Neo

Edit to add: As a member of the opposition, I wish there were tougher debates on the Democratic side. I am not a fan of the "tell me why you hate the idiot standing next to you" format on the Republican side, but I'd love to see some impassioned back and forth around stands on the left. My biggest dissappointment is Bernie's principled "above the fray" approach. It's who he is, and I admire that. It's not going to move the needle far enough relative to its starting point to get him nominated. My biggest surprise is HRC's sharp pivot left and delayed pivot right. She'll have to move furthest to center in the general. Moving far doesn't play to the strengths of someone with low trustworthy scores. She doesn't return my phone calls, but my advice is start moving toward center now. That said, few know strategy better than her. If you have to choose between her view and mine ... Another edit - I'm on a roll. Her potty break poised humility was her finest moment. Humanity!

My outsider view - wholly unencumbered by inside knowledge - The DNC needs no more than six. Its strongest candidate was well known coming in to both '16 and '08. It did get surprised in '08, but the surprise worked out well for the DNC. Planners don't commit resources around unlikely events. You can go so far as to say the skids were greased for HRC, but that's no criticism of the DNC in my book. I'd grease the skids for the person I viewed as my party's strongest candidate if my job was to win an election. Make no mistake, and I don't think you are, the DNC and the RNC exist to elect their candidates, not to educate the public. If the public gets educated, that's fine. It's not the parties' reason for existing. The job is much easier, of late, for the DNC. HRC has been President in Waiting for 16 years. Debbie Wasserman Schultz drives me batty. I'd do exactly as she's done.

Well, if you're a Dem who thinks there are too few, you could fault them for sanctioning only six. I agree they aren't responsible for debates for which they're not responsible.

Drunkard, I love you .... Everything I read is the economic equivalent of "the earth is 6,000 years old". I feel your pain, if on the other side of the coin. I am googling Raptor Hayek ....

Hoss - I'm more than a few semesters away from being able to create something like this. However, I followed it with ease, up to and including the link. Again, you did the heavy lifting. Interesting, and it will color my reading of the "strategery" around personnel in the Buffalo News. As always, I'm grateful.

Apropos of nothing ... I was pumping gas today between Amalie Arena and a fitness center. A very tall man with a gray goatee and Lightning sweats walked by, between the pumps. It was Dave Andrychuk. So much history. Tampa is a small town, not unlike my hometown.

I remember the Achilles injury and wondering what might have been lost .... I'm happy for him.

You're confused because I phrased in clumsy fashion. On me. I'm grateful for your response. I should have referred, simply, to my expectations for this year. In short, I had two completely different curves in mind. One applied to an outstanding prospect, Sam, and the other to a generational talent, Eichel. Even at that, I'm nit picking. How about this. Setting curves relating to age and experience aside, Sam is showing more than I thought he would this season and Jack's not having the greatest rookie year since AO's 106 and Crosby's 102 point campaigns. Neither disappoints or worries me. Sam is not hindered by foot speed and lack of strength while Jack is figuring out his game playing on a team and for a coach doing the same thing. Jack's fine unless you expected generational AO/Crosby numbers. Because I had more questions about Sam, and because I don't need Jack to be 05/06 AO/Crosby, this is good news for me. As I read back, my overall theme didn't come through in my post.

I have shown the video to Mrs Neo. "We" are making MODO cakes Christmas morning. There will be photos! Grateful ... always.

One, to be deservedly respectful to you, I understand your point and think it's s great guiding principal for a life well lived. Two, we'd lose half the Internet if we couldn't sit here in our chairs and comment on others. Have you seen me in the politics thread?! On to Jack. I'd be disappointed if I bought into some of the "he reminds me of Lemieux" talk I heard nationally after three or four games. I didn't. I'm not. Interestingly, Samson's ahead of any curve I imagined for him if Jack's slightly behind his. This is bigger news for the Sabres. Skills are awesome. 82 game pace seems a grind. Consistency's not there, but it's not anywhere on this team not numbered 90 or 55. I think the mini break will help.

That's correct. Sometimes posters just make a mistake. There's no twisting of the truth to be assumed nor any person with whom to be disappointed.

LOL! I guess her judgment isn't "unimpeachable". " Those bad boys, I just LOVE 'em".

First, I laughed. Second, I always believed Bill was a competent President, with "competent" not meant to belittle. Competent at the world's hardest job is praise. Time has only warmed my view of him. The greats faced huge domestic or international threats and triumphed. Bill didn't have that opportunity, which is good news for all of us. He would have that opportunity today.

wjag - we share this. Only DOJ/FBI can derail. Depending on the facts (benefit of the doubt to HRC) and the politics (benefit of incumbency to HRC), we'll see. I think DOJ/FBI is a speed bump. I've handicapped it Cruz v HRC. I'm no oracle. I don't know what I'll do standing in the booth with that choice. I may decide if HRC starts a "vote for one Clinton, you get two" refrain. I'd vote Bill over Ted.

Who 'they playin'?

Just one GOP member's view - mine! For your consideration when you're hearing "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia"! Gun violence and ISIS are legitimate issues that concern all Americans. They're largely separate issues where each would exist were the other one gone. One party discusses them separately, to the satisfaction of some and not to others. One party links them and creates a goulash of policy confusion to the satisfaction of no one. The GOP wants the Federal government addressing the external problem with global leadership, diplomacy and its military, if necessary, like it should with all challenges of this nature. The GOP wants individuals, communities, local, state and federal governments addressing the internal social economic problems, like the GOP they do with all challenges of this nature. Bias alert ... When the federal government links one with the other, it does so because it has no leadership, diplomacy or military strategy to address the external problem, or the one in its sole purview. Not a lecture, but insight into what I believe is behind the divide .... ISIS does scare me, and I don't scare easily. It's an idea. Defeating ideas is harder than defeating armies. PS ... I was a "Jan" guy! PSS ... I hope DWS leads the DNC forever!

Is that your language? I'd endorse that.

I no longer see Trump as the problem. He's the source of nothing. He isn't inspirational. He has no bold new idea. He foments nothing whatsoever that's not already there. He's the smoke born in a fire. The fire's the issue. Perhaps more aptly, he's the town square where the like minded are gathering. Trump's an address or a channel. Dial him up and pay attention to the assembled, not the frequency. When he goes away, those assembled do not. They gather somewhere else. Contrast this to an Obama. He's not my cup of tea, but he represented an idea people flocked to. The President is not merely an address where old idea's assembled. Because of this, Trump's an issue for both parties. His rise, like most, is a response to some other reality. More strongly, Trump is a response, not a new idea. His appeal has roots in the policies of both parties. I did some reading and watching yesterday. Themes among his supporters include a sense of great and increasing risk and a government that refuses to acknowledge, let alone address, that risk. Terrorism and economics account for almost all the categories of risk that I saw. We're seeing the Republican Party trying to figure out how to handle not him, but the crowd he's assembled. Democrats would be wise to consider that crowd, too. I'll bet DNC strategists are. He's a different problem for each party, but he is a problem for both. Hilary Clinton would be elected with 58% of the vote if she came out against Islamic Terrorism and bloated government. My two suggestions to HRC: 1). Recognize the Islamic terror threat, name it, and avoid calling the fearful xenophobic bigots. How about "you know, Trump's supporters have some legitimate concerns ...". It will cost you little in the primaries. You're up 4 touchdowns in the second half and your only real risk comes from DOJ/FBI. It will gain you much in the general. Start your pivot early. 2). Recognize the cost of government. Ask your husband about it. You know "Balanced Budget Bill better than I do! He said this: "We can no longer afford to pay more for --and get less from our government. The answer for every problem cannot always be another program or more money. It is time to radically change the way gov ernment operates -- to shift from top-down bureaucracy to entrepreneurial government that empowers citizens and communities to change our country from the bottom up. We must reward the people and ideas that work and get rid of those that don't."

I think the last three posts are closer to value going the other way than my original post.

I have the same thought.

I'm interested. I have a fondness for Penticton and Kelowna. Interesting articles on Johansen and Torts. Torts and Vinny http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ryan-johansen-healthy-scratched--what-s-end-game-with-tortorella-203217767.html Columbus President John Davidson and Johansen http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/12/18/blue-jackets-president-davidson-doesnt-exactly-quell-johansen-trade-speculation/ Regarding Johansen v. Ennis: The pluses and minuses are different. I read about lazy passes leading to turnovers with Johansen where with Ennis I see more erratic play at a frenzied pace leading to the same turnovers. Everything's coach able.. I think it comes down to Torts v. GMTM. Who's more likely to be successful making the correction, tough love Torts or astute team builder GMTM/DB? I'd like to see a talented finisher alongside our young centers. Ennis is a creator. We may not need that as much as a finisher. It also comes down to need in another context. LHD for Ennis, anyone? If that's in GMTM's back pocket, Ennis stays for now. I'd listen long and hard to Ennis and Foligno or Ennis and a second or Ennis and a prospect not named Baptiste, Bailey, Guhle, Compher or Fasching. Ennis is what he is. I like him. I feel I know his ceiling. Johansen's may be higher. Geography stereotyping - what say you, Dudacek?

Grateful both, PastaJoe and East ... Lisa Sliwa!

From last week ..... It's very thorough? You've made a leap I have not. K1 Visas, presented here, along with the Department of Homeland Security and prepared testimony. Not specifically the vetting, but the team and a similarly necessary part of the security process. I'm gonna say the government's not doing a good job, like you did. However, unlike you, the explaining part isn't where I'd be pointing. I'm not doing a good job explaining that I look like Brad Pitt. Mrs. Neo doesn't believe the explanation's the issue. At your suggestion, the government providing the information on how the process works ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFnnodrn7M Poor woman (SUNY Grad), but it gets worse. This is the Assistant Secretary of the government organization (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Screening Coordination at Homeland Security) that will assure you refugee's are vetted and will provide the federal data to gun retailers in support of the President's proposal to ban the sale of guns to those on the no fly list. Phewwwww, I feel better. Call me myopic and thick, but we have no way to screen refugees effectively that I've seen. Call me myopic and thick, but no-fly list gun bans is tilting at windmill demagoguery. I supported this a week ago - it'll do no harm, but the list seems more troublesome than ever to me. I was queasy about lists. I'm more queasy after the video. I learn. It's not very thorough. It's not generally thorough. It's not remotely thorough. She's not even sure what "it" is. I'm not "pro" limiting the movement of brown people. I'm pro "you gotta be kidding me". Fun unexpected joys of language ... She refers to the "KY" program ... PS. Forgetting immigration for a moment, tune in to the 4:00 mark on the first link. Gowdy asks about lists, no flys, no guns, etc. in conjunction with due process.

I'm watching now ... Striking!

I just googled MDJr YouTube videos. Hoss, you gotta. Past is prologue .... Try this one .... Atheists ..... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e6IIkOwd7GY