LTS

There's no discussion of proving lineage though and it was never my suggestion to enact some kind of retroactive policy back the formation of the United States. Those who are citizens today are citizens today and remain citizens. The rule was the rule. The proposal was simply going forward.

I won't quote Pi's breakdown, but the play on the 3 on 2 is almost always to drop it to the high guy who can either pass or shoot with two players going to the net. The fact that it's Eichel only makes that even more painful. I'm still convinced it was a bit unlucky that Reinhart jumped in just as the puck broke free and at that point I'm not sure who on the Sabres would make up that ground. All in all, bad stuff from Risto.

Lots of potentials.. always a fan of his.. but not sure it ever beat Hakan Loob

Or it just hasn't been explained... It will be good to see Pominville play in his 1,000th game. I love when players reach milestones like this. I'll be in Kingston over the weekend for a tournament so not sure I'll get to see the game on Saturday... at least i get to see this one.

What do you mean it's not a real thing? There are no extreme left positions? I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment.

Yeah, I don't have a huge problem with it either. Just thinking of how I would do it if I had to address it I suppose.

We've definitely wandered off into another topic zone... I figured I would ask. Discuss it here or throw it into a new thread? I think @Scottysabres has a lot of things in the post that will drive a lot of commentary. If we want this thread to remain relegated to the bomb discussion and subsequent news regarding the bomber I would say we move this to its own topic... Thoughts?

Wait... I mean, I suppose you could substitute antifa or some other extreme left reference but I think the point is clear.

Let me follow my line of reasoning all the way to one critical point: there is a mechanism by which people can become citizens of the United States. Your premise and entire line of reasoning is based on the idea that there is no other way to become a citizen of the US except by birth, which is of course, not true. Indeed, the initial colonists must have all been granted citizenship when the United States was formed as they were certainly not born here. So, it seems that this problem was solved at the outright. A child born of non-US citizens while they residing in the US should be given the citizenship of the parents. If the parents become US citizens before the child can legally become a US citizen on its own then the child should be granted citizenship in conjunction with the parent. I don't think that's really a complicated solution.

If you didn't understand the response perhaps it would be better to try and ask questions rather than summarily dismiss it with a flippant response of your own.. The initial questions raised are the key to understanding why a person becomes this way. As for a discussion on a genetic disposition of hatred: We are born ignorant of many things. We don't know what to do with them until we are taught. There may be a genetic tendency toward rage and many other factors but hatred is a purely learned trait. One does not see someone of a different ethnic background and hate them because of it. For that matter, until you knew what a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim were they were meaningless words. If you had never been taught what they were I could line 3 people up and you'd not feel hatred towards them for practicing any of those faiths. If you want to continue down this path you should bring some level of research supporting the theory of hatred being linked to genetics. Hatred of the kind that causes people to want to destroy others because of their religion or ethnicity. Not hatred of coriander which really isn't hatred but a dislike as a defense mechanism. I've never seen any although there are some theories but most of them just don't stand up to examination.

Well... he's not wrong. I love that quote actually. It seems the word in the locker room is to not feed the media and challenge them. That's cool, they need it.

Oh, I get things in return from the government. Keep in mind I am not saying we should not pay taxes. I am saying I am not in favor of heavier taxation until the government can bring some efficiency to its operations. While I am a fan of smaller government, I don't advocate for no government. Without overtaxing my brain I would be far more in favor of certain governmental services being turned over to something like private B corporations. That's the general concept which of course at that level could be shot full of holes. I suppose the foundational concept is that I would like to see more entrepreneurial programs supported that can really effect change in our society. I don't think the government will ever be the entity to enable that.

No. You know I wasn't really thinking about that aspect of it when I responded which was foolish of me. Executive orders are abused already and they need not be expanded further.

It had more substance than your response does. The questions being raised are precisely the factors that need to be addressed. There's no magic wand to wave to solve the problem. Look at the history of a person and see how they learned to hate because hate is not a genetic trait. A few weeks ago I came across a statement that made me think. We're always hearing about the golden rule. But the truth is, the golden rule is massively flawed. It only works if everyone is the same as me which of course they are not. It's more valid to treat others the way they want to be treated. Perhaps it starts there.

It eliminates any potential counter of "You didn't hear my side of the story.". Hank - let's dial back the snark and make contributions to the discussion. It'll be helpful.

In what way? If I have to pay the government taxes they have my money... if they are losing to the market they shouldn't need more of it right?

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it. I've not given it a lot of thought. My "feeling" is that those born in the United States who are not children of US citizens should not automatically become a US citizen. They should retain citizenship of their parents. Whereas those born in the US of parents who are US citizens should be US citizens. I'm certainly open to discussion and my opinion could easily be swayed.

Yes, but it's more important to understand why it costs that. There are middle grounds between government incompetence and corporate profits. I'm also not referring to private companies that take on government contracts in the "privatization" sense either. No system is perfect, but the government doesn't have competition whereas the market does.

I understand what you are saying. However, it's a single side of a story. It certainly comes across as genuine and I'm not necessarily inclined to disbelieve him. That said, I believe it would be in the best interest of gauging the reality of the situation by hearing what he has to say. Even if it comes across as completely polished and unbelievable BS.

The concept of paying more in tax comes along with the assumption that the Government is efficient in using that money. The problem is that they are not and I don't think anyone would debate otherwise. It's like giving to a charity where 75% or more of your money goes to the overhead of operating the charity. The concept of cutting taxes is to reduce government spending, but the problem there is that it doesn't result in more efficiency, it results in programs being cut. Basically, the government sucks at being a business and the more we let it try to be something it cannot be, the worse off we will be. This is why I don't want more government or more money going to the government, especially at the federal level.

Kid's practice is 8-9pm tonight. UGH! I mean, I can watch the game at the rink, but.. ugh! Go Sabres... all that good stuff. Keep on showing.

That's an interesting video to watch... thanks for sharing. It's definitely not painting a pretty picture of Terry Pegula. I'd love to hear what he has to say about those comments.

Let me answer your first question as written: The answer is "no". However I don't think it will play out quite as vanilla as that unfortunately. I'm not positive that some crazy bastards might actually shoot people because "they were ordered" but I would suspect the VAST majority of military would have serious thoughts. Of course I would have never joined the military because I don't agree with putting soldier's lives on the line to further the business interests of corporations.

A few quick things. I highlighted ability because I think it's an inappropriate word to use here. There may be a division in what members of the military are willing to do but I do firmly believe they have the ability to do so. I would like to think that upholding the spirit and existence of the Constitution would be something that military would want to preserve but I wonder how many different opinions exist within the military on what that means. I certainly do not know, but I have to imagine it's much like the general population in which there are a wide range of opinions. So while some may feel the same, there are probably some who feel differently than you and the people you know. Would that be accurate? However, I don't think the United States needs to use its military for this purpose. We're doing an admirable job of attacking each other and tearing ourselves apart from within with little pushes along the way.

Let me know what you think. He has a long stride and my son noted he skates somewhat like Eichel in that regard, more upright and longer strides. I think the problem is that he doesn't have the same leg and core strength that Eichel has to get his body moving. I do know this. When he had a few of those one-timers on the PP I was thinking, that's a pretty good role for him right now. He was blasting.