Weave

Even if we stop at assassination, THAT is a violation of international law unless the countries involved are in armed conflict. Conflict by proxy is not in that definition. We are not (for now) in armed conflict with Iran.

Liger, Eichel is not the base in this example. He is functionally equivalent to Toews, Crosby, Kane, Malkin. The guys I am referring to are the depth and secondary guys that were already there in Chicago and Pittsburgh when the high end guys showed up. We’re 7 years out and still don’t have them. You can separate and blame the rebuild but the point remains, if you don’t fully dismantle then you can use the depth and secondary guys moving forward, both as mentors and assets. Tanking removed all margin for error, and error is inevitable. Pittsburgh won a weightedlottery after a lockout season to draft Crosby. How would they have tanked for that?

Chicago and Pittsburgh did not tank. Pittsburgh was crawling through bankruptcy and Chicago was the victim of a cheapskate owner. They were poorly run teams that finished low for a period if time. The difference is huge. Neither one of those teams were burned to the ground to get their top picks, consequently there was no need to go through what the Sabres have been going through. They had a base to build off. Chicago and Pittsburgh’s subsequent success was much more predictable given the base they could build off. MUCH more room for error.

In any conflict among civilians you would be arrested for that action. And rightfully so. Iran had been making threats for as long as I have been aware. Occasionally they’ve been linked to events others have participated in. I’d need hard convincing that this situation was materially different. Here’s a turn around.... Trump has ordered a hit. He’s threatening more. Would it be an act of war if Iran chose to preemptive strike at one of our planners? Would it be defensive on their part?

If you deck a guy because you strongly suspect he is going hit you, you’ still hitting a guy based on what you think he is going to do and not what he is actually doing. It’s offense, not defense.

Well, the Trump trade policies just hit me in a very personal way. My employers business had been very highly affected by the trade wars with China and Mexico in particular. And we are heavily in the automotive industry, who has been also greatly affected by the China and Mexico tariffs. My employer is shuttering my facility starting in April due to the excess capacity we now have due to the now 2 year old slow down and projections of another down year + through this year. And the irony is that in a cost cutting move we are relocating manufacturing overseas to our other locations with now excess capacity . This guy has idea what damage he is doing to satisfy his ego and “win” a trade war.

You can’t judge it without comparing it to the rest of the league. How did we do relative to the rest of the league?

I don’t really care what the stated purpose was. 1. I haven’t believed any of the stated purposes we’ve heard since the Gulf War, including this one, and 2. Regardless of what the intended purpose was, the act itself can only lead to escalation. Whether Trump wants to label this an act of war or not, it is what it is.

This is the real crux of it. Tanking for two straight seasons required a teardown of such magnitude that we ended up with 7 seasons with players in the lineup that should have been in lower levels being developed. Any process that requires full organizational depth to be on the NHL team is doomed to failure.

He's still a top General in a soveriegn nations military. Killing any country's top military commander is an act of war, regardless of what he chanted. I have no F'ing clue if this attack was warranted. What I do know is it is an act of war.

Assassinating a top military official is pretty much the definition of an act of war. If that wasn't his intention, holy ***** is he bad a decision making. As Rand Paul so well put today, you can't tear up a peace agreement, enact crushing sanctions, and then kill a military commander and expect this to lead to negotiation. The only realistic response is escalation. Also as said by Paul today, there may have been risk of some sort of action, but by killing a top military official we have pretty much guaranteed that a reprisal will take place. The odds of someothing happening have only increased now.

My Godson will play for NY Guardians. I'll be watching.

https://reason.com/2020/01/04/absent-evidence-of-imminent-attack-on-americans-white-houses-justification-for-killing-iranian-general-collapses/

Here's a good example of the problem, and a potential fix. Again, uncontrolled immigration is happening. That's a fact. A wall isn't stopping it. The current rules aren't stopping it. The correct response is to provide a real pathway and CONTROL it. https://magicvalley.com/business/agriculture/the-fix-for-ag-s-labor-woes-farm-bill-would/article_67a7021b-09b8-5a7c-9a09-af0e499b2384.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The problem with this line of thinking is, trade is not a zero sum game. There aren't winners and losers. The Cato Institute had an interesting take on Trumps trade policies. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-trade-wars-are-incoherent-angry-misguided Regarding the idea of slowing down China's growth, that has the potential to seriously backfire. They've renegotiated with other countries to make up for what we've done. That means some other country is benefiting. What was to our benefit is now to someone else's, and China keeps truckin'. Regarding your second point, very prescient to write that on New Years day. Here we are 5 days later and we're looking down a rabbit hole in Iran and wondering what's down there.....

there is a thread on this subject that I started yesterday in the politics club.

East German?

Thanks, Trump. (psst.. it's a silly joke. You know who you are)

My take was that he put so much pressure on himself in the moment that he became overwhelmed by it. That tells me he doesn't trust his teammates to share the load. He's got to do it himself. He needs to grow out of that.

I don't believe for a minute that our economy wouldn't grow with an influx of immigration. Every study I've ever seen shows immigrants as way over represented in small business statistics. Immigrants make up 14% of the population yet own 18% of small businesses, and account for 30% of all small business growth. Those businesses account for 14% of the private sector employment. Simply put, immigration drive economic growth. I'm certainly not advocating a let them all in policy. There should be some level of assurance that they will be contributing to the economy. I'm sure someone better learned than I can devise a screening to identify the potential contributors. But right now we have an immigration policy that makes it impossible for all but an elite group to get in. And that has resulted in uncontrolled immigration and cries for a wall. We don't need a wall. We need real immigration policy.

I am assuming that Frolik is Sobotka's repalcement. At least until the end of the season. Men vs. boys and all that. If Frolik does well I could see an offer to him f0or next season. Frankly, I think we need the grizzled veteran presence. Wouldn't mind another one too.

I hate icing the kicker

I just lost my feed....

Or not LOL

I guess I mis timed your post I quoted?