SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

just try something new

Created by: PrimeDatsyuk
Team: 2019-20 Toronto Maple Leafs
Initial Creation Date: Nov. 16, 2019
Published: Nov. 16, 2019
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Trades
TOR
  1. 2020 5th round pick (WPG)
Retained Salary Transactions
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2020
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the CBJ
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the VGK
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the CAR
Logo of the COL
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the STL
Logo of the WPG
2021
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
2022
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the TOR
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$81,500,000$79,141,310$0$70,000$2,358,690
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$11,634,000$11,634,000
C
UFA - 5
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$11,000,000$11,000,000
C, LW
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$10,893,000$10,893,000
RW
UFA - 6
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$3,400,000$3,400,000
LW, RW
UFA - 4
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$6,962,366$6,962,366
RW
UFA - 5
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$3,200,000$3,200,000
RW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$2,250,000$2,250,000
RW, LW
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$3,500,000$3,500,000
LW, C, RW
UFA - 4
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$775,000$775,000
LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$925,000$925,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$700,000$700,000
C, RW
NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$775,000$775,000
C, LW, RW
UFA - 2
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$4,000,000$4,000,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$2,750,000$2,750,000
RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$5,000,000$5,000,000
G
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$5,000,000$5,000,000
LD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$863,333$863,333
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$675,000$675,000
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$894,167$894,167
LD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$675,000$675,000
RD
UFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$694,444$694,444 (Performance Bonus$70,000$70K)
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$5,300,000$5,300,000
RW
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$675,000$675,000
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$5,250,000$5,250,000
RW
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$700,000$700,000
LD
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Nov. 16, 2019 at 9:06 p.m.
#1
Leafs fan...sorry
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2019
Posts: 684
Likes: 222
Babcock would never
Nov. 16, 2019 at 10:33 p.m.
#2
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 938
Likes: 253
We just lost 6-1, and you trade the only player who didn't have an atrocious game, replacing him with one who is currently -10. That's not going to help, except for getting Lafreniere.
Nov. 16, 2019 at 11:09 p.m.
#3
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 19,215
Likes: 4,837
I was just going to comment that ceci wasn't very noticeable in the game.
I'm not saying he had a relatively strong game, but in general, I never really heard his name and for a defense man that's usually a better sign than sticking out for playing bad.

On the other hand, that Dbag hockey night in canada coward not sticking up for Don Cherry was really noticeable.
This isn't china. Business terror has no business in a society with free speech. Which is exactly what happened to Don.
Nov. 16, 2019 at 11:23 p.m.
#4
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: pharrow
I was just going to comment that ceci wasn't very noticeable in the game.
I'm not saying he had a relatively strong game, but in general, I never really heard his name and for a defense man that's usually a better sign than sticking out for playing bad.

On the other hand, that Dbag hockey night in canada coward not sticking up for Don Cherry was really noticeable.
This isn't china. Business terror has no business in a society with free speech. Which is exactly what happened to Don.


Free speech doesn't mean people have the right to a platform, it means they have the right to say what they want to say. It also gives people the right to decide what speech they want to give a megaphone to.

Let's say you have a twitter account with 8947298471984718974281 followers and I have one with like 10, and I say something you disagree with, which you somehow see. Do you retweet it? No, you don't, because why would you? My free speech rights aren't violated here, you decided that my random ramblings about Ceci sucking don't merit you giving me a platform.

It's a similar situation with Don. He can say whatever he wants, but it's Sportsnet's right to decide what to air. For a better analogy, would my free speech rights be invalidated by Sportsnet refusing to give me an intermission segment where I break down Dougie Hamilton and Andrei Svechnikov for half of it and spend the other half campaigning for Jaghmeet Singh? No, it wouldn't.

Don's free speech allows him to say whatever he wants. Sportsnet's free speech (or that of the people that own it) gives them the right to stop airing it if they don't agree with the speech or don't like the reaction it generates or don't like his suit or decide to run 20 minutes of ads instead or whatever. People have the right to say what they want, the right to amplify whatever voices they choose, and the right to grant/deny platforms as they see fit if these platforms aren't government owned.

To quote Randall Munroe:
"The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean anyone else has to listen to your bull****, or host you while you share it.[...] If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door."
Nov. 17, 2019 at 1:01 a.m.
#5
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 19,215
Likes: 4,837
Quoting: The_Ultimate_Pielord
Free speech doesn't mean people have the right to a platform, it means they have the right to say what they want to say. It also gives people the right to decide what speech they want to give a megaphone to.

Let's say you have a twitter account with 8947298471984718974281 followers and I have one with like 10, and I say something you disagree with, which you somehow see. Do you retweet it? No, you don't, because why would you? My free speech rights aren't violated here, you decided that my random ramblings about Ceci sucking don't merit you giving me a platform.

It's a similar situation with Don. He can say whatever he wants, but it's Sportsnet's right to decide what to air. For a better analogy, would my free speech rights be invalidated by Sportsnet refusing to give me an intermission segment where I break down Dougie Hamilton and Andrei Svechnikov for half of it and spend the other half campaigning for Jaghmeet Singh? No, it wouldn't.

Don's free speech allows him to say whatever he wants. Sportsnet's free speech (or that of the people that own it) gives them the right to stop airing it if they don't agree with the speech or don't like the reaction it generates or don't like his suit or decide to run 20 minutes of ads instead or whatever. People have the right to say what they want, the right to amplify whatever voices they choose, and the right to grant/deny platforms as they see fit if these platforms aren't government owned.

To quote Randall Munroe:
"The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean anyone else has to listen to your bull****, or host you while you share it.[...] If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door."


wrong.

They put him on the air for commentary. They know he will speak his mind, that's why they put him on the air. Lets not pretend Sportsnet has not benefited from his lose cannon commentary before. It has.
He gave commentary, as he always does, as per his job, it was just commentary they didn't want to hear. It didn't fit the PC narrative they want to push down your throat that people like you happily swallow.
For that they fired him. Wrongly.

It would be one thing if he was treated equally for all his other commentary. But he wasn't and there lies the problem and why your narrative falls apart. He has always been given a position where he's free to comment. He has never been treated such ways before for any comments he has made. Lets not pretend none of them couldn't be taken as offensive.
When you hire for commentary you get commentary. And there in lies the problem for your argument. Ask yourself, would he have been fired for the exact opposite commentary. When you realize he wouldn't have, then you realize why it's business terror. Because if he's free to comment about a situation one way and nothing happens, but not the other, then it is indeed a violation of freedom of speech.

Your point on these platforms not being government owned is also false. All cable, radio etc.. requires an license. In the US it's the FCC. There is also a Canadian version. Simply stating it's not government owned does not account for how that really works. You would never be allowed to broadcast 24/7 isis recruitment simply because you are a business, you would be thrown off the air. It's why things like RT news are no longer allowed on TV.

The truth of the matter is it is an attack on free speech. When a person who is paid for commentary is somehow treated different because his commentary is only offensive in that it disagrees with a political view point. Such acts are what china, USSR, or nazi germany does. It is not what the free world does. To constantly have a "get them we disagree with them" attitude is the very opposite of the values that any free country holds.

The whole point about free speech is that even if it is offensive, you still have the right to do it. Much like players kneeling in the NFL doesn't mean they should be fired and kicked out their contracts and bared from the game for life.
Such actions would be wrong.
It is clearly a double standard in the way in which things are treated. It is terror. And it does in fact violate freedom of speech.

You may not pick and choose how you wish to apply things based on your personal narrative. Which is exactly what you want to do.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 1:54 a.m.
#6
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: pharrow
wrong.

They put him on the air for commentary. They know he will speak his mind, that's why they put him on the air. Lets not pretend Sportsnet has not benefited from his lose cannon commentary before. It has.
He gave commentary, as he always does, as per his job, it was just commentary they didn't want to hear. It didn't fit the PC narrative they want to push down your throat that people like you happily swallow.
For that they fired him. Wrongly.

It would be one thing if he was treated equally for all his other commentary. But he wasn't and there lies the problem and why your narrative falls apart. He has always been given a position where he's free to comment. He has never been treated such ways before for any comments he has made. Lets not pretend none of them couldn't be taken as offensive.
When you hire for commentary you get commentary. And there in lies the problem for your argument. Ask yourself, would he have been fired for the exact opposite commentary. When you realize he wouldn't have, then you realize why it's business terror. Because if he's free to comment about a situation one way and nothing happens, but not the other, then it is indeed a violation of freedom of speech.

Your point on these platforms not being government owned is also false. All cable, radio etc.. requires an license. In the US it's the FCC. There is also a Canadian version. Simply stating it's not government owned does not account for how that really works. You would never be allowed to broadcast 24/7 isis recruitment simply because you are a business, you would be thrown off the air. It's why things like RT news are no longer allowed on TV.

The truth of the matter is it is an attack on free speech. When a person who is paid for commentary is somehow treated different because his commentary is only offensive in that it disagrees with a political view point. Such acts are what china, USSR, or nazi germany does. It is not what the free world does. To constantly have a "get them we disagree with them" attitude is the very opposite of the values that any free country holds.

The whole point about free speech is that even if it is offensive, you still have the right to do it. Much like players kneeling in the NFL doesn't mean they should be fired and kicked out their contracts and bared from the game for life.
Such actions would be wrong.
It is clearly a double standard in the way in which things are treated. It is terror. And it does in fact violate freedom of speech.

You may not pick and choose how you wish to apply things based on your personal narrative. Which is exactly what you want to do.


Alright, so your argument is (if I'm understanding this correctly)

1) Sportsnet is at fault for removing him after this specific monologue instead of his other racist monologues, which indicates that he was given an infinite editorial mandate. In essence, it's a labour issue: Sportsnet fired Cherry for something Cherry would have understood was part of his job.
Now, I have no inside information here, but I'd be surprised if Sportsnet hasn't talked to Cherry before about avoiding racial/political discussion on his segment before. With how much (predictable) backlash the Cherry firing brought, it doesn't make sense for Sportsnet to do it if there was a way to make him stop being racist without firing him. That's probably what happened after his other controversies, closed door meetings and requests to stop doing this. When he did it again, Sportsnet reacted like any sane employer would when an employee keeps causing problems by doing things that the employer has specifically told them not to do. There's not really much of a convenience argument here: all the blowback suggests this really wasn't a very convenient time to can Cherry.

2) He wouldn't have been fired for saying the exact opposite, in this case some form of "wow, it's great to see all these immigrants wearing poppies, cool to see the Canadian patriotism" except not sounding sarcastic, or possibly "why are none of these 8th-generation Canadians wearing poppies, come on guys". Thing is, the factor at issue here is how much Sportsnet wants to give these ideas a platform. While you're correct that there are limits to what ideas broadcasters are allowed to put on their platforms, there aren't requirements for what ideas broadcasters have to represent. Yestv (I think that's the channel with the Christian news program) doesn't have a mandated Muslim news program, for example. This is where the argument falls apart, the opposite (at least the first version, probably not the second one) viewpoint would fall into the category of stuff Sportsnet wants to broadcast, while the one he put forth didn't. It's like how Fox News doesn't break any rules despite muzzling interviewees and heavily weighting the viewpoints on their program in order to make right-wing views seem more appropriate.

3) This is more similar to the Third Reich or the USSR than to a democracy. First off, did you see what happened with Deadspin? The firing that led to the mass resignations was because Deputy Editor Barry Petchesky put out a viewpoint that Great Hill Partners didn't want on the site. And the CBA they were operating under even guaranteed editorial independence! This isn't super uncommon. Private broadcasters doing this is actually probably more common than it would be in the USSR, though that's mostly due to the USSR's lack of private broadcasters in general than anything else.

The thing you come back to is the double standard argument, but here's the thing: some speech is more deserving of an audience than others, and it's up to the broadcasters to determine what speech deserves an audience and what speech doesn't. That's why sportsnet doesn't give a show to any idiot with a Capfriendly account and time on their hands (like, say, me). The audience said "hey, we don't ant to watch Don Cherry anymore". Sportsnet, like any smart business, said, "ok, if you don't want to watch this guy then we won't give him a segment, because why would we give a segment to somebody nobody wants to watch".

This is the main difference between Cherry and an NFL player. The players' job is to play good football, and the protests are secondary. If a player is fired for their protests, they aren't being fired because of their job performance, they're being fired because of a political statement. Cherry's job, meanwhile, is to make an intermission segment that people want to watch. If he says something people find offensive, they won't want to watch his segment anymore, and he has therefore failed in his job. Getting fired for failing in your job is pretty much standard procedure, unless you're the GM of the Vancouver Canucks.
Cherry isn't being punished for his speech or his beliefs, he's being punished for saying things that got Sportsnet involved in a big cintroversy, and for jeopardizing the audience of not only Coach's Corner, but also Hockey Night in Canada. That's pretty much justified.

Put another way, if the government forced Sportsnet to make its intermission segment feature a 20-minute Trudeau ad, would that be ok? Then why would mandating a Cherry segment be different? That's ultimately what this comes down to: Sportsnet has the right to choose what it broadcasts. It doesn't want to broadcast Cherry anymore, so it doesn't. That's the long and the short of it. No freedom of speech violated, it's an otherwise standard programming change being blown up because culture war.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 2:09 a.m.
#7
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 19,215
Likes: 4,837
Quoting: The_Ultimate_Pielord
Alright, so your argument is (if I'm understanding this correctly)

1) Sportsnet is at fault for removing him after this specific monologue instead of his other racist monologues, which indicates that he was given an infinite editorial mandate. In essence, it's a labour issue: Sportsnet fired Cherry for something Cherry would have understood was part of his job.
Now, I have no inside information here, but I'd be surprised if Sportsnet hasn't talked to Cherry before about avoiding racial/political discussion on his segment before. With how much (predictable) backlash the Cherry firing brought, it doesn't make sense for Sportsnet to do it if there was a way to make him stop being racist without firing him. That's probably what happened after his other controversies, closed door meetings and requests to stop doing this. When he did it again, Sportsnet reacted like any sane employer would when an employee keeps causing problems by doing things that the employer has specifically told them not to do. There's not really much of a convenience argument here: all the blowback suggests this really wasn't a very convenient time to can Cherry.

2) He wouldn't have been fired for saying the exact opposite, in this case some form of "wow, it's great to see all these immigrants wearing poppies, cool to see the Canadian patriotism" except not sounding sarcastic, or possibly "why are none of these 8th-generation Canadians wearing poppies, come on guys". Thing is, the factor at issue here is how much Sportsnet wants to give these ideas a platform. While you're correct that there are limits to what ideas broadcasters are allowed to put on their platforms, there aren't requirements for what ideas broadcasters have to represent. Yestv (I think that's the channel with the Christian news program) doesn't have a mandated Muslim news program, for example. This is where the argument falls apart, the opposite (at least the first version, probably not the second one) viewpoint would fall into the category of stuff Sportsnet wants to broadcast, while the one he put forth didn't. It's like how Fox News doesn't break any rules despite muzzling interviewees and heavily weighting the viewpoints on their program in order to make right-wing views seem more appropriate.

3) This is more similar to the Third Reich or the USSR than to a democracy. First off, did you see what happened with Deadspin? The firing that led to the mass resignations was because Deputy Editor Barry Petchesky put out a viewpoint that Great Hill Partners didn't want on the site. And the CBA they were operating under even guaranteed editorial independence! This isn't super uncommon. Private broadcasters doing this is actually probably more common than it would be in the USSR, though that's mostly due to the USSR's lack of private broadcasters in general than anything else.

The thing you come back to is the double standard argument, but here's the thing: some speech is more deserving of an audience than others, and it's up to the broadcasters to determine what speech deserves an audience and what speech doesn't. That's why sportsnet doesn't give a show to any idiot with a Capfriendly account and time on their hands (like, say, me). The audience said "hey, we don't ant to watch Don Cherry anymore". Sportsnet, like any smart business, said, "ok, if you don't want to watch this guy then we won't give him a segment, because why would we give a segment to somebody nobody wants to watch".

This is the main difference between Cherry and an NFL player. The players' job is to play good football, and the protests are secondary. If a player is fired for their protests, they aren't being fired because of their job performance, they're being fired because of a political statement. Cherry's job, meanwhile, is to make an intermission segment that people want to watch. If he says something people find offensive, they won't want to watch his segment anymore, and he has therefore failed in his job. Getting fired for failing in your job is pretty much standard procedure, unless you're the GM of the Vancouver Canucks.
Cherry isn't being punished for his speech or his beliefs, he's being punished for saying things that got Sportsnet involved in a big cintroversy, and for jeopardizing the audience of not only Coach's Corner, but also Hockey Night in Canada. That's pretty much justified.

Put another way, if the government forced Sportsnet to make its intermission segment feature a 20-minute Trudeau ad, would that be ok? Then why would mandating a Cherry segment be different? That's ultimately what this comes down to: Sportsnet has the right to choose what it broadcasts. It doesn't want to broadcast Cherry anymore, so it doesn't. That's the long and the short of it. No freedom of speech violated, it's an otherwise standard programming change being blown up because culture war.


you can just stop right there. What he said was not racist. Period.
It was nationalistic. There are many people who do not look like Don Cherry who go and buy Poppies.
His point was clearly that people come into the country and don't care about the country. That isn't racist. It's a fact. Believe me, the Chinese nationals coming into the country don't give a crap about canada. And neither do a lot of other migrants who go there. And that's his point. It had nothing to do with race.

You are frankly just rambling at this point with incoherent nonsense. Where you hear what you want to hear and not what was said.
If you bothered to listen the point was people died so they could live in a free country that is safe and that the least they could do is support them....like the many other life long Canadian citizens do. You know, actually be Canadian. Adopt canadian pride, support the military members who died and were injured for the country. But instead you live in a fantasy world where everything is about skin color and you scream racism on everything.

Grow up.

You wrote a 1000 word essay that fails to under stand the point from the beginning.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 2:31 a.m.
#8
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: pharrow
you can just stop right there. What he said was not racist. Period.
It was nationalistic. There are many people who do not look like Don Cherry who go and buy Poppies.
His point was clearly that people come into the country and don't care about the country. That isn't racist. It's a fact. Believe me, the Chinese nationals coming into the country don't give a crap about canada. And neither do a lot of other migrants who go there. And that's his point. It had nothing to do with race.

You are frankly just rambling at this point with incoherent nonsense. Where you hear what you want to hear and not what was said.
If you bothered to listen the point was people died so they could live in a free country that is safe and that the least they could do is support them....like the many other life long Canadian citizens do. You know, actually be Canadian. Adopt canadian pride, support the military members who died and were injured for the country. But instead you live in a fantasy world where everything is about skin color and you scream racism on everything.

Grow up.

You wrote a 1000 word essay that fails to under stand the point from the beginning.


Friendly reminder that the Royal Canadian Legion itself called Cherry's comments "hurtful, divisive and in no way condoned by the Legion": https://twitter.com/RoyalCdnLegion/status/1193999991557312515. We can argue the ins and outs of the r-word all night long, but it's tough to call comments patriotic, nationalistic or supportive of veterans when they get condemned by the Legion. Similarly, when the organization you're trying to drum up support for distances itself from the comments you made trying to get that support, something isn't right.

I can say I didn't wear a poppy November 11th, in the interests of not accidentally dropping a poppy into someone's burger. Still donated, just didn't wear the poppy. Wouldn't surprise me if most of the people who weren't wearing poppies were in the same boat, those things are a pain in the neck. Falling off, pricking you in the chest, blowing away in the wind, easy to see why you wouldn't need one. The support's what matters, not the badge that says you did it.

Seems like we've met pretty different immigrants, most of the ones I've met are pretty on board with the whole Canada thing. Well-thought out views on who to vote for to make the country better, buying poppies, helping fundraisers, etc. Immigrants pretty much by definition care about the country: they cared enough to uproot their lives to join it.

The point of the post was that Sportsnet has the right to decide what it wants to broadcast, and it doesn't want to broadcast Don Cherry anymore, which is justified. In retrospect, probably shouldn't have led with the r-word, but the point stands regardless of what his point was.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 2:46 a.m.
#9
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 19,215
Likes: 4,837
Quoting: The_Ultimate_Pielord
Friendly reminder that the Royal Canadian Legion itself called Cherry's comments "hurtful, divisive and in no way condoned by the Legion": https://twitter.com/RoyalCdnLegion/status/1193999991557312515. We can argue the ins and outs of the r-word all night long, but it's tough to call comments patriotic, nationalistic or supportive of veterans when they get condemned by the Legion. Similarly, when the organization you're trying to drum up support for distances itself from the comments you made trying to get that support, something isn't right.

I can say I didn't wear a poppy November 11th, in the interests of not accidentally dropping a poppy into someone's burger. Still donated, just didn't wear the poppy. Wouldn't surprise me if most of the people who weren't wearing poppies were in the same boat, those things are a pain in the neck. Falling off, pricking you in the chest, blowing away in the wind, easy to see why you wouldn't need one. The support's what matters, not the badge that says you did it.

Seems like we've met pretty different immigrants, most of the ones I've met are pretty on board with the whole Canada thing. Well-thought out views on who to vote for to make the country better, buying poppies, helping fundraisers, etc. Immigrants pretty much by definition care about the country: they cared enough to uproot their lives to join it.

The point of the post was that Sportsnet has the right to decide what it wants to broadcast, and it doesn't want to broadcast Don Cherry anymore, which is justified. In retrospect, probably shouldn't have led with the r-word, but the point stands regardless of what his point was.


you can keep trying to justify your comment and view of the issue, but you already outed yourself.
There was nothing racist about it, you can stop trying to spin it that way to fit your narrative.

I'm really sure all the chinese nationals are donating, while they kill the kids in hong kong, steal technology from universities, and are more patriotic to a government that constantly threatens canada and the whole rest of the world.
Maybe you should pull your head out your backside and realize there is a lot of truth to what he said. That your ignorant comments should not be tolerated. And that silencing someone who states the truth is suppression of freedom of speech and business tear. This comes from the same parent company who has no issue letting people make all kinds of other political statements. It justifies it as commentary and yet seems fit to target people who speak truth that doesn't fit the narrative.

When you paid a person for commentary, you got it. It does not give you the right to fire them because you didn't like it.
It starts to look like ABC news trying to fire the person who brought up the fact that ABC buried the Epstien story. Tell me, does that sound like reporters who are given freedom of press to actually be journalists to you?

It's a slippery slope world you live in. You should be careful what stupid opinions you hold.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 3:14 a.m.
#10
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: pharrow
you can keep trying to justify your comment and view of the issue, but you already outed yourself.
There was nothing racist about it, you can stop trying to spin it that way to fit your narrative.

I'm really sure all the chinese nationals are donating, while they kill the kids in hong kong, steal technology from universities, and are more patriotic to a government that constantly threatens canada and the whole rest of the world.
Maybe you should pull your head out your backside and realize there is a lot of truth to what he said. That your ignorant comments should not be tolerated. And that silencing someone who states the truth is suppression of freedom of speech and business tear. This comes from the same parent company who has no issue letting people make all kinds of other political statements. It justifies it as commentary and yet seems fit to target people who speak truth that doesn't fit the narrative.

When you paid a person for commentary, you got it. It does not give you the right to fire them because you didn't like it.
It starts to look like ABC news trying to fire the person who brought up the fact that ABC buried the Epstien story. Tell me, does that sound like reporters who are given freedom of press to actually be journalists to you?

It's a slippery slope world you live in. You should be careful what stupid opinions you hold.


"Silencing someone is suppression of freedom of speech" "Your ignorant comments should not be tolerated" ?????

None of the Chinese immigrants I have met were involved with the killings in Hing Kong. I would be willing to bet that this extends to the vast majority of Chinese immigrants in Canada. They chose to leave China to come to Canada, so I'd assume it's safe to say that they approve of Canada's government more than China's, given that staying in China would have been easier. The people of China aren't responsible for their government's actions, since they have no control over that government. In many cases, that's why they left, I know I'd sure as hell rather live under Canada's government than China's.

ABC is within their rights to try and kill stories as they see fit : however it does undermine their credibility as an organization. There's a lot of difference between trying to bury a major story about a child sex ring and between firing someone for insensitive comments that generated a large amount of backlash.

IMO the more dangerous slope is mandating platforms for certain viewpoints/stories. A story getting killed can pop back up from another organization (if it's a major one, it probably will, news orgs love getting scoops), but saying "you have to air this guy" is a slope straight to state-mandated propaganda segments, which would obviously be very bad. It's a tricky trade-off, giving private individuals control of what gets broadcast means that they can suppress things they dislike, but mandating certain coverage gives a TON of power to the government in terms of what people see. The best way to do it is probably what Canada has right now: a major public broadcaster that can ensure important viewpoints and stories get airtime, and a wide range of private organizations that prevent the government from taking full control of what people see.

Best way to deal with a slippery slope is a good icepick: anyone can decide what they want to show us, but none of them can fully decide what we see.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 3:33 a.m.
#11
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 19,215
Likes: 4,837
Quoting: The_Ultimate_Pielord
"Silencing someone is suppression of freedom of speech" "Your ignorant comments should not be tolerated" ?????

None of the Chinese immigrants I have met were involved with the killings in Hing Kong. I would be willing to bet that this extends to the vast majority of Chinese immigrants in Canada. They chose to leave China to come to Canada, so I'd assume it's safe to say that they approve of Canada's government more than China's, given that staying in China would have been easier. The people of China aren't responsible for their government's actions, since they have no control over that government. In many cases, that's why they left, I know I'd sure as hell rather live under Canada's government than China's.

ABC is within their rights to try and kill stories as they see fit : however it does undermine their credibility as an organization. There's a lot of difference between trying to bury a major story about a child sex ring and between firing someone for insensitive comments that generated a large amount of backlash.

IMO the more dangerous slope is mandating platforms for certain viewpoints/stories. A story getting killed can pop back up from another organization (if it's a major one, it probably will, news orgs love getting scoops), but saying "you have to air this guy" is a slope straight to state-mandated propaganda segments, which would obviously be very bad. It's a tricky trade-off, giving private individuals control of what gets broadcast means that they can suppress things they dislike, but mandating certain coverage gives a TON of power to the government in terms of what people see. The best way to do it is probably what Canada has right now: a major public broadcaster that can ensure important viewpoints and stories get airtime, and a wide range of private organizations that prevent the government from taking full control of what people see.

Best way to deal with a slippery slope is a good icepick: anyone can decide what they want to show us, but none of them can fully decide what we see.


you are clueless. Go see the chinese "immigrants" who are communist party members in china and their rich kids run around canada in their $200,000 cars waiving Chinese flags.

Real canadian immigrants.

This is what happens when you open doors to anyone, allow anyone to buy citizenship and the rest.
You clearly are not educated enough on the subject which is why you hold such ignorant opinions.

Go educate yourself.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 3:54 a.m.
#12
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: pharrow
you are clueless. Go see the chinese "immigrants" who are communist party members in china and their rich kids run around canada in their $200,000 cars waiving Chinese flags.

Real canadian immigrants.

This is what happens when you open doors to anyone, allow anyone to buy citizenship and the rest.
You clearly are not educated enough on the subject which is why you hold such ignorant opinions.

Go educate yourself.


Gotta feel for lucas having his thread hijacked. Ah well, onwards.

Canada doesn't even crack the top-5 countries for buying citizenships, a bunch of EU nations have more valuable passports and more explicit citizenship by investment laws. There also isn't a ton of incentive for a rich, loyal Chinese citizens to come to Canada, China treats them well and there are plenty of more welcoming countries for the super-wealthy. And Chinese people who can get their kids 200 grand cars isn't exactly a massive group.

You get the odd bad apple, it happens. Plenty of 'em born naturally, too. On the whole though, I haven't seen much evidence that mass immigration has caused Canada any major issues.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 6:22 a.m.
#13
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 19,215
Likes: 4,837
Quoting: The_Ultimate_Pielord
Gotta feel for lucas having his thread hijacked. Ah well, onwards.

Canada doesn't even crack the top-5 countries for buying citizenships, a bunch of EU nations have more valuable passports and more explicit citizenship by investment laws. There also isn't a ton of incentive for a rich, loyal Chinese citizens to come to Canada, China treats them well and there are plenty of more welcoming countries for the super-wealthy. And Chinese people who can get their kids 200 grand cars isn't exactly a massive group.

You get the odd bad apple, it happens. Plenty of 'em born naturally, too. On the whole though, I haven't seen much evidence that mass immigration has caused Canada any major issues.


you are clueless. The amount of theft at Canadian universities alone is unreal.
There are large Vancouver neighborhoods filled with "immigrants".

Just stop talking about crap you know nothing about.
Nov. 17, 2019 at 12:50 p.m.
#14
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 491
Quoting: KileDoobis
Babcock would never


enter keefe
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll