The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.
Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 12:54 pm
Ukraine has just agreed to a ceasefire.
‼ Breaking: US-Ukraine Talks in Saudi Arabia: Putin-Trump Plan Unveiled
Russia’s demands for a truce (per the screenshot):
1. Ukrainian Armed Forces withdraw from Russia’s Constitutional territories - including parts of right-bank Kherson and Zaporizhia.
2. Zelensky resigns, power shifts to Ukraine's parliament's (Verkhovna Rada) head Stefanchuk.
- Sequence: Ukraine retreats all forces out of 4 oblasts and Kursk, and also throws out Zelensky competely. Only THEN negotiations begin with Stefanchuk. Why Stefanchuk? When Zelensky is gone, Ukraine’s constitution positions him as the temporary legal authority, enabling binding agreements with Russia without elections - speeding up the peace process.
- Catch: The parliament must still vote yes to this with a constitutional majority, as it alters Ukraine’s territory.
Russia’s play is clear: neutralize Zelensky’s regime, redraw the borders, then talk.
Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 12:54 pm
Ukraine has just agreed to a ceasefire.
‼ Breaking: US-Ukraine Talks in Saudi Arabia: Putin-Trump Plan Unveiled
Russia’s demands for a truce (per the screenshot):
1. Ukrainian Armed Forces withdraw from Russia’s Constitutional territories - including parts of right-bank Kherson and Zaporizhia.
2. Zelensky resigns, power shifts to Ukraine's parliament's (Verkhovna Rada) head Stefanchuk.
- Sequence: Ukraine retreats all forces out of 4 oblasts and Kursk, and also throws out Zelensky competely. Only THEN negotiations begin with Stefanchuk. Why Stefanchuk? When Zelensky is gone, Ukraine’s constitution positions him as the temporary legal authority, enabling binding agreements with Russia without elections - speeding up the peace process.
- Catch: The parliament must still vote yes to this with a constitutional majority, as it alters Ukraine’s territory.
Russia’s play is clear: neutralize Zelensky’s regime, redraw the borders, then talk.
The first demand is reasonable, as long as Russia also withdraws from all Ukrainian territories, including Crimea.
The other demands are ludicrous.
If anyone should be removed from negotiations, it is Putin, who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes.
Russia won't sign a 30 day truce. Complete non starter. We're looking at another six months of fighting, minimum. The Ukrainians have that much fight left in them at least. And they droned civilian targets in Moscow this morning, an obvious sign that Ukraine isn't interested either.
Trump wants a ceasefire but he's not getting one. This is going to be settled on the battlefield.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:46 am
UW, while you're here, what do you think of Trump's attempt to deport green card holder Mahmoud Khalil for "sympathising with Hamas." Seems like a direct attack on free speech.
While in Canada the Liberal dipshits have just published a report that defines criticism of anti-Israel activities as racist. It also defines “Shariah Law” and “Jihad” as benign terms.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 3:41 pm
Yet you and everyone else on this board railed against the pro-Palestinian protests, even though it was protected speech.
Was it the protected speech part or the lawbreaking part that was "railed against"?
Trespass, burglary, barring other students from campus buildings.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 3:41 pm
Yet you and everyone else on this board railed against the pro-Palestinian protests, even though it was protected speech.
Was it the protected speech part or the lawbreaking part that was "railed against"?
Trespass, burglary, barring other students from campus buildings.
Occupation of buildings, destruction of property.
Physical confrontations.
Threats against/assault on Jewish students.
I believe the railing was against calling for genocide of the Jews, so protected speech.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:46 am
UW, while you're here, what do you think of Trump's attempt to deport green card holder Mahmoud Khalil for "sympathising with Hamas." Seems like a direct attack on free speech.
While in Canada the Liberal dipshits have just published a report that defines criticism of anti-Israel activities as racist. It also defines “Shariah Law” and “Jihad” as benign terms.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 3:41 pm
Yet you and everyone else on this board railed against the pro-Palestinian protests, even though it was protected speech.
Was it the protected speech part or the lawbreaking part that was "railed against"?
Trespass, burglary, barring other students from campus buildings.
Occupation of buildings, destruction of property.
Physical confrontations.
Threats against/assault on Jewish students.
I believe the railing was against calling for genocide of the Jews, so protected speech.
Yes. It was exactly that.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, some of those "demonstrations" included Hamas propaganda.
We live in a society where our idiot figurehead decided to brand residential schools as genocide and condemned an entire nation, and then refused to investigate the truth for the sake of unity and tolerance.....because they knew the truth and didn't want their contradiction it exposed. Then the same fool and his cronies conspire to invoke the Emergency Act because of a peaceful, albeit noisy and disruptive, protest on parliament's front lawn that was putting a global spotlight on the draconian overreach of a democratic (though would-be dictatorship) minority government. In a sudden about face on tolerating protests the government was happy to permit racist demonstrations that promoted violence and hate and broke numerous civil laws.
Tell me horseyman, would you be OK with a demonstrations of hundreds or thousands of people blocking access to public buildings, intimidating neutral passersby, in order to advocate loudly for the extermination of Canadian Indigenous people?
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 3:41 pm
Yet you and everyone else on this board railed against the pro-Palestinian protests, even though it was protected speech.
Was it the protected speech part or the lawbreaking part that was "railed against"?
Trespass, burglary, barring other students from campus buildings.
Occupation of buildings, destruction of property.
Physical confrontations.
Threats against/assault on Jewish students.
I believe the railing was against calling for genocide of the Jews, so protected speech.
Well depending on what is said it may or may not be "protected speech".
At some point a line may be crossed into the area of assault, a crime.
Threatening to kill someone (or even bring them physical harm) is assault.
Mëds wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 5:08 pm.
Tell me horseyman, would you be OK with a demonstrations of hundreds or thousands of people blocking access to public buildings, intimidating neutral passersby, in order to advocate loudly for the extermination of Canadian Indigenous people?
I'm okay with them saying whatever they want, as long as does not cause or promote imminent lawless action.
As for the inconveniences caused by such demonstrations, relevant laws should be enforced to the fullest.
Russia’s demands for a truce (per the screenshot):
Russia’s play is clear: neutralize Zelensky’s regime, redraw the borders, then talk.
Russia’s demands for a truce (per the screenshot):
Russia’s play is clear: neutralize Zelensky’s regime, redraw the borders, then talk.
What an oxymoron. I'm sure Per will elucidate.