CanucksCorner.com Forums

For me it’s about reciprocity.

Another person’s actions/words do not necessarily control my own response.

I regard booing an anthem like dropping a middle finger on someone who cut you off in traffic.

Pretty useless overall from the instigators perspective but the roi can be a bitch.

Hughes bolting town.

A machete between the eyes.

rikster wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 4:53 pm Not sure how an American can justify being angered over a country expressing its anger over threats from its President who seems hell bent on getting his hands on Canada's resources by whatever means necessary?

(1) Not angry; most recent conversation was instigated by my observation that if some American players feel unwelcome in Canada, it may have something to do with booing at rinks, threats, etc., associated with their status as Americans. (I’ve not made the claim of whether what inspires the booing is good or bad; I’ve implied it’s the wrong forum). That most recent conversation is an example of a broader point that I don’t much like using sport to make political points, subordinating sport to politics. It’s ineffective politics, and it takes a place for bridges and sullies it.

(2) I don’t want this thread to get into what Trump is doing, but the claim “getting his hands on Canada’s resources by any means necessary” is exaggerated. Do you *really* believe the United States is going to use military force to take Canada’s stuff? This kind of rhetoric is (to little old me) as whacked out as Trump’s can be. And it’s too bad, because the sky-is-falling chicken-little Chamberlain-Hitler-TRUMP! stuff undermines the credibility of those who could be stating legitimate grievances.

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 6:07 pm For me it’s about reciprocity.

Another person’s actions/words do not necessarily control my own response.

Right. And this goes both ways. Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t change whether I think it’s appropriate to boo an anthem. And I’d advise those players to thicken their skins unless the danger is real.

Nor is another man’s guilt mine, whether that other man is my kin or countryman.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 8:11 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 6:07 pm For me it’s about reciprocity.

Another person’s actions/words do not necessarily control my own response.

Right. And this goes both ways.

Exactly. Meet hate with love. Meet disrespect with respect. Meet enmity with friendship.

See what happens.

donlever wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 6:22 pm
Hughes bolting town.

I suppose it's less of a transgression against board order to bring hockey talk into the Bar & Grill, so:

I predict that 5 years from now, there will a consensus amongst informed hockey observers that Hughes did the Canucks a huge favour, not only by informing them of his long-term plans, but by being the final domino to fall that convinced ownership to begin the rebuild that returned the franchise to relevance, and by kickstarting that rebuild with solid trade value.

Heck (stretching it a bit) in five years the Canucks might prefer to have just Novotny over Hughes.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 8:01 pm ... is an example of a broader point that I don’t much like using sport to make political points, subordinating sport to politics. It’s ineffective politics, and it takes a place for bridges and sullies it.

Is it really possible to evaluate the effectiveness of a sporting ban when it is usually part of a broader strategy of economic, legal, and political pressure?

And if the broader strategy is ineffective would you apply the same reasoning to all the tools used in that strategy. Eg if banning gas and oil imports from Russia is ineffective why do it? It is just subordinating a nation's economic well-being to politics.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 8:01 pm

rikster wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 4:53 pm Not sure how an American can justify being angered over a country expressing its anger over threats from its President who seems hell bent on getting his hands on Canada's resources by whatever means necessary?

(1) Not angry; most recent conversation was instigated by my observation that if some American players feel unwelcome in Canada, it may have something to do with booing at rinks, threats, etc., associated with their status as Americans. (I’ve not made the claim of whether what inspires the booing is good or bad; I’ve implied it’s the wrong forum). That most recent conversation is an example of a broader point that I don’t much like using sport to make political points, subordinating sport to politics. It’s ineffective politics, and it takes a place for bridges and sullies it.

(2) I don’t want this thread to get into what Trump is doing, but the claim “getting his hands on Canada’s resources by any means necessary” is exaggerated. Do you *really* believe the United States is going to use military force to take Canada’s stuff? This kind of rhetoric is (to little old me) as whacked out as Trump’s can be. And it’s too bad, because the sky-is-falling chicken-little Chamberlain-Hitler-TRUMP! stuff undermines the credibility of those who could be stating legitimate grievances.

I think its this attitude that has allowed him to carry on doing bizarre, economicaly disasterous and long term damage of all kinds...

Whether it be Venezuela, Greenland, Canada and I would suggest Iran, a common denoninator is they are rich in valuable resources and if you think about our other discussion on the American debt load, would be a financial windfall in a time when the US is desperate for cash....

Maybe its because I'm visiting Peru later this year, but his lust to take over these countries reminds me of the Spanish plundering gold from South America to fund their wars...

If you think booing a National anthem is bad form, then I think you would agree that posting a picture of you and your family wearing Lake America shirts as you are about to leave for a trip to Canada is also bad form...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lake-ame ... -9.7349406

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 6:29 am Is it really possible to evaluate the effectiveness of a sporting ban when it is usually part of a broader strategy of economic, legal, and political pressure?

And if the broader strategy is ineffective would you apply the same reasoning to all the tools used in that strategy. Eg if banning gas and oil imports from Russia is ineffective why do it? It is just subordinating a nation's economic well-being to politics.

(1) Yes, I think its possible to evaluate the effectiveness of any kind of an effort to influence foreign nations -- foreign policy isn't just a guessing game. But I also concede that the same inputs don't have the same results on different circumstances, and there are many known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

(2) I've tried to make the point that a sporting ban by an NGO is different than a sporting ban ordered by the nation. The differences include (a) effectiveness and flexibility (part of broader strategy -- you might, say, ban, to release the ban giving an easy concession to achieve a broader goal; you might, say, impose the ban as a second step in escalating isolation, coupling it with other measures); (b) legitimacy to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation; (c) and some measure of confidence that the efforts are being conducted to advance the national interest by the people put in governmental positions for the purpose of advancing the national interest (whereas the interests of FIFA, IIHF, or whoever, is less clear (and I think usually just moral preening or the capitulation to potential boycott or social shaming movements (let's put those black squares on our bios!).

(3) If the government is using event sponsors to conduct their policy secretively -- let's say when Russians were banned from Wimbledon (I think that happened, right) that was the government nudging the event sponsors behind closed doors -- well, that presents a new suite of issues. Sure, that might be a "coordinated" effort, but was it done under duress? Do we want our governments to use NGOs to conduct foreign policy in a clandestine way? Real issues--and they may not have the same answer in every circumstance.