Neo

Let me know. I'll meet you for a beer/game.

Ha! Hockey, beer and good company ... I'm a simple man.

The next time you're in Orlando ....

Me, of all people, commenting on oversight and regulation as follows ... I don't think there's much censorship here. We're allowed to self police. I find this to be a particularly provocative debate. It followed a number with a similar theme to the extent that it became "a straw". The list of notables who are no longer around has grown. Mr. SDS sees a common denominator, at least to some extent. He'd know better than me. He asked PA to stop. This occurs rarely. Actual censorship is rigorous. I understand the motive behind the request includes the loss of former regulars. I like provocation. Poke away! I respond or I read and move on. Others approach it differently. Vive la différence. SDS has a reasonable request that's narrow and specific. It's not censorship. It's designed to protect the franchise. That's THIS franchise, not the hockey club. I get his point. There are times when reasonable people have their say and move on.

You know, back in the Fifties, Marge just typed words out for me ... (Total self deprecation, lest anything be misinterpreted)

"It was fun." Made my day .... Carry on! Authenticity.

OK, two of you made me laugh.

I was just out of college and the billing manager at a large law firm in, Newark, New Jersey. I chased lawyers around for client/matter numbers, time sheets, and billable hours. Some of you will recognize the role. Management yelled at me for incomplete billing records. Partners yelled at me for pestering them. What a life ... Anyway, we wheeled a television into a conference room to watch the launch ... Think old school audio visual guy and the television atop a gray, rolling, cart. Yesterday.

Premature alert: Saturday Night Massacre. I'm old. I was 12. I remember clearly. Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Comey ... I'm sure someone's whispered this over Georgetown cocktails. Not too late in the evening, though. Those who remember are in bed when it's late. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre The intersection of power, authority, duty, integrity and politics. For context, only .... Good government hope: it's resolved before it comes to something like this. A Bloomberg run would be intriguing to me if it's resolved early and IF it's resolved unfavorably for HRC. He'd be formidable running as the Dem nominee by, say, June. Not so much as a 3rd party. I will stock up on two liter sodas. I'd vote nanny over narcissist.

"Yeah, you know me ..." Riff Raff's dad. PS: I'm fine with the piece for reasons others have articulated clearly. Profit and marketing. Fill the seats, regional fan base. And, not trying to sound all wishy washy, the OP is a "cause debate" post and I dig those immensely. Poke, PA, poke. Boxes, and their outsides.

I just checked the speech. I read and watched it! Interwebs. Awesome, indeed ... and grateful. Nothing wrong with representatives representing. We agree, again. I do look for a little more at the Presidential level. I'm not sure what her healthcare role was. I know she believes in it. I do, too. My campaign understanding is that she'd continue the ACA. My ACA view is flawed, worthy goal, re-work. If I had a "re-work" set of details, I'd be on talk shows. My going forward ACA view is that it's a noble and worthwhile ambition of a society .... which needs .... something. You'll find me a conservative who appreciates the ACA's goal. I do recognize her very early attempts at coming up with a program. I still worked in Buffalo. There was a city councilman on her "committee?". Was it Councilman Pigeon? I don't recall.

Setting different views regarding the debate aside, this is some pure glorious web-writing. Yes, sir ...

Tangential - Tampa had a "no Red Wing jersey" pronouncement during last year's playoffs. I don't recall if, or how, it was enforced. It was earnest, though.

Editing is accountability. I'm glad. You are worth it. People who know me in real life would have a good laugh *at me* reading your 1950s comment! They'd say you're on to something. Edit to add: before anyone gets the wrong impression, nothing in my mind thinks of Hillary as arm candy. I believe she's been propelled to and retains national prominence by virtue of her relationship with Bill. Nothing wrong with that. I don't believe she's accomplished much with her prominence. She was SoS for four years and a Senator before that. As I evaluate, I look for more than dairy farmer success stories. She'd be the first woman President. Well, yes ..... my mind asks "and?". Nothing, though, was "eye candy". In my mind or intent. I think she's "under-accomplished" on merit.

I do.

Truly, I didn't read that, but it may have been said. I can't imagine that's a legal or common sense standard, though. I think driving on the wrong side of the road is safer than the traffic laws demand. Yikes? Partisan and, I hope, reasonable!? Swamp has me paying attention to my labeling! (As he should.) To be fair, we now have her being too old school to understand technology (Wipe the server, what, like with a towel?) OR cutting edge to the extent that she substitutes her security system for the US Government's? Shouldn't she point out the advantages of her encryption system to someone? Is she Barney Fife or is she Steve Jobs? OK, now a non partisan comment - I'm shifting my news watching attention to her staff. My understanding - someone had to cut, paste, re-type or summarize from a secure system to the family system. Uma or Cheryl Mills may bear the brunt of this. Speculation, non partisan! Lawyers, help me, here - I had dinner with an attorney (not a security expert) - he mentioned that IF there's an indictment, each email would be a separate count. 1,300 emails, 1,300 counts, times multiple people. Is that how it works?

^. I think she had a very firm grasp on what she was doing. Her whole team did. She did it anyway. I'm old. I know why my work emails are secure to the extent my experts tell me it is. This is my single, largest, problem. Not owning up is issue 1a.

I was thinking of adding an addendum to my reply even before you wrote. I do SOME self assessment! Yes, my partisan slip is showing. I agree with you about me. You beat me to it. I didn't think you were pointing at me more than anyone else. Poke away. You make me think. I'll stick with my view, but acknowledge it's editorial and partisan.

I'm not attacking because I'm right or left. Right and left do bad things. Private email is a vehicle, if a particularly dangerous one. Nationals secrets weighed against ambition is my character issue. I'll let the FBI decide if it's a crime. If she deliberately carried nationals secrets in an Armani purse and left it in hotel rooms and airport bathrooms I'd be just as concerned. I'd not be attacking her use of satchels, foam mattresses, and indoor plumbing.

I know what matters to me. I'm learning what doesn't matter to others and what it means for a nation. I'll never be in the "it doesn't matter" column. You have to decide for you. I'm glad, though, we finally agree it took place. I'll call that evolution in our dialogue. We can now debate what "matters", which is the important issue. HRC interests me in the same way the Trump phenomenon does. He's a carnival barker. I'm only fascinated by his appeal to a constituency. She's an unaccomplished scandal machine sweating out several national security indictments and hoping we're dumb enough or don't care enough. The world is full of people like this. The banality of bureaucrats and apparatchiks. She's a woman and married a popular President. Otherwise, she'd be writing briefs in patent infringement cases in a Little Rock law library hoping her billable hours would get her the partnership her character and charisma never could. I'm only fascinated by her appeal to a constituency, In the most telling of all moments, she asked "what difference does it make" over the bodies of Americans slain on her watch. I was shocked by the callousness. As it turns out, she was exactly right. What difference does anything she's done make? To her supporters, apparently none. Shame on us. Who's really being indicted? The electorate that agrees it doesn't matter is being indicted.

Which, of course, matters not one iota in terms of credibility, character, competence, national security, or felony statute. It does, of course, matter in the talking point releases of a politically ambitious candidate looking to fog an electorate not paying attention.

Paging Joe Biden ... Paging Joe Biden ... Mr. Biden, please call the DNC. Again, Mr. Biden, please call the DNC. Pondering ... I wonder if Senator Sanders regrets giving HRC a corruption/email pass. Pondering, Part Deux .... President Obama is embracing HRC as her investigation heats up. He's nothing if not politically savvy. Does this mean he KNOWS it's smoke without fire, or does it mean he knows there's an inferno and that his charismatic support is her only lifeline? I do not know. I posted weeks ago that I believed she'd cleared all hurdles after the President's "there's nothing to see, here" interview on 60 minutes. Every day brings a new assessment. My fascination with self inflicted wounds - I'm imagining a Sanders Iowa surge as more news leaks on FBI/HRC. I am also imaging a Cruz Iowa surge in after Trump took his ball and went home yesterday. I'm not predicting two long shots, but the day after Iowa could show an entirely different landscape compared to the day before Iowa. I don't think this would be nearly as likely had HRC disclosed information day one or if Trump appeared in the last debate. Most telling development - Dept of State and FBI investigators are getting "Ken Starred" by HRC surrogates. It's a successful tactic. We've all seen it work. It's not in the Hail Mary section of the playbook, but it's sure in the "trailing by two touchdowns in the fourth" section. Most telling development, Part Deux - sources, even anonymous ones, are gathering around "this is serious and could be a disaster" territory. Leakers have self interest as credible sources. Information is currency. They don't bounce checks unless they do so deliberately. Many bouncing the same check seems unlikely to me. Pass the chips!

Max and Dom ...

I think the insult rubbed me, too. The hypocrisy. The NHL created a market for the John Scotts of the world. I hope his kids are proud of the affection he generates, team to team, fan to fan. Ideal response by Scott - "They'll be as proud of me playing in an All Star game as yours are of you for marketing fights in a hockey game." At least Scott talks out of the same side of his mouth. Full disclosure: I watch fights.

Out loud! I laughed out loud. PA - Insight! NS - Grateful! Propagate is my self assessment word of the day. 61 is a reference to Junior's co-favorite player from his youth. His jerseys were 61 and 39. And my YOB IS 61. Vintage ....