Patty16

It wasn't inadvertent, it was to let estab types win more easily and prevent Ron Paul type from hanging around. In any other year FL and OH are basically inconsequential from a GOP primary perspective. The Dem primary has the opposite goal,(although its affect is debatable) ... Michigan isn't winner take all because it makes candidates actually show up and fight for each delagate, and being a battleground state and all. You see the importance of that in the last Dem debate, Hillary hitting Sanders for not supporting auto bailout- which he did actually support- and now Dems know that is not a winning message in Mich. It was an open primary, and Sanders won 71% of self identified independent voters. Yes many prob lean Dem, but not enough to register. These are key voters in swing states. On the other hand Trump won 36% of self identified independent voters

I figured as much. For me, he's not "getting after it" as much and seems to have lost his insight into angles. He's also playing a few LESS mins per game so I wonder if it's a rhythm thing. He has a certain skill set (supposedly) that would make another GM think he can still make him a pretty good NHL dman.

Interesting, before this season i would have thought that wasn't in the realm of possibility, but I haven't like his game this year. But that's to be said of too many Sabres.

yup and yup. It all took off with the cropped clip of Mckenzie tweeted by some crappy fan account. it edited out the part where the segment was pure speculation. That turned into Mckenzie said stammer to buffalo holy crap what jersey # will he wear.

Yea exactly. Foligno has spurts from time to time, but a whole lot of nothing in between. Put a diff name on his back and i think fans like him a lot less.

Here's more from 2008: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) “[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule ­­– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.” “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year… it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) “There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well­ qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.” But NOW when it's Obama, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) “[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles.” Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”

Just like everyone thought McKenzie was actually reporting something on Sabres Stamkos? Doesn't mean anything or support your interpretation in any way, just because other people thought same. Its pretty clear that he was saying his sources say its not crazy re what McKenzie was clearly speculating on, part of the problem is too many people not understand McKenzie's context.

No it didnt. If you read it that way is on you.

How do they just start a business, esp if earning min wage?

Yes war is just like normal life, especially hockey.

Terrorism is very low unless you are GOP voter, its all about the economy in this election.

knit picking details????? it was a recess appoint that Democrats in 1960, the conservatives of their time, that they feared. not a straight up nomination, if you don't realize the difference you dont understand why bringing that up is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. yes the Senate can shoot down any nominee, but POTUS could make a recess appointment, or the Dems could vote down all nominees by a future GOP prez..... which is exactly the reason they almost never get voted down, deference to the POTUS. McConnell :https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-REHNQUIST/pdf/GPO-CHRG-REHNQUIST-4-23-1.pdf The Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. […] The president is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform.” and “Even though the Senate has at various times made purely political decisions in its consideration of Supreme Court nominees, certainly it could not be successfully argued that this is an acceptable practice.

the 1960 thing is about recess appointments- which is not the scenario now. And you do know that Democrats in 1960 would be Republicans today right? The ideologies switched around 1964 because of the CRA Schumer's PC didn't prohibit approving any nominee. Here's McConnell's own words : “Even though the Senate has at various times made purely political decisions in its consideration of Supreme Court nominees, certainly it could not be successfully argued that this is an acceptable practice.”

Who let Jerry Sullivan post? I can't wait for the TBN article.

Next goal: Retirement Next time he scores: playing NHL 16 as Eichel on Xbox

Yes, the post office, social security, free government health for "future POTUS" Trump (and all of Congress), free govt health care for VA, Medicare for elderly, GI Bill for vets, these are all terrible. We should go back to the pre-New Deal era and let them eat cake. Why do all the countries that have higher standard of living than the USA have way more socialism? People "haven't had enough of everything libs stand for" in 2012 Obama won by 5 million votes. Republicans have lost 5 or the 6 last popular votes going back 25 years. And in 2014, "libs" rec'd 5 million more votes than R's -- that's total votes- redistricting allowed for more R seats of course. If "libs" keep getting more popular votes - how is that people have had enough?

Slow clap :clapping: well done. Yes to this.

I agree, and esp since Stamkos really wants to win, and with TO in rebuild not sure that's happening anytime too soon.

I agree, and its diff than just being provocative to further the discussion. It goes beyond that. As SDS said " Hot topics" don't originate from puff pieces in the travel section of local newspapers, unless someone is willing to bend and twist the situation to illicit that hot reaction you know all so well" PA isn't just trying have a thoughtful and provocative discussion, it's done with the intent to have the exact reaction of this thread, then take a step back like steve urkel and say "did i do that" I just meant to think etc etc. I think the fact that i've seen way too many threads started or taken over by over the top PA posts shows that it's trolling. Here we have a travel article talking about people coming down from SO, I pointed that out many times yesterday and SDS did a great job of going the extra mile explaining everything. Why? because we have a particular poster who seems focused on stirring the pot and dousing it in gasoline. I'm not talking heated rhetoric about player x being better than player y. It's about the constant tin foil hat disparagement being constantly thrown at the team and the twisting and mental gymnastics apparent in so many posts. I passed that article around to many of my non Sabres/non Buffalo fans and asked them to tell me what they thought the gist was? 0 out of 5 thought it was the team saying or meaning what the OP stated. Why? Because there's no fair reading of the article to reach that conclusion. They all said it sounded like the writer was saying Buffalo is a good spot to see a hockey game. One even is considering going this season now. I in no way mean this argumentatively, but what do you believe the intentions are?

The WHOLE thread has been about Leafs and/or other fans over Sabres fans, otherwise who cares? Everything Gilbert said? he has two quotes that arent even from the same sentence. In only one does he talk about Leafs fans. Show me the part where he says or implies he wants more leafs fans? Is it the first quote : "We love Southern Ontario Leafs fans" or this one " "When the Leafs are in town, thirty to forty per cent of fans holding tickets are from Southern Ontario," ?? What part is he wants more Leafs fan? You know that 15% of the season tickets holders are from southern Ontario.... perhaps that's why he says he loves them.

you said they don't want out of town sabres fans, they want fans of opposing teams.

Again, lets not be purposefully obtuse PA. I included the Leafs fan part of the quote. He stated 30-40% fill the arena when TO is in town. This is true. That is not advocating Leafs fans over sabres fans. Its the Hamilton paper doing a piece on people driving down to Buffalo for games. Not a press release by the team recruiting Leafs fans. It talks about the scene and then the Sabres VP of comm relations says 30-40% fill the arena when TO is in town. He also says he loves SO, ya know the area that has tons of Bills and Sabres fans who fill both arenas. What would you propose as a better response? Don't come if you aren't a Sabres fan?? Literally he did not. He stated what percent come to games. That does not mean he wants Leafs fans over Sabres fans, like you said. The team got the Sabres on TV to generate more fans from SO, not to recruit more Leafs fan. There's a lot of willful misreading of that article going on here. Again, wouldn't sabres STH be more responsible for Leafs fan attendance since they are the ones who directly facilitate it? It's the same cast of characters using the usual nonsense.

what is this based on?

This has been one of the most overblown threads in a long time. He said he 1)loves SO fans and noted, correctly, and 2) that Leafs fans take up 30-40%..... this some way turns into open courting? advocating for visiting fans? What's he supposed to say? that he dislikes SO fans? many of whom support the sabres? Isnt that the one the reasons the sabres got themselves on SO tv back in 2013? or 2) stating a correct fact? Leafs fans wouldn't be able to take up that much if SABRES fans wouldn't sell their tickets. It has nothing to do with marketing or this silly article.

Yea but not the judgment of the coaches....