LTS

Thanks for sharing that. I suppose it's a good thing for a short statute of limitations. That's going to bring some real pain for the continuation of the unions' existence. It'll be very interesting to see how that case goes.

As though a vote for the candidates of the Democratic or Republican parties was any more intelligent. At the very least both of those candidates had proven how unqualified they were for the position. I mean, unless you are counting just how entrenched they are in the political machine and nothing more than puppets. In which case, yeah, they were both qualified.

I think the substantive difference for me is what you outline is what I would call corruption. Fundamentally, wealth (money) is being redistributed but I feel it's different when it's targeted to a single entity as opposed to an open program from which a wide pool of people can draw. That said, I'm not a fan of either because it takes money from me. Corruption is a massive governmental issue, and one that underscores why I want the government involved in less rather than more.

I loved that part. I only wished they showed his next iteration of the drill to see if he responded. Being sarcastic myself, I appreciate a little good-natured sarcasm. At the same time, you want to see that the player got the message despite joking around.

It certainly wasn't a topic in my circles. He abused the relationship, but I don't recall anyone ever saying he was physically abusive with her. It may have been verbal abuse but not really classified as such. Like I said, I'm just living on past memories of conversations with people who were in that circle.

I think, that given no rumors or innuendo about abuse, it's a HUGE leap to get to that point, regardless of the other behaviors. He had a reputation as a party boy, not one of violence. Here's my take on this. I knew people who were around Jim Kelly during those times. He was unfaithful. He was an absolute jerk to be around. More than once time Kent Hull physically set him straight when he was not as giving as he should have been. I won't try to recall any stories at this point because it was long time ago and I might screw something up. All of that said, Jim Kelly was confronted about his behavior and owned it. Through some amount of introspection and with the assistance and support of his wife he changed his ways. She has forgiven him. By all accounts since then he's been a very different person. You can dislike Kelly for what he was in his prime as a football player. However, I think it's a stretch to insinuate he was a domestic abuser because of it. In addition, you can't discount his wife's actions in all of this. As far as I am concerned, she is the one who had to live with him and if she can forgive him, that's all that matters. It would appear he has changed as a person. I'd rather be happy for his change than to continue to attack him for what he used to be.

I think the problem Botterill faces with trying to strengthen the D is that he will be forced to sign a mediocre player to a contract term that will have us complaining about it 3 years in because it's keeping other players who have developed out of the lineup. Any D who you sign for 1 year is not going to solve the problem. So that's the real question. Freeman suggested de Haan. In some way I was hoping it too. But, would you accept the Sabres signing him to the contract he signed? I think it would have hurt them in 2 years.

The government paying a contract to provide value is not redistribution of wealth. Now, it may be a corrupt contract where more money than necessary gets spent on the contract, but there is a value being returned. Straight up government aid doesn't return value to the government. (Not saying it does not provide value to those who get it). Fair share is the term used, but it's an impossible term to quantify. Who gets to decide that? The other day a guy I know who is about 2 years younger (43) than me and makes $60K per year (as so stated by him) with no kids, no house was bitching about how the world makes it impossible to live on a single income. My friend and I, one of whom is a teacher and makes about $60K, scoffed at that notion. My family is a single income. My kid plays hockey, I have a house, etc. We are doing fine. Yes I make more than him, but I don't make that much more than him. My teacher friend, single family income, has two kids, one of them at University of Rochester. The point is... the friend bitching can be found at the bar or a restaurant for every meal. He probably spends on average $100 a day if not more on such things. Fair? It's his spending that is in question, not how much he's earning.

You seemingly took that far more personally than it was intended. I'm not questioning anything about your statements or predictions. I'm legitimately curious. (and also concerned about your mental health!)

Good stuff..

This season is going to be interesting. I'm almost more interested in seeing how accurate you are over what the Sabres do. I have a fear that if they actually play well that your head may explode. So, there is a downside to this exercise. If they fail as you predict, then your depression will take greater hold. Hmmm, is there a possible positive outcome to this? ? The psychology of sport will certainly be an aspect of the team next season.

I had this in the quoted queue before you posted the one below. Thanks for the link and I'll comment on double taxation below. However, it has nothing to do with the "party of lower taxes" which is a point I also made. This is the doing of all parties. So, to dig this point further. The demarcation point of "double taxation" is the entity that taxes the income. That's fair. I look even deeper and see that a certain percentage of my income is pre-defined within each entities combined taxation rate as a tax for a particular purpose (medicare, SS, etc.) So, in theory my income is being taxed more than double. My initial reading of double tax is like reading an EBITDA. Operating Expense and Capital Expense both draw from the same revenue, however they are not double expenses, just different expenses. Yes, but at the same time, the Democratic party has been more in favor of government programs which are funded upon taxes which does create a redistribution of wealth. It's not specifically taking money from one person's pocket to another, but it is taking money from one person's pocket and not allowing them a choice on where it gets used. If taxes only funded the government that would be one thing. However, government programs deliver financial assistance to people and that is what I would certainly consider redistribution of wealth.

It's all good. It's personal taste. I find him rather funny in this and other things. Some people find Jim Breuer funny... I can't stand him.

Well, you've got your head up a chicken's arse, so I'm not sure you are an authority on where things should go OR what is unfunny. ?

"They" are not double taxing us. The Republican led Federal Government is taxing us. The Democrat led State Government is taxing us. It is paying two taxes, but it's not double. There's a difference. Like if I have an apple and a carrot. I have two items, but not double of anything. Also.. this system has existed forever, so it's really not something you can attribute to the "party of lower taxes" can you?

This seemed like the best place to put this...

Not really sure I am following you. The federal government is only taxing us once. The state government taxes us once. NYS could find a more creative way of dealing with this.

Beyond the other items, having NO parties creates a logistical nightmare. For any given election how do you limit the ballot? Who is allowed in a debate? There are a litany of items that would need some realistic limit or else they would be rendered useless and thus hindering the system more.

So, their best hope of an argument is that $10,000 is not equally applied to States due to their varying tax rates. If the Federal Government instead said you are capped at 80% deduction that would be "equal". Of course be careful what you wish for... if you want pure states rights then the Federal Government should stipulate that 0% of your state taxes are deductible.

Very possibly. Frankly, if the masses aren't educated they are easier to control. That topic isn't really pertinent to this thread except that I believe education is underfunded as potentially one way to keep people from questioning government. A clear side effect of that is the impact to those who still try to educate children.

As a registered independent... I despise both the Democratic and Republican parties for the twits they keep putting up for office. I welcome a much broader spectrum than the pseudo-factional Elephants and Donkeys. As for why we don't look past the two party system? We suck, as a population. We can't use our brains to process options. We hate them. People, honestly, don't want to think. If you had to present a third side to an argument, let alone a fourth or a fifth, the entire conversation would be ignored. People can't handle it because it takes time away from worrying about their next status symbol purchase or what mindless television show to watch. Imagine the news spending 10 minutes explaining 5 different party solutions to a problem. People would turn it off. That said, I wish people wouldn't. I wish they would be more interested in how the country operates than spending 16 hours binge-watching a television show. I wish the media would actually spend time introducing alternate viewpoints. There are plenty of third party sites on the Internet, but until mainstream media picks it up, there's no chance of people being interested. I was excited when CNN actually held Libertarian town hall meetings. I think it was a step in the right direction (even if it had been some socialist party instead of Libertarian). Debates need to have multiple parties involved as well. This would open the eyes of people. I believe it would also lessen the attack responses that the two party system invites in which a candidate never answers what they would do, they only tell you what the other candidate can't or won't do. It's much harder if there are 5 people on stage. All in all, introducing a wider spectrum of viewpoints into society and thus into Congress would be great. It would or should make the government a bit more central thinking.

SAVAGE! ?

Stats are cool... I'm way more interested in the mental aspects of the game. 78.62% of the game is mental, the rest is emotion.... or something. And this avatar is bugging me... I need to find inspiration for the next one.

Well, the standards for news organizations may be higher in what they report, but not necessarily in what they choose to not report. I'm not sure any news outlet is really interested in reporting the truth as much as they are in supporting a narrative. Certainly a news organization is held to a higher standard than a single person, but that standard is still pretty low these days.

Based on your response I have now read more background on the project and see that even the reference to the lead character is flawed as it chooses to use the female name as opposed to the name Gill went by. (Using Jean Marie rather than Dante "Tex"). The soldier discussion wasn't about the hundreds of extras. It's about leading characters playing the part of a military person. It's not a perfect example (and I wanted to stay away from race). Let's try this another way and perhaps make it a more interesting question. With transgender people stating that only transgender people should play a transgender role, then is the reverse logic also supported? Should transgender people be allowed to play the role of a non-transgender person? Assume this is not talking about roles where there is no romantic involvement such that the sexuality of a character is not remotely relevant to the film. Always curious how that works...