their regime, allowed them to grow opium, taxed them on their crops and slaughtered the competition for them.
You mean like you calling me names and posting a video in which you alluded to me being a racist redneck?
You mean that kind of name calling and immaturity?
Pot, meet kettle...
You most certainly did. You can try and "run" away in your attempted backpeddling now.
I've followed your posts for quite sometime. I can't recall any mention of it before. Can you cite some posts to reference. Or are you going to dodge that challenge, again?
I actually like your opinions on many topics. Even when I find myself in opposition to them, as the positive post rating I've given you will show. But I still think, for the most part, like myself, you're a troll. You just haven't the maturity or fortitude to admit it.
You mean like when you post challenges, and get fed, then post videos to try and make other members out to be something they're not, because you fail to disprove them?
That kind of labeling and running?
Every post you've deposited in this thread humoured me.
As soon as you do, I'll join you there.
Until then, expect cannibal trolls to be at your heels.
Last edited:
You are mistaken. I do see that we share the same opinion. That has nothing to do with his silly rants that I called him on. I don't "tolerate" obnoxious behavior from posters just because I happen to agree with there opinion. I'll leave that to folks like Unforgiven.
I don't consider you a redneck. I do consider you a racist. That is not name-calling. It is a simple fact based on that which you post on this forum. You believe you are entitled to something that I am not based solely on your heritage....however this isn't the thread to discuss it.
I don't think so, you're obnoxious comment, is proof of that.
Ahhh, is that what you call asking him if he was in Somalia? Calling him on it?
Really?
Neither do I, hence why I'm here now, typing to you.
Not according to the video you posted in "It's time to be honest about Islam".
I'm sure you do. The sad and jealous, seem unable to differentiate between contractual obligations with the people that lived here, and the race of those people.
It is, but it's actually more of a misinformed view to make your opinion hold a little water. In your own mind at least.
Actually, I think what I post is more bigoted, because I take issue with some organized religions.
No, I believe I'm entitled to something, which I am contractually entitled to. I could be white, purple or plain. The colour of the skin was irrelevant. It was the fact that we were here first, that made the contracts necessary.
A simple fact ignored by morons, so they can justify their misinformed opinion.
Since it's well off topic now, and you've run away from all the other threads in which I've handed you your ass on this topic in. It's as good as any, to hand you your ass, yet again.
This isn't directed at you damngrumpy, I just used your post as a reference point.
While I may not support all of the Canadian military's activities(they aren't always in wars after all)over the years, I will always support the men and women that serve our country.
On second thought I apologise for putting someone in a position where they felt the need to defend a 'government' made up largely of drug traffickers.
You wish-I just apologised for putting people in a position where they were embarrassing themselves and they can carry on doing so-in fact it's quite amusing.
Actually I don't. I hate seeing people make silly posts, complete with fact-less Op/Ed pieces as their supporting proof. I took, well actually, still take, your egress to mean that you simply can't support your claims with legitimate proof, so you'll make one final claim, and run off.
I thought that was a good call for someone with your skill set.
Really? I see much to apologise for, but the only one that should feel embarrassed, is you. Unf has you dead to rights.
I read your links, Op/Ed pieces, complete with accusations and no proof.
I then offered the fact that the Taliban have supported the opium trade, for warlords friendly to their cause, taxed their product, and eradicated their competition. In fact, they were so darned savy about the whole thing, they banned the production of opium in 2000, to jack up the price.
Now that part if pure opinion, but it makes sense, given they were making money hand over fist from it. But the world market of opium was glutted in 2000. So since it was such a cash cow, I can see how a savy Taliban man, would think it wise to strangle the flow a little, and drive prices back up.
A fact I can back up, with an article from 1998, so it certainly isn't something recently written as propaganda.
Where did you think Afghan opium came from before the invasion? Wisconsin?
Quite.
Last edited: