nfreeman

Well, in a Clintonian manner you elided the rest of his proposal: "...until we figure out what is going on." The point of his statement -- which was made in the midst of a bunch of bloodthirsty Muslim acts of mass murder AND a push by the clueless left to accept thousands of Syrian refugees without screening them for ISIS ties -- was that it is important to protect our safety, and that there are undeniable risks associated with admitting Muslim refugees and would-be immigrants into the country without screening them for terrorism risks. Was the notion of an outright ban an exaggeration, and ill-advised? Yes, and he walked back from it pretty quickly. But to dismiss it as bigotry is, once again, to miss the point by a mile in the rush to condemn those who don't agree with you. OK. If you want to have a real discussion, then read what I wrote and respond to it. Hysterically repeating "Bush lied! Bush lied!" doesn't do anything. As for whether Hillary supported it -- like many others (from both parties) -- she voted for it when the political winds were blowing that way, before she voted against it, when the political winds were blowing the other way. It is utterly and completely indefensible, and I expect better from each of you -- or at least I did before PA made his intellectual laziness on this matter so clear. Certainly there are bigots in Trump's core base -- as there are in Hillary's base. The bigotries of the 2 groups are simply targeted at different ethnicities. There are plenty of reasons why someone might be a "core" Trump supporter. The biggest, but by no means the only, one is the view that our government is a corrupt, dishonest, out-of-control, parasitic organism that is suffocating the non-government part of the citizenry, and only an outsider can fix it. Another reason is that people are fed up with the dishonest, PC BS that most politicians spout, and they like the unfiltered stuff that Trump says. Still another important reason is the terrible middle-class jobs picture in this country. My wife and I had dinner last night with some friends, both of whom have been Trump supporters from the get-go. They are not bigots. I have spent a fair amount of time with a fairly senior person in the Trump campaign. He is not a bigot. And what about the numerous family members of posters here who are Trump supporters? Are they all bigots? The question answers itself. In this country, we don't make assumptions about someone's character if we've never met or spoken with or know anything about that person. It's ridiculous on its face. Well, I'd need to look into this more in order to respond, but my understanding is that a substantial percentage of defense contracts have been awarded on a no-bid basis for a long time. Also, I think Cheney divested his Halliburton ownership before he became VP.

As to the first point -- while I can see how you could interpret Radar's post this way, I didn't read it that way. Moreover, at some point it's a distinction without a difference -- i.e. if you say something, and someone says "that's stupid/ignorant/racist" -- that is pretty GD close to saying "you're stupid/ignorant/racist". As to the 2nd point -- leaving aside your less-than-stellar record on this matter, yes, of course, some people have demonstrated that they are bigots -- but I'm not aware of anyone on this board who has done so. Calling someone a bigot is a serious accusation. You are essentially saying that his or her character is rotten. That isn't something to throw around lightly, and certainly isn't something that should be blithely used to smear and dismiss millions of people you disagree with on politics.

I'm happy to respond to any questions you have, and I am deeply grateful for your service to this country. I just ask that you not come firing in to start the conversation with accusations of gross double standards and shallowness. It's quite possible that those who disagree with you are guilty of neither. In response to your post -- no -- I was not vocal about Bush/Cheney/Iraq, because (i) I supported and continue to support the Iraq war and (ii) I do not believe that Bush and Cheney lied about WMD. I think the Iraq war was a necessary battle in the long war that militant Islam has declared upon Western civilization, and I think Bush/Cheney relied on faulty intelligence reports regarding the active status of Saddam's WMD programs (which were inaccurate in quantity, but not in kind, as Saddam did have and use WMD), as did many other US and foreign allies. I believe that Obama and Hillary lied about Bengazi. It beggars belief to think that they really thought Bengazi was triggered by that youtube video. What hatred are you referring to? Hatred of Hillary? If so, I think it's fair to say that the hatred directed at Bush/Cheney from the left was at least on par with that directed at Hillary.

Do you think the conversation is better when people, instead of describing the factual basis and logic supporting their beliefs, simply call each other bigots, or rednecks, or idiots, or ignorant or shallow?

Let me suggest that you either communicate in a respectful manner, and discuss the issues, without name-calling, or keep quiet. Which statute were you referring to?

I beg to differ: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/05/the-clinton-email-probe-and-the-question-of-gross-negligence/

This is precisely what happened to that poor SOB who made the youtube video that the President and the would-be president blamed for Bengazi. I think the standard in that statute includes gross negligence.

No. Not political talking points. Not hyperbole. It's important to remember that facts can be established without a judicial process -- and sometimes judicial processes don't establish facts (hello, OJ). No one is disputing that she had State Dept. emails on her private server, or that doing so is against the law. The fact that DOJ decided not to prosecute does not mean that she didn't break the law. I don't think Hillary's camp has admitted that she lied about it, but that fact too is indisputable. Again -- reasonable people can evaluate their choices this year and vote for Hillary. But there is a Grand Canyon between that decision and claiming that she is an honest person who hasn't done anything wrong.

What facts are you disputing? Please be specific.

Totally fair, and I think many independents feel the same way. I was just protesting the "see no evil" perspective that some seem to have on on Hillary.

True, but I mentioned him as someone I would've liked if the electoral college were to end up in a tie and the House had the ability to name anyone (which it doesn't, as 11 correctly noted upthread). I will say, though, that if Romney had won the GOP nomination this year (which I don't think he would've, as Hurricane Trump was too powerful), I think he would've spanked Hillary in the election.

Ryan, or Romney, or pretty much anyone who ran for the GOP nomination this year other than the 2 finalists. No -- it has been conclusively proven that she broke the law by setting up her server and getting her State. Dept. emails there, and that she lied about doing so. It has also been conclusively proven that a multitude of Clinton Foundation donors obtained, after making donations, US government contracts and special access to the WH. It is also pretty close to proven that her server was hacked by foreign governments. You (and most others here) may agree more with the Democratic party platform than that of the Republicans, and you may be OK with electing a deeply corrupt individual because doing so will advance that platform (in a manner similar to those who will hold their noses and vote for Trump), but it is simply dogmatic to pretend that she is something other than what she is.

Well, my parade just got rained on.

So based on the RCP electoral college map, if Florida goes to Trump, there is a real possibility that the electoral college ends up tied 269-269. If that happens, the House of Representatives chooses the next president -- and if that happens, there is a real possibility that they would choose a Republican other than Trump. Holy mackerel. I know the outcome I'm hoping for.

Both of you need to take it down a notch. There's an obvious candidate for this status -- and her having this status is going to drive literally millions of people to vote for someone they find deeply unsatisfactory.

Me too. I thought his analysis was really good (much better than that of most ex-players), and that he brought out better analysis from Rayzor as well.

Very nice. Good call. My game notes: - Nelson started off pretty well but got a bit shakier as the game went on. Still a big improvement over his first game, though. - Like others have said, the Sabres played pretty well. There's just not enough finish. Someone from the ROR line or the Reino line needed to step up tonight. - Ennis made a number of bonehead plays (which Marty B. and Rayzor pointed out pretty well), but he created a number of chances in the 2nd half of the game. - Reino still pretty uneven, although he made a number of nice feeds that Zemgus and Ennis were unable to convert. - Pretty solid games from McCabe, Risto and Franson on D. - It looked like DDB was playing the Larsson line against the Matthews-Nylander line -- and it was effective. The Larsson line also probably created the most offense for the Sabres tonight. - Marty mentioned that Lehner should've played the puck coming acrost the crease on the 1st Toronto goal, which I agree with. - Marner was the most dangerous player on the ice. What a nifty player he is. - Disappointing power plays, and the refs didn't call enough penalties. Overall, it was a disappointing loss -- but if they play like that again on Sat., they'll probably win and then they'll have another shot at DeLuca .500.

Have the Sabres called up a defenseman from Rochester? Who would it be, anyway?

Great to have a Millbank sighting!

As far as that goes, it's worth noting that Myers has missed games every year with injuries too -- 20 in '13-'14, 11 in '14-'15, 9 last year and 2 so far this year (out of 10), and still out of the Jets' lineup.

DeLuca .500 after 10 games -- it's right there! Within our starving, desperate reach! ROR -- lead the way, baby.

It was the right decision. You're not stealing anything, and you are much less likely to get viruses in your computer. Here's my minor beef du jour: our washer/dryer, which has been a fairly crappy appliance since we bought it, requiring multiple repairs, started leaking oil onto the laundry. So now an immediate new appliance purchase is necessary.

Who's got an update on Bogo?

Interesting. I find it a little hard to believe, though, because i don't see why GMTM would've wanted to unload him at that point (ie before Kane got into trouble). Kane was only a Sabre for 1 (injury – shortened) season at that point.

Based on what we've seen so far, I think the Sabres need to re-sign Kulikov. He hasn't put up points but he adds value on offense and plays a complete, physical game. He can handle big minutes. He's better than Tallinder or Lydman was and he's only 26. He'll be a solid top-3 defenseman for the next 7 years.