El Hombre

One to (potentially) watch: Alex Comsia. Seems to be a pretty important player for highly ranked UNC.

Shouldn't we get them a CSA tracksuit with "U15/U17/U20 Coach" on the sleeve? Seems much more apt and useful!

Just read through that article and the next paragraph after the one posted has Herdman quoting Canucks Abroad. I think with all the kudos going around, one is deserved for @Fussball_eh and team for the work they do.

Vitoria was referred to as "Steven" as he took the pitch for another country when we hosted the U20s. #stillbitter

Typical lefty-propaganda. Get your head out of the toilet and start thinking for yourself. Sheep.

As the official Defendor of the CSA(tm) around here, I have a totally unproven, untested hypothesis: Generally the official match days are: late March, early June, early September, early October and mid November. In most of Canada, three of those periods are pretty rough going and I don't think many high-caliber teams are interested in playing in potentially inclement weather. Especially teams from warmer climates like Argentina, Brazil etc. That leaves only two matchdays: September and June. Every two years we are in the Gold Cup in June and in those years that we aren't the World Cup and the Euro are being played. This severely limits our potential opposition for that time period. The other issue we face is that the high-caliber teams most likely don't see any value in playing us. Yes, Brazil played El Salvador, but that was lucrative for them, financially speaking. They were also able to line up a second game that was only a LaGuardia to Dulles flight away. To play in Canada, we would have to arrange a second game for them that is an easy commute away and guarantee a gate that would be next to impossible. Also, Brazil and Argentina are the only big teams that really travel. Teams like Germany, England, Spain and France play most of their games at home, or at least nearby. None are really clamouring to travel across the Atlantic to play a team like us. Put all that together and that is why we don't play any games at home.

The problem is though that you have (and continue to do so) just not in so many words. By posting with such a condescending tone, espousing "red pill" knowledge, dropping "truth" and telling us that if we only thought for ourselves and did a little research, we would see that you are right. How can anyone not think that you are calling those that disagree with you idiots?

I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in something written here than I am now.

In order to "red pill" effectively, you have to provide facts and not just claims and opinions. There are a number of things that are problematic here: 1) Colin Kaepernick first sat during the national anthem during the first preseason game in 2016. It is hard to be ranked effectively at that point in the season. However it is true that the 2015 season was not a good one for him under his new coach and was shortened by injury. As a lifelong Detroit Lions fan, I am intimately familiar with how changes in coaches/management can affect a player's performance. 2) He was pretty clear as to what message he was sending based on the coverage around that time. I will admit that he was about as articulate as most football players, which is to say, not very. To me, that points to it being less of a publicity stunt and more of a message as publicity stunts are usually thought out and prepared for. That's just my opinion though however, it is hard to lambast him for being an opportunist and inarticulate in the same breath. Those run counter to each other. 3) You are correct that he lost his starting job, however he won it back later that season and went on to play the majority of the games for his team. Not sure he needed to continue to save his career at that point. By starting 11 of the team's games that season, he had proven that he can play at that level and actually set his high mark for yards per rush that season. With the emergence of Cam Newton and, to a lesser extent, Russell Wilson as dual-threat QBs, it is hard to make an argument that a team hasn't needed him in some role over the last little while. Especially when guys like Mark Sanchez and Josh Mccown were able to find work in that time. Even the guy he replaced in SF found work with the Cardinals and is now with the Titans. 3) The Broncos offer was made after he demanded a trade in February of 2016. The Broncos presented him with a two year contract sometime in March or April of that year (unless there was another one I haven't heard of). Note that this was before his first protest. 4) For someone that decried "...far left/communist tactic(s) of engaging in ad hominem attacks..." in your other thread, your points would be lot more effective if you didn't dismiss things as "irrational insanity", "false narratives" or "looney lefty". I'm more than happy to continue this conversation elsewhere if you want.

Right, so, why is this a bad thing? I guess I've lost track. My whole point centers around the fact that what benefits corporate Canada, benefits all Canadians. So, if some fraction of tax payer money is being spent on India and this benefits corporate Canada, in this global economy, this benefits Canadians. So, in essence, tax payer money is being spent on Canadians, just not as directly as you want. Coolio. Full disclosure: '78 for me.

Levi's just put money into gun control. These moves are calculated. Nike will be fine. This will be a popular ad campaign for them, both at home and abroad. Jesus Christ, I'm old. The reminder was not appreciated @Jith12.

Follow-up question: what decade where you born? Genuinely curious.

So, is the theory that Canada sends money to India out of the goodness of their hearts? They don't get anything in return? That's not usually how trade works. I can guarantee that, if this is happening, Canada is getting more than just the complementary benefits that I've mentioned previously.

Noah Jensen with Oakland was also picked. That's a school with a lot of Canadians historically and surprisingly they're in TDS top 20.

What competitors? Depends on which industry you want to discuss. In the mobile phone market, all of the big three in Canada have released both mid-range and low cost options of their plans (Koodo, Chatr and Lucky most prominently) released in the last ten years. A monopoly doesn't do that. Both Shaw and Videotron have also jumped into the mobile market in the last ten years. If you're talking about cable TV, I think the biggest competitor to these companies has been the cord-cutting movement rather than other companies. It used to be that (legally) streaming sports was the bane of the cord cutters existence, but in the last year we've seen both the introduction of DAZN and the acquiescence of both Rogers and Bell to the demand and offer both TSN and Sportsnet as a streaming only option. The competition is there. If you are expecting one giant company to enter the market and immediately become a competitor, that's just not how it works. What you are seeing are two aircraft carriers trying to pivot to demand while the smaller speedboats are already out ahead of them. Eventually those speedboats will grow as they are more agile to demands. Part of it is also ignorance akin to the record label industry in the late 90s. Personally, I think this is due to a number of factors, of which immigration may be one of them. If we continue with your line of thinking and assume that immigration plays a major role in decision making for these companies, then I am all for it because I'm saving a helluva lot more than I used to and I am completely Bell/Rogers free. Also, I don't understand your focus that this growth only results in "low rung sales jobs". The more customers that require service, the more service people you require. This includes installation and infrastructure. With fiber optic networks reaching out to rural areas more and more, I'm not sure how you can characterize the development of that infrastructure as "low rung". The same holds true for the housing market. It just doesn't make sense. So, just to follow this through from the original point, your contention is that the Canadian government is educating the Indian populace so that a subservient culture immigrates to Canada to take the lowest paid jobs? Again, that makes so little sense. If it were true, I would agree that it is a waste of money, but it seems ludicrous that that is an actual plan. I would like to see some numbers around the demographics of Canadian Call Centres. This claim does not make sense to me. Also, if you call a help desk and someone with an Indian accent answers, 9 times out of 10, that person is located in Mumbai or Chennai. A lot of that stuff has been going out to the Philippines or Latin America for the last 15 years. There has been a recent uptick in these types of jobs moving back to Canada to increase customer service but that is part of a hybrid outsourcing program to help improve customer service while also keeping costs low. I have already provided you with a personal example as to how an educated Indian populace helps the Canadian Tax payer (hybrid outsourcing helps a company remain competitive internationally, thus maintaining Canadian jobs) but it is not unique in my industry (aerospace). I know other industries like software development use similar models. I think an isolationist point of view is the worst thing to do for Canadian business.