I started driving in Montreal for 12 years, and moved to Toronto for another 13 years. These 2 cities always had a bit of a rivalry. Montreal drivers calling Toronto drivers stupid idiots and Toronto's calling Montreal's crazy speed demons. These stereotypes are both accurate. Comparatively I'd feel safer with Montreal's crazy speed demons all around me any day -- they speed pass you of the left, they signal, they don't hog the left lane most of the time. Overall more skillful. Things like the above video happen in Montreal once in a blue moon. Toronto, way too often.

I often road tripped around the Buffalo, NY - Washington DC corridors and I'd say even they are better drivers (in terms of skillfulness & situational awareness) than Torontonians...

I'm pretty much over the rivalry now too, but I sure do remember how much I hated those dirty Avs back then.
8 of the 9 years from 95 to 2003, the Cup winner was Detroit, Colorado, or Jersey. It also seemed like whoever won the Wings / Avs series in the playoffs was going to go on to win the Cup. Man that was a crazy rivalry.
Good luck to your Team on the rebuild too. I have a buddy who is an Avs fan and some of their moves in recent years have seemed puzzling to me like getting rid of Statsny and Reilly.

It almost pained me to sift it, because I'm an Avs fan and the old rivalry is still there for me a little bit.

But this transcended my bias on that pretty easily. Young kid, hero in his first NHL callup, Russian connection like so many of your team's greats (Fedorov and the all-Russian line were killer back in the peak days of Wings/Avs rivalry), happening in one of the final days at the Joe, plus this weird statistical quirk added in -- enough to make me jump up and be a Wings fan when I saw it!

Here's hoping that both of our teams pull off rebuilds ASAP and stop being cellar-dwellers. Young kids like this are probably key to that!

In general, there's a pretty friendly rivalry between the two countries, mostly around sport (we beat them at rugby, they beat us at cricket).

But the countries are actually politically and culturally pretty close, and there's a real sense of comradeship in relation to shared military history (see ANZACs).

All that said, there are some genuine issues of contention, especially right now. The two countries both allow citizens of the other to live and work there. Given that Australia is the larger economy, this mostly means kiwis going to Aussie looking for work.

So there is a perception among some Australians that Kiwis are somehow both stealing their jobs and also lazy dole bludgers (hey, no one said bigots had to be internally consistent).

In fact, this is completely the opposite of reality. Australians who come to NZ are basically NZ citizens in all but name. They are entitled to unemplyoment benefit, whereas Kiwis in Australia do not have the same benefits.

There is also currently an issue around detention and deportation of Kiwis, where Kiwis in Australia (many of whom have lived most of their lives in Australia) who have been committed of crimes are being deported back to NZ after completing their sentences. This often means they are held in refugee-style detention centres while awaiting deportation and are being sent back to a country away from their families.

In this specific instance, I'm guessing it's because the kid in the video is of Maori or Polynesian descent.

Disclaimer: I'm an Irish guy living in NZ who spent two years in Sydney, so this is a slightly outsider take.

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

They likely had a litter from their lone house cat. That's happened to me on several occasions. Enjoy them as cute little menaces to society and then sell/give them away. Better to spay and neuter cats, but sometimes you get a cat that's already pregnant or it happens before you had a chance to.

From personal experience, a household with ~10 cats is manageable but that is where it gets hard (and I don't recommend it). Invest in a couple decent automated litter boxes, feeding set up so the cats don't crowd over one or two bowls. 4 is not bad. Makes for a fun little animal family. Hilarity always ensues. 1 is lonely, 2 is a rivalry, 3 is a crowd, but 4 is a silly family of prankster cats.

But then there is the mother who is off camera, so that's 5 cats. That's fun. Sibling cats who grow up around their mother become very caring and mature better. I had a scenario where my male and female kittens had kittens. It was so cool studying their family structure. Seeing the attachments the kittens have to the mother and father, and allowing it to grow to fruition is a joy to see, even if it's not always possible to keep the fam together every time.

Animal family units are awesome and I almost feel like every human family should have a protectorate animal family that is their duty to protect and nurture. If you can raise an entire animal family, you can do anything. Human families are narcissistic barbie playsets for most people, so this is less disturbing to me than a family with 4 children.

A friend of mine foresaw the same issues but chose a different strategy: he intentionally had his two kids 5 years apart to avoid rivalry and so the older one would take care of the younger one. Seems to have worked out well so far.

it's completely one sided dude. I haven't interacted with enoch in months, then out of nowhere, blammo. so again, this leads me to believe this his been boiling up in him for a while now. I find myself agreeing with Lantern that we should get back to the topic at hand instead of derailing.

If there was some sort of rivalry going on. No one informed me.

If you had used Bobtern in your example, it might be more accurate.

"Copenhagen is ours" - classic city rivalry..
*comedy, and kind of *animation, isn't it?

The Swedes and Norwegians have a very healthy rivalry. The Swedes basically just pissed that Norway kicks their ass at winter sports.

I don't see why a fight needs to be picked. I get the rivalry and all, but can't we all just get along? The same guy doing both Star Wars and Star Trek comes to mind. I'd love to see a Super Friends movie more than Justice League.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

>> ^rottenseed:

TEAM FABRICATED RIVALRY


Yep, hit the nail on the head there.

Let's make a movie out of it!! Hur hur dur!

TEAM FABRICATED RIVALRY

Corporate Media Admit They Censor Candidates Who Challenge the Status Quo:
Preface: Liberals shouldn't ignore the media's censoring of Ron Paul's popularity in straw polls because he's "on the right". Many progressive candidates have been shut out of political races by the big corporate media.

Reuters Edits Iowa Poll Reality According to Globalist Agenda:
Often cited as a reliable, reputable news source, Reuters is in actuality nothing more than another den of duplicity bought and paid for by the corporate financiers ruling/ruining Western civilization. Their latest article titled, "Bachmann and Perry - a beautiful 2012 rivalry" sidelines reality according to the globalist script so soundly you can almost hear the noses of Reuters editors' growing. The GOP Iowa debate saw Ron Paul annihilate the competition with counts showing him as far as three times further ahead of the next runner-up Newt Gingrich. However, the final tally of the Iowa straw poll saw establishment footstool Michele Bachmann eke out Ron Paul by a mere 152 votes. Despite the closeness of the race and the immense political ramifications of a candidate labeled by the corporate media as part of "fringe politics" finishing neck-to-neck with the insincere Bachmann, Reuters decided to write about Rick Perry's insignificant, meaningless, though establishment approved, entry into the GOP 2012 race instead. Not a single mention of Ron Paul was made.