Neo

I enjoy this team. I miss Kaleta giving Chara fits.

Would a goalie coach talk to Lehner about that rebound? Shooter was in pretty tight. Can that be played better?

^ Josie .... Bravo ... My mind was around calculation and hypocrisy. You humanized HRC. If she talked like you write, she'd be further ahead.

I've avoided lowest common denominator arguments when trying to figure out Trump's support. This is maddeningly bizarre.

To K9: you beat me to it; the irony of the strict constructionist Harvard lawyer having to address this IS something else, indeed. You also drew the correct distinction between words I muddied.

Very interesting article ... Grateful. If I were Ted, I'd have a team working this. He probably does. I'd try to naturalize, quickly! Personal view ... he's as natural born as I need him to be, but a counter argument exists. I approach this like I do the Second Amendment. My views are one thing, the Constutution's yet another, especially when informed by the framers' commentary. Trump - he's a compassionate one, with deep concern for ol' Ted's status.

.... not to mention Cesarean Sections ...

Nothing I mentioned involved the personal relationships. I have no problem with the personal being, well, personal. It's between three human beings. If he'd had an affair with a neighbor, so be it. That's none of my business. I'm talking about the roles, capacities, responsibilities and judgment. If a boss sleeps with a subordinate, they're fired. This is true if they manage a McDonalds. I have a problem with that. The women's rights crowd does, too. The women's rights crowd does very loudly. If a President exposes the country to risk because he puts himself in a position where he could be threatened with blackmail, that's irresponsible. That's on Bill, not Hillary. This was always my biggest problem. " 'ello, Meeeeeester President, dis eez Boris, from zee Russian embassy ..... we have deez blue dress, and I tink you'd like eeet back". Again, on Bill, not Hillary .... just crazy risk. I'm glad he was impeached. I'm glad he was not removed. I have no concern nor opinion about her being an enabler. That's their business. I didn't mention it. She smeared Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and others. Proven or unproven allegations, she smeared. I'll not ask you about the allegations. I believe them and they're well documented. Proved in court, no. Documented, yes. I'll stop short of the rape allegation. If the standard is proved in court, no. If the standard is credible evidence from non interested, non partisan sources, yes. She defend him, good for her because that was her choice. She smeared those that stepped forward. We talked for months about victim blaming. I understand their progressive women's right agenda. I have a good health and exercise agenda. Do they walk the walk? I'd love a woman's view! Three ways I frame: 1) Three people, privately, I have no interest. 2) A boss, a subordinate and women's rights. 3) Shaming, or an effort to call women who stepped forward unstable, or worse ... If the defense is they weren't proven allegations, I'd say the allegations of instability and ulterior motive weren't, either. We've moved past blaming the victim, I'd hoped. Bring up HRC to those women, and they tear up worse than when you bring up Bill. Side note, with respect to the Clinton accomplishments. I wrote before that I was always shocked, given the Watergate closeness Bill and Hillary had, with the "cover up" nature of the affair. The cover up is always worse than the crime. When you add risky behaviors together (oval office sex and the handling of classified information, I have a double shock. They're the smartest people I know at that level that do the dumbest things. To Pasta .... do you believe Willey, Flowers, Broaddrick and Jones all made their stories up? I'm not interested in the verdict, there is none. What do you believe? We have to evaluate these issues before we vote, I guess. I'm hoping you don't believe they're true. I think Lewinsky is Willey, Broaddrick, Flowers and Jones. She just kept the dress. Forgetting party affiliation, but, if that couple claimed to champion women's rights, I'd giggle. Could be awesome at lots of things, but I'd giggle .... uncomfortably.

Josie ... I love the opportunity for a woman's perspective! Without weighing in at ALL on Bill and Hilary's relationship, here's what I'd love to know ... 1). The National Organization of Women, usually a bitter enemy of the reported activity, went silent when Bill (power boss male) had sex with Monica (power enthralled subordinate). Did you resent NOW? Did you resent Bill? 2). Hillary participated in the the efforts to make Bill's accusers bad women, women having ulterior motives, and/or women with character/mental issues. Victim shaming. Did you resent that? 3). Hillary would include "pro women" on her calling card. Does her raising the issue make her claim, and activities, worthy of candidate debate? No political barbs, here. A woman's view would be interesting. More personal view, and therefore perhaps more partisan: I have always wondered how those closest to "women's rights" as a higher priority issue could tolerate the events before, during and after Monica. I concluded the following about their thought process. "The events are despicable, but they're my candidates for many other reasons. I can't say that out loud, so I'll not address the events". Can a pro-women agenda be lead by the Clintons while ignoring the past?

Grateful ... (For PA!).

Neo short term memory alert. Correct me if you heard differently. Pierre McGuire was on Sirius this morning. He mentioned the usual, well known, about Lehner. He also reminded us that Colin White went at 21, and he gave reasons that he's high on White. He expects White to excel in the NHL, not just play solidly. I'm not re-hashing or what-ifing. Of note, and the reason for my post, follows. McGuire had an impatient tone. He sounded like a GM or an agent. Injuries aside, he said that it's understood that Lehner did not put the necessary work in this summer to come to camp ready. I couldn't glean if he was referring to "ordinary" work an NHLer needs to put in, or the "extraordinary" work an NHLer coming off injury needs to put in. There was a tone suggesting dissappointment, frustration and impatience. Maybe I need to read more, but I'd not heard that before. It's one man's view, but he suggested it wasn't his, alone.

Funny, both .... and there are very few more awesome movies!

I wish anyone but Bernie would, either party. I get no better human being vibe from HRC.

As a junior, Druin would go 4 to 6 in this draft .... correct? While not a dissappointment, he's not improved his stock thereafter. Accordingly, id value him like 6 to 9. A trade demand moves me to the 8/9 end. To the learned .... I'd trade 8 or higher (9, 10 direction) for him. I'd not trade a first until I knew it.

Edit, not all .... Bernie's not typical

I did not. I've not seen much news since the SOU speech. I believe you. Dante's circles of hell. Politicians are low. Candidates are lower. All.

Edit to add: Fox sensationalized the sailors. Op Ed, not news, but I didn't see the news

Long day! In no particular order ... Iranian situation played out fine, in my mind. Iran seized soldiers, in their waters, and released them. Sec State apologized. No criticism from me either way. "Real price?" Maybe, but that's often the case. My back and forth on the tax was intended to make sure we were using the same facts and assumptions. I think we were. I'll tax income and the post tax (additional, after tax) growth. Opinion starts here. I'd not then tax a third time (the after tax, after double tax growth) and then the residual residual.

They have to contribute their stuff.

Edit - here's another thought. I work for 50 years, pay taxes, buy a home, save $500 thousand and then retire. I then live for 30 years, in the home earning nothing, but instead spending my $500 thousand for food and groceries. I have no more income and pay no more income taxes. Do you tax my home and savings accounts? JFTR - this is wholly redistribution. I suspect the answer to my question is "no, you don't, but the rich do".

They've contributed with their progressively higher taxed earnings. They're now using their money to live, like you and I are. They may be buying yachts and groceries. Good for them. I buy televisions and groceries. To answer your question, I don't propose they contribute annually unless they earn annually. I allow them to buy things with the residual of what has already been taxed, whether they buy it today or next year. Any way I look at your proposal, and it's been around as a concept for a long time, I see a tax on "after tax" stuff. We don't like the rich having stuff, even if it's stuff they bought with their residual "after tax" money. I have a home, television and car. I've paid income tax. This makes me rich in the eyes of many. I bought the home and the car with a loan I'll repay with other residual stuff or other "after tax" earnings. I don't want you to confiscate my stuff, too. Nor do I want to confiscate the after tax stuff of others. Income tax redistributes earnings. I get it. I accept it. Asset taxes redistribute the stuff that remains. If you earn, pay taxes, and have something left over, it's yours. If you don't earn next year, but instead use your already taxed stuff to live on, I don't want that, too. Contribute with what you earn. Keep the residual and use it when and how you like. My home, groceries, television, car and yacht are mine, even if I take money out of a mattress from 1967 to buy them.

A third tax - a bridge too far for me. They've paid, already. This is just more. Wealth isn't income. It's the residual of income, after tax.

When he earned the money to buy the assets, he paid tax. When he repays the loan, he sells his assets to do so. He pays interest for the option to pay tomorrow instead of today. I earn a dollar today, pay 30 cents in tax, and keep 70 cents. I use 70 cents at Tops for groceries. Do you tax the 70 cents, too? I earn a dollar today, pay 30 cents in tax, and keep 70 cents. I borrow 70 cents from a bank and use it at Tops for groceries. Tomorrow, I give the bank the 70 cents I kept in order to repay the loan. Do you tax the 70 cents? I see taxing income and then re-taxing the spending. In reality, the growth of the 70 cents is taxed as well. We have income tax currently. We have a second tax on the growth of the after tax residual (capital gains tax, a current second tax). Are we now talking about a third tax on the assets, themselves? He's using his earned, taxed, dollars to live. A loan adjusts the timing and flow of the payments. It's repaid. The assets are depleted. It comes at a cost (interest). I can't come up with a rationale for this third confiscation other than "we want your stuff even after we've taxed it when you earned it (regular income) and we taxed it again when it grew (capital gains), and we still want more. Regular income tax on earnings, capital gains tax on the already taxed, and "asset tax", cuz you have it (in my small mind).

Why tax assets? Why not just take their stuff and call a spade a spade? Wouldn't that be more honest? You have more than we think you need. Give it to us.

Awesome ...