...

Thing is, with the scuttlebutt that Vanek wants to sign with the Wild next season, who was going to give the Sabres anything like this for him? I think this was the smart move, because I'm sure Vanek gave them the heads-up that there's no fricking way in hell he's resigning to this clusterf*ck. Moulson could work out, but I suspect they're looking to trade for even more picks or, as someone noted, another Larsson.

Word up.

What we're seeing now from the Sabres is a result of Regier's "management"; I don't understand the argument to keep him on the job.

Why bother. No one would believe it. Few would care. Even less would understand and appreciate the ramifications of it all. Welcome Big Brother!

I need more of a sample this season to pass judgment on Stafford. I think Physics makes a fair point. We all evolve and mature; we all have our life-realizations. Stafford isn't an old salt, yet. Maybe he DID prep harder over the summer. The dude just got married, too. If she's pregnant, or they're talking about it, that will certainly get him to wake up a little and think through things differently. Personally, while keeping his past in the proper perspective, I will give him more time before deciding whether he's the same old, or has finally taken the right step forward. Same goes for Myers. I think his game looks better than it has. But, we'll see. I mean, let's remember these are young men, yet. And the past couple of seasons have been hostile seasons here in Buffalo. I think that plays into a player's psyche and takes a lot more to overcome than if one were developing in, say, Chicago, Pittsburgh, or Boston. This is not say I think fans should change, or that I wish the attitude were different, all of that is on the organization. But, we can't ignore the effects of being part of a crappy organization on a young, male ego.

At some point, ticket sales/empty seats, merchandise and concession sales, and TV ratings, WILL take their toll. Where that point resides is the question.

Is there a summary or two of this data you can point to? I would love to read it. To me, it seems there's an irony in the position you stated, because itself seems a biased interpretation of data.

In the context of the wavering central narrative, my comment was not a distraction.

Dude, get real. This is why I don't like getting into detail, especially with you here, because, at the foundation, you fail to respect the POV, twist my points, and try and force me to re-state points I have already made within a context you set up. Perhaps you should take a clue from TrueBlue, who is one of the few artful debaters here. He and I clearly disagree on many things, but at times come to agreement on some matters, and respect each other's POV regardless and can discuss our disagreements rationally. You are the type of poster who can easily derail a thread and make things go bad because of your constant aggression and unwillingness to attempt to respect another's POV. I can so easily take the ridiculous jabs you keep taking and turn them back on you five fold and have this thread locked within an hour, but I do not, because, unlike you (seemingly), I see the fun is in the back and forth. Just like a sport, you have to, at some point, respect your opponent.

SCOTUS has been and is interpreting law based on things other than the Constitution. I consider that, alone, an act of usurping more power than is proportionally valid.

SQUIRREL! I don't understand the incredulity.

Great, a diversion from the central, albeit wavering, narrative. You try and make a point about SCOTUS that has nothing to do with the context, yet feel obliged to, essentially, claim I am out of order. Should I just leave the thread, then, because you can't admit you were interjecting needlessly?

Those who believe mainstream news is unbiased?

1. Slavery was protected by the Constitution, which is, or was, the law of the land. 2. Yes! Definitely. Sometimes the division will drive people to extremes - which is the exact word being used now to describe this silly government shut down. Whether they upheld the ACA or not is not germane to the point; you are being cute because you know how to push buttons with letters on them on a keyboard.

Is it not his Constitutional duty to abide by the laws of the land? Tell that to the SCOTUS.

Goodness, some of you act like the government has never been shut down before. Didn't the country, at one point, go to war with itself over a law? Didn't the country nearly let all of Europe fall because of a "policy"? Didn't members of organized crime become folk heroes, and didn't average people go to great lengths to break the law, because they didn't agree with it? This is politics and society; it gets dirty sometimes. A lot of you are simply digging in and not willing to budge, ironically like Obama, out of principle rather than reason.

Capping costs is what is happening now! The insurance companies and the feds decide what they are willing to pay and the providers then increase the price to cover the losses and it's an upward spiral. This has been gone over already. The opposite must happen...set up health savings accounts, remove the insurance companies or bind them to open market prices, and allow the open market to set the price. Costs will drop nearly instantly.

Really...so I am the one who is reading it wrong. Good, sure.

This IS the problem. There are people, on this board, let alone in this country, that do not care you don't want this "product". They believe, reducing it to its simplest form, that they know what is better for you than you do. Therefore, you MUST purchase this product because they know better than you. There are also people here who clearly have not paid for their entire health insurance bill, and do not believe the costs associated with that bill. At this point, it's only a matter of time before they're in for a rude awakening, unless, of course, the Republicans prevail.

Pfft, that's hardly a majority of Republicans, let alone a Conservative among them. You're playing fast and loose juxtaposing "Republican" and "Conservative". And, I dare say a few Wiki paragraphs probably aren't the best source for accuracy and context. With Clinton in the White House, don't you think if the idea had any traction, especially among Conservatives (who were pulling the Republican strings in the '90s), don't you think this would have been a done deal long ago? Welfare:inner cities. Case closed. Who decides what is "good"? Is it good this program was essentially rammed through congress in the most un-transparent manner possible? It's immature to believe that all things seemingly good out on the outside/in the short term, are ultimately good at their core/over the long term.

Which is one reason why costs are, what 3x or more what they were projected to be while the democrats were selling the idea to the country? With all due respect, what does this matter? Do you not see that Obama has stated several times he refuses to negotiate? Do you not see, at all, that Obama and the democrats have refused to enact a budget in years, which is his Constitutional prerogative? Do you not see that Obama ignores the Constitution and tries to "rule" through executive privilege? Why are the Republicans "at fault" here, exactly? Why, as a registered Republican, do you not see this from the point of view of those who, ostensibly, share some of your political beliefs and look at the democrats and Obama as part of, if not most of, those who "are to blame"?

Source on this? Because, if Republicans wanted anything like this, they had the opportunity with Clinton in the '90s.

Two reasons: 1. The damage it inflicts between now and whatever time in the future you postulate will be incredibly thorough. 2. Once a program has planted roots, the public would prefer it is "fixed" rather than taken away. This is, among other things, a last push to take it away before it's "too late". Stewart doesn't like what he hears from Sebelius over Obamacare: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/08/video-stewart-rips-sebelius-over-obamacare/ I like the second, short clip, which is curiously disabled now, but you can find it. But, the point is, even a self-admitted administration defender is finally getting how this will be bad, bad, bad...

Hire him as an assistant.

She used a car as a weapon...anyone can get a car. They should ban cars.