K-9

Let me know when you are up to speed on the Lifeline Assistance program, particularly it's origins and how it's funded and then perhaps we can discuss it with clarity. Nobody is "blaming Bush", btw. Not for this program, anyway.

You haven't addressed the issue of deporting over 10 million people or the legal ramifications involved for US citizens born here. I'll give you credit for taking all of five minutes to ponder and come up with these solutions though. Any chance you can get on a ballot before election day? Seriously, that was pretty good and I think you have the potential to add more clarity to solutions if given the proper time and resources to develop them. But the physical act of deporting 10 million plus people, as has been propagated by some, is gonna be a sticky wicket no matter how much time you spend on it.

Oh, it's propaganda alright. Perpetrated by far right wingers. If there is such a thing as Obama phones, then we might as well say there were Bush 43 phones, Clinton phones, Bush 41 phones, and even Reagan phones that preceded it. Please familiarize yourself with the genesis of the Lifeline program and who pays for it before regurgitating the lie. Heck, you could probably go back to the 30s and the first Telecommunications Act to get a proper groundwork for understanding the evolution of the program.

First of all, you have to stop insisting on conflating the issues. Again you use the term "come here illegally" when that is not the issue we are discussing. As to tacitly agreeing with her position on amnesty, it's not that simple. First, I think we better have all our Ts crossed and Is dotted otherwise there is big potential to open expose our government (us) to lawsuits filed on behalf of millions of US citizens (children born here). Or, how about the sheer logistics and costs involved? Sorry, but I can't run around screaming, "No amnesty, no amnesty", when NO MATTER WHO'S IN OFFICE, will have all those issues explained and realize it's just not practical. As such, I agree a path to citizenship for those that have demonstrated their ability to become good US citizens and all that entails, might, I repeat MIGHT, be the most effective remedy to the myriad of problems the issue presents. My turn to turn the tables. What's your solution and if it entails rounding up, processing, and deporting, can you provide a cost estimate and also a solution to the millions of US citizens negatively impacted by those deportations?

Right. Locker room talk. On a luxury bus. With the host of a hugely popular TV show. On the way to tape a segment with a hugely popular soap star. Only thing missing was the locker room. I've spend considerable time in locker rooms in my life. Nothing ever came remotely close to Trump's rhetoric. Indeed, when things went too astray at times, the gentlemen in the locker room would seek to restore order. You know, gentlemen. Men with filters. Something the Trumps of the world don't possess.

FFS, where have I come close to even remotely, by one iota, implying that I believe it is "alright" for people to stay illegally? Where have I suggested it's a "right" to immigrate where ever I want? The issue is how to correct the problem and I want people to draw a distinction between people entering illegally (virtually a NON problem) and those staying here illegally; a HUGE problem. It's important because there are those that think that considerable resources should go to fixing the former, thus reducing resources to tackle the latter. The hundreds of billions of dollars required to build a 2,000 mile wall for example, won't do a damned thing about illegal immigrants already here but it will impact how we deal with it. And the latter is a multi-faceted problem that goes far past "you are here illegally, get out." Not the least of which is the complex issue of violating the guaranteed Constitutional rights of millions of children born to illegal immigrants. I am not ascribing any advocacy here, only suggesting that we haven't begun to understand the complex issues involved, let alone come up with solutions for them.

That's where we differ, it's not the same act. Therefore the strategies to deal with the two issues are completely different. Do we put ankle bracelets on people legally entering the country?

I wasn't going to wade into the muck, but I draw the line at purposely regurgitating far right wing lies. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/ No, that's not my solution. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how you go about finding, rounding up, processing, and deporting multi-millions of people. It's a hugely complex issue to tackle. But it begins by properly identifying the problem. Do you not see the difference in how you attack the problem by saying "people entering illegally" vs. "people staying here illegally?"

The vast, vast, vast, majority of illegal immigrants in this country DID NOT enter illegally. They stayed here illegally. HUGE difference in terms of issues about lax borders and the sheer logistical challenge to round up and deport those millions. So tell me, how do you stop a legally entered immigrant from the future act of not maintaining their legal status to be here? Look into their eyes to determine future outcomes? This isn't about walls and stopping people from illegally entering the country and never has been.

We aren't a highly skilled team with the exception of a few players. DD isn't a hockey savant. So, both.

I must be honest; we have one top line, a checking line and two 4th lines. We are just so lacking in skill at the moment that I'm not sure we can hold the fort until we get our injured players back.

Neither. It's which candidate has the best chance to hasten the rapture.

February is a long way off.

No Jack, no Kane, and too much Franson. Now I would just like to say: MODO!!!

Why can't we do that to ISIS's internet access? I draw the distinction between "media" and journalism. I still believe, fervently, that they are the 4th rail of government. Which is why all the mass media consolidation over the last 30 years is so dangerous to our society, imo.

Sam should have given the puck to O'Reilly on the other side of the play. Gaudreau wasn't O'Reilly's man to lose in that situation. Sam needs to not lose the puck. Simple as that. Boarding or not, he needed to get the puck to ROR before he was hit.

Like it was yesterday. Good times. Good times indeed. https://books.google.com/books?id=G0uhQcV4mn0C&pg=RA1-PA30&lpg=RA1-PA30&dq=joe+crozier+ken+dryden%27s+pads&source=bl&ots=GmZm9lxj6V&sig=5tAU4XJSsa2LcUj_LMfZIU5ybOQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU8K2hoeXPAhXECD4KHVBkCxQQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=joe%20crozier%20ken%20dryden's%20pads&f=false

Didn't take long for someone to reach out and convince him to walk back his comments. I can't believe I supported his run in 2000. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301391-mccain-walks-back-pledge-to-block-clinton-supreme-court-nominee

Well, that's two Franson pairs that aren't a good pairing. I'm noticing a pattern. I guess next it'll be Kulikov and Nelson.

Nine words: limited broadband access, consolidated media ownership, no Fairness Doctrine.

Yes, I really believe that. I think he talked to them but it was ineffective because of his own buy-in to the tragedy of it all and I think that engendered a feeling of feeling sorry for themselves. As to the Franson question, of course I have the luxury of hindsight and it's really not fair to say who I'd pair BEFORE the game, but they were so bad in the first I would have paired him with McCabe, and Nelson with Bogo afterward. Although Nelson would have dragged any partner down with his timid play, while Franson is mostly limited from a skating perspective. Look, I understand Bylsma was up against it as a coach with 3 of his regulars out and a fourth playing hurt. I just had a feeling based on how he sounded Wednesday and how he looked and sounded yesterday, that he felt it was an impossible situation going in. And they played like that in the first.

10 will get you 1 that this guy will snap and be involved in some sort of violent episode sooner than later. Loved how he had his mini Constitution on hand. That made a great camera shot as he held it next to his gun.

My favorite Wiki fuss was all the manufactured outrage over the email that suggested Clinton "hates everyday Americans" only to find it was using the phrase "everyday Americans" in a speech that she hated. The disingenuous Matt Drudge couldn't scrub his website fast enough after running with it.

It was interesting to hear Eichel talk about the injury today, especially when he was referring to the rash of injuries that hit other players. In talking about them, Eichel mentions "Okie", "Kuli", "Snook", "Enzo", and "Lehnny" but when referring to Kane it was "Evander". Hmm.

No, I don't. His own negative psyche made that impossible, imo. I get that we faced adversity, but that can and should be used as an opportunity; a chance to galvanize the team. And I am disappointed that Bylsma seemingly missed that opportunity. And if he pairs Nelson with Franson again, I'll know it goes deeper than just a wounded psyche.