LastPommerFan

Yes, unless Bobby Orr is available. You never take a blueliner with #1. Ever.

I think his point was that the Blues had the first pick in that draft. Tanking is only as good as your ability to pick the gamechanger.

What you two do in private is fine by me.

All the major roads will be networked vehicle only. If you want to "go for a drive" you'll have to go visit weave.

Netowrked Self Driving Cars

mmm kari byron.

You think that round is going to lower his AAV by $4-5 million? Not a chance. He's gonna get paid.

As pissed as Halak was after the deal, I don't see him entertaining the thought of going back to the Blues. Hopefully this collapse detonates a disaster of a season next year, and we get a bonus lottery ticket!

I know a principle in the design firm. I'll get the inside scoop and report back.

independent contractor agreements are not license to violate minimum wage laws. I expect the Bills to settle.

This is what I hear when I hear this argument.

They are referring to prohibition on corporate and individual wealth financing political candidates. Not Alcohol. Alcohol Prohibition would potentially turn Weave into the next Jefferson Davis. Well that's the last time i provide non-tweet references. :nana: Also, it's 5-1/2 hours long, how did you just watch it?

It may be outlined in more detail in the Okrent book (which was the primary source for the film)

We could have prevented war in the Balkans with a flat ban on alcohol sales. It's pretty simple.

To the current discussion: I'd like to hope that someday, humanity will recognize that it is better off for preventing genocide, regardless of where it is occurring. About half the federal budget is paid for by an almost flat tax. Medicare and Social Security taxes are not flat, they are actually regressive. Once you make $113,700 you no longer have to pay social security. Additionally, investment income does not support either of these programs. So since the wealthy by definition have more investment income, they pay and even smaller proportion of their income into these programs. I am all for implementing a flat tax on all income to pay for the basic safety net. I think this is a reasonable solution to their viability and would have minimal impact on the consumer driven economy since most consumers are already paying these taxes on every dollar they earn. This takes care of half the federal budget, but more importantly, it would eliminate the "unfunded liability" problem that GoDD referred to upthread. But the power problem that old fashioned early twentieth century progressives were trying to address isn't about balancing the budget. It's about controlling the balance of power. The progressive income top marginal rates have been as high as 70% during the post-war economic boom. This hugely helped pay down the debt while still giving the middle class some upward mobility. We don't need to return to that, but we can be more progressive than we are right now. The discretionary budget is spent largely for a single purpose: the protection of property. Defense, homeland security, and Justice are all there to protect property, and they account for about 70% of the discretionary budget. From threats both foreign and domestic. Thus, those with more property receive more benefit from this protection, so I don't see a big issue with having those with more property foot more of the bill. The inheritance tax, however, is the most important lever gifted to us by the progressives. Money is the new Nobility, and this single tax is the best way to protect against a modern hereditary monarchy. 3 of the 5 wealthiest people in the US are Sam Walton's kids. The didn't earn that power through anything other than birthright. I believe there is one constitutional change left to make, and Teddy Roosevelt proposed it over a century ago. We need to break the connection between individual and corporate wealth and political campaigns. Whether it be by disclosure or prohibition, and I favor disclosure, we need to secure for ourselves the right to know how our politicians are funded.

You will love it. I think the main point on the progressives and prohibition is that prohibition failed for almost 80 years until large group of people saw potential political gain out of it. Then it passed with ease in 1917 despite not even being addressed during the 1916 presidential campaigns.

Trying to find some interweb sources, but my information comes from: The PBS Documentary Series "Prohibition" The Daniel Okrent book, "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" The James Timberlake Book "Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900–1920"

Great stuff here, worthy of a response not typed on a phone, which will have to wait. One thing, however, is the progressiveness of The 18th. A huge chunk of the prohibition coalition was the progressives. Partly they wanted to disrupt the urban saloons as the birthplaces of the big city political machines. The amount the average American drank in 125 years ago is absolutely astounding. They disliked alcohol and its perceived effect on the voting behaviors of low wage immigrants in distilling (boom!) the power of many into the hands of a few. Also partly, they just hated the Irish.

Eleven, I know the content of the thread has drifted, but I am curious to here your thoughts on connections or lack thereof of the progressive Amendments to today's political climate.

I prefer, "the turd is in the toilet."

Right, the former tends to only happen in the NBA, and the Colts.

Don't worry, you are still on team wet blanket.

Let's say that in mid February the 2014-15 Sabres are 6th place in the Atlantic, 8 points out of the wildcard, and 24th overall in the league. What would you do? I would definately be looking to move Stafford, Stewart, and Mitchell (even Enroth and Neuvrith if there's interest) at the deadline, and I wouldn't be too concerned with replacing them with players, I'd just bring some bodies up from Rochester, and probably not the best ones i got. In other words. If I'm not in the playoffs, and I'm not gonna be in the playoffs, I'm gonna tank.

only because the hurricanes didn't make the playoffs.

Except the US president is also a Leader and can Lead the world in a different direction if he wishes. I think that is where the criticism is, not failure to act, failure to lead.