LTS

I would envision a lot of what we saw last year when it comes to Eichel. He'll be expected to carry the puck or receive the breakout pass out of the zone. He'll carry it and he will either get a shot off or he will take the puck deep into the zone where he will look to feed his teammates who trail the play. In this case Thompson who might actually put the puck in the net. It's not about keeping up with Eichel. It's about being able to be in position once Eichel has determined if he can or cannot beat the defense. As much as Eichel likes to shoot, he's an incredible passer and having a player with a prognosticated "elite" shot is hopefully the answer.

And yet.. if you look at the BMI matrix... 185 is smack dab in the ideal weight for 6'3. 23.1 in fact. The real question is how much his mass is bone versus muscle at this point. My guess, being Scandanavian, is that he has higher bone mass. So he will put on muscle mass as he begins his workouts. I was 6'3 185lbs my senior year in high school.

Is is extremely high. My point was that if you tax them enough they move. What is their incentive to stay? Eventually the "poor" are left trying to milk each other for money. Eventually they have to lift themselves up. The system, as it stands now, is designed to reduce the chance people have to succeed. Either it's one side that wants to make everyone reliant upon the government to provide (no self-motivation) or it's the other side that wants to make the resources to succeed available only to those who can afford it. Those with the means are the first ones to leave an unfavorable situation. If a company starts to struggle and people think there will be layoffs, the people who jump ship first are the most talented. Once they leave the company struggles even more to be successful... cue downward spiral and self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at the report this week about Rochester. It's lost 16,000 people from 2010 to 2017. There are a lot of reasons why Rochester is shrinking. First, NYS is shrinking, largely because of its tax laws and other anti-business regulations. Rochester, which was built on multi-national corporations, is shrinking because many of those people recognize that and have the ability to move. Rochester also has its own anti-business mentality which compounds the problem. Point is, there's a tipping point at which the willingness to pay the tax is exceeded and people move. This changes the taxation value from that constituent to zero. The proper solution is trying to build everyone up, not bring everyone down. As I said, I'm dangerously close to moving, at a minimum out of state, and more likely out of the country. I have a few friends who already have moved out of the country and many more who have moved out of state.

Unions have the potential to be very good. They also have the potential to be very bad. It's pretty much the same as management. If you have a management structure that is hell bent on screwing its workers then you probably need a union to counteract them. The problem is that it creates an adversarial relationship, which by its own definition, is less than efficient. Two sides spend time fighting each other rather than working towards a common goal. My father and I used to bang heads on this all the time. He was in a Union and I would routinely see him get screwed over by the Union. There were a lot of single guys who didn't care if they were on strike. Other, more experienced workers with families, had major concern. So, we routinely suffered the months of no income as the two sides had meetings and ate their meals and yucked it up. My experience was not positive and by the end of his tenure with the company the routine had worn thin. Eventually the company was sold, and sold again, and sold again. He managed to retire during one of the transitions but it was no fun. I've never been in a Union. I never needed to be in one. I don't feel like I get screwed over. That said, I am aware of situations where without Unions people would be screwed over. I've worked hard enough to make sure I would not need to be in a Union. I've worked to make sure that I didn't fall into that situation that my father was in. So for me, my view of Unions isn't very positive. That said, I recognize for others that without them they might have had it worse.

There's no intent to sound unaccepting in what I am about to say, I just don't know any other way to say it. Male parts are male parts and female parts are female parts. They are fundamentally different and via biology are designated as such. Biologically, if you have the parts then you fulfill that role in nature. You can call it anything you like but they'd never be called the same. Tab A, Slot B, whatever. Now, assigning any additional meaning to how life is supposed to be lived, whether someone wants to trade in their parts, etc. That's all up for the spectrum of behavior and modification. If a person goes out and trades in their parts then they are getting female parts or male parts. It is what it is. You walk in and say I need a #### then you get a ####. You can't walk in and ask for a #### and get a ######. So, there is an identity associated with the parts.

Well, I think as it was outlined in the isidewith.. the Libertarian party is the party I MOSTLY associate with... but not strongly. 56% I believe? I would argue that the markets are already rigged. The preferred form of government by the Libertarian party is one that allows people their own freedom to pursue their interests as they best see fit. It however, does not extend to allowing corporations to ruin the environment. I think that Libertarians would accept nearly no government so long as people could hold themselves responsible. (People running corporations included). That said, the realization is that it's not going to happen. So, government must exist and it won't necessarily be miniscule. The following quotes are from the party website. The argument is that much of the government regulatory atmosphere is unnecessary and unproductive. I happen to agree with that. It doesn't say that no regulations should exist. "Libertarians believe that the only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected." In summary, Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation.

Wonder if Vegas trades Karlsson for Karlsson? ?

Thanks. All good stuff. A great post without a doubt. Also key to point out that cutting and pasting things into this forum is so much easier than before. It might be the thing I like the most about it.

I love this response. I am 100% serious. It gives us discussion points. It's much better than the single line response from before. If the government is made of the people, and people decide how the government operates, then why hasn't the government already allowed capital to rule us? Why is it, if people are left to their own devices, that you believe capital will run amok but if those same people form MORE government that they don't create laws that allow capital to run amok? Right now, as a business, I only need to focus on a handful of people in the government who can influence others to create rules that make it easier for my business to dominate the market. This has been true under Democratic and Republican led Presidencies and Congresses. If the government does not pass laws to protect the business then the business must win the influence of the people. That's a much harder job. In your definition of LIbertarianism you take away the requirement of the government to serve the people, not the business. Serving the people means that you pass a rule that says you can't dump toxic waste into lakes. You reference that LIbertarianism would enable price-fixing. Yet the government currently engages in that practice. It creates false price floors. It subsidizes businesses. It interferes with the natural balance. Liberty and Libertarianism does not mean no laws. It means less laws. There are libertarians who want to operate without any restrictions. There are Republicans who want the same as well as Democrats. They are all bad for society. Shall we coin a new form? The Moral Libertarian? I don't operate without morals. These passages as you quote are certainly shortsighted and do not account for many of the undesirable outcomes of the concept of "owning a child". I'm not sure how many LIbertarians sign up for this concept.

As you said though, it does not account for the other 3 schmucks on the ice right? Is it reasonable to assume that the forward pairings would even out somewhat over the course of the season such that it still allows for meaningful comparison?

I'm glad you are showing yourself out the door to be honest. It's clear you are not attempting to understand any concept of this and instead are hard fast in some ill-conceived notions of what is being discussed. Instead, rather than discuss the concept of Libertarianism you've chosen to insult anyone attempting to explain it and do so using analogies, associations, and terms that are flat out incorrect. As a last resort, I will throw this out for your brain to chew on. Reducing competition is not a concept that only applies to business. It's not even a human concept. Limiting competition is a core tenet in the laws of nature. When you are forced to compete you are forced to expend more resources than if you did not have to compete. Trees grow taller not only to insure that they get the most sun but also to insure that no plant within their area gets it. This is reducing competition. Weeds and grass engage in a perennial battle to see which will have control of my lawn. When two plants are on an equal enough playing ground that neither can snuff the other out because the amount of resources it takes is too great, then they coexist. This is also true of plants that do not compete with each other but are instead compatible with each other. The last statement I will make is that working to reduce competition is not equal to not allowing competition and that's something you don't seem to have grasped. Companies, people, plants, animals all work to reduce competition. None of them stop competition from happening however. That's what a government does.

Yeah... you can use it. When he was convicted the song pretty much went away immediately. The court of public opinion didn't look favorably on its use.

Limiting competition is what a business should do. The goal of being successful is to limit competition. Your examples from earlier in history aren't exactly the best, but we can roll with that. Still, to believe those corporations were not empowered by governmental regulation is misguided. To your third point.... if I were currently single, I would have left this country by now. The thing people don't ever want to acknowledge is that the political system of the United States is not the system of the World. Taxing the rich works to a certain point, until they decide to move. We talk about the impacts of taxation within the discussion what how much NHL players get to keep and how that may play into their decision making. They are still confined to the NHL to make the most money playing hockey. Business leaders are hardly confined to the US. If you tap that well too much, it dries up. Finally, if part of the Libertarian movement is an emphasis on social liberalism why do you state that it reduces society to economics? If you put money in the pocket of someone who acts in ways against how you believe they should act you are a hypocrit. You are supporting the corporation. The real question is how strongly do you believe in what you want them to do? If you ultimately cave and go spend money there then your complaint falls on deaf ears. The same is true with the Sabres. You continue to support the product. You complain about them, but if you really, honestly, were that concerned, you wouldn't support them. High speed Internet is a bad example. Governments have control over who gets franchise licensing. They also control the build out of poles on which cables can be run. So, they've instilled multiple layers through which competitors must operate in order to begin to offer you service. If it were inherently free, then corporations would prop up poles and lines everywhere. Of course that presents a societal issue so the government must get involved. I am sure there's someone surprised at me saying that, but it's true. Internet access are like roadways and you can't have two corporations attempting to operate roadways over the same path. It doesn't work. (also the same with Ma Bell back from Sabel79's post).

You can't use Gary Glitter songs anymore. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/05/gary-glitter-guilty-child-sex-offences Pretty much took his music out of rotation.

In other news... I was confused about the Elon Musk reference. No clarification has been given. Am I supposed to not like the guy? https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/elon-musk-has-an-idea-for-saving-boys-stranded-in-a-thailand-cave/#p3 Just curious...

#15 isn't a number befitting a Captain. #9 most certainly is.

This is perhaps the problem. Objectivism is not Libertarianism. Moreover, Objectivism is the not about being self-serving above all. I've been called an objectivist before and I don't necessarily deny it. Except when people misinterpret what I interpret as objectvism. Defined: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand , Appendix to Atlas Shrugged My own happiness as the moral purpose of my life does not mean that I am only concerned with myself. If supporting a cause makes me happy then I should do that. If putting up a 12 foot wall makes me happy, I should do that. No one should stand in the way of it. Digging in deeper, I believe we all owe the planet our existence. We are visitors of this land and need to care and respect for it. No one person is more important than another. We are all parts of a larger machine. Each insignificant but combined are important. That's not the case. Libertarianism should not guarantee anyone will benefit from anything more than having equal capacity to benefit. Each person is responsible for their level of benefit and can choose to assist others (or not) as they see fit. Again, this concept that every person who wants individual freedom will choose to ignore their fellow person is difficult to grasp. This assumption that we are all inherently greedy is inaccurate at best. It does not necessarily indicate an increase in choice. It simply removes constraints over what we are compelled to do against our will. It does not assume there will be no taxation. It does not call for a lack of government. It calls for the amount of government that allows society to operate without telling each person how to live. To your first point, every political ideology has altered over time to address the constant state of change of society. Libertarianism is not about no government. The only system that advocates for no rules is anarchy. Being a hard-core small government conservative might imply that you are against same sex marriage, abortion, and other non-conservative ideals. You might be against the legalization of drugs. A libertarian is not going to be against those concepts because they are not for any one person to dictate over another. You refusing to see that is a refusal to see Libertarianism as a spectrum of ideals. There may be some who are hardcore Constitutionalists and are really nothing more than small government conservatives. They are not libertarians. As to your second point... a business doesn't build barriers, a government does. What is a business going to do to limit competition if not supported by some regulation? The business is beholden to its customers. If people don't support the business, it doesn't succeed. If people support a business, then they give up their right to complain about how the business operates. Based on your third point I am beginning to get the sense that you feel government is supposed to protect people from themselves. These "safety nets" are put in place to keep people from having to worry about how to live their lives. It also makes them 100% reliant on the government. The government shall provide. The fallacy of that argument is that the government creates value. Governments don't create value. They are a negative. They are necessary overhead for the operation of society. What has routinely happened over the last 40 years is that people have been made ignorant. They've been made compliant to the government. So much so that any thought of reducing governmental control is frightening. Why? Because it means that those who didn't bother to educate themselves and work harder to achieve will suddenly find the hill to success much higher. We live in a culture now that believes over-spending on college tuition is a good idea. That going into debt (to your government) is somehow a smart move. We don't teach responsibility. We teach people not to think, and certainly not to question. The lack of problem solving skills demonstrated by my children and their friends is something I find quite disturbing. It's not that they aren't polished, they simply don't exist. Don't confuse that with kids not being taught. They are being educated, they just aren't being taught to think. There's a long history of corporate control of our government system. This has been built by both Republicans and Democrats, each whittling away from their respective ends of the spectrum. So much so that people are afraid to think of alternatives.. they only think in shades of red and blue when green is staring them in the face.

Suck eh? I get the same crap when I demonstrate that I can talk in depth about beer. People assume I am a beer snob as opposed to just educated.

Your true colors... shining through. ?

Yes, I just read it as public schools but I understand your viewpoint. As for the abstract art question, it was odd, but it may have statistical relevance to how you view what others should think and like. For example, if you believe it's not art but don't care if other people do you might trend in one direction as opposed to not believing it's art and telling others that it is not. If, for example, you are debating a government bill that funded the NEA and someone was using abstract art as an example of why to NOT fund the NEA, that question might indicate which way you would lean on the topic. I don't think it's impossible. There are people who make millions of dollars who give a lot of it away. They support the fiscally conservative methods of making money but want to use that money to improve society. If, on the other hand, you take more of their money away from them and the government decides where it goes, they will have less money to give to the causes they want to support. Interesting take. Reading the commentary on #walkaway it seems many people believe that is exactly what the Democratic party is doing. I would agree with them as well. The Republican party is doing the same thing. They prey on the fears of their constituents about losing their guns and God while using that to make rules that allow corporations to relocate and cause those same people to lose their jobs... not keep them as they thought. Because, in the end, they are all greedy. They are only looking out for themselves. There are libertarians who would certainly do that, but the underlying premise is that they are free to do it if they so choose. Whereas others are free to support other initiatives that would help immigrants, or religious organizations, or people who want to carry guns, or people who want a health insurance plan that caters to them. They can choose to support it because their money is theirs to spend. Just because they might not spend it on what you think they should spend it on does not make them evil. After all, you might not spend your money on what they think you should spend your money on.

I can assure you I am not a liberal. Why do you think I am? I'd say the isidewith nailed me pretty good. I am quite liberal in my social views, but I don't support many liberal viewpoints and certainly don't support many of the proposed methods that liberals would choose to attain certain situations.

So, I donate money to charity and I don't even have a fence. Would I donate more money to charity if I was paying less taxes? I'd like to think the answer is yes. I can't say for sure because I don't have that money to give. Instead I pay school taxes into a failing education system. I pay sales tax to help support the corrupt NYS government. I pay Social Security into a system that is going bankrupt and the $300 that was taken out of my paycheck in 2000 will be worth exactly $1.50 when I am able to collect it. My federal income tax supports the largest army in the world and the industrial complex behind it that is used to cater to the business whims of people who transcend political parties. This is why I hate paying those taxes. The money isn't being used to improve the country I live in. It's being used to support the business dealings of those who control government officials. Those officials being both Republican and Democrat. You cannot legislate humanity. You cannot legislate caring. Those who want to segregate themselves from others will always find a way to do so. You can't prevent it. The best course of action is to work to shrink those groups to the point where segregation makes no sense. So if some guy wants to build a 12 foot wall around his property. Let him. It's his right. He gets to live the lonely life. As for stuffing the money under their mattresses... they have to earn it first. Making money requires performing services for others. If people who don't want to support a guy who lives in a house with a 12 foot wall don't support him. He won't have the money to build his wall or at the very least maintain it. Not buying stuff, not supporting things is tough. It takes personal responsibility. It's usually at that point most people don't want to have to blame themselves for their own weakness and they want the government to intervene. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/05/626090518/faa-to-scrunched-passengers-sardine-seats-won-t-be-regulated?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180705 As I was perusing the news I came across that link. I think it's a good subject on which to digress. I don't think the federal government should be bothered with regulating seat sizes. I think the general public should publicize which airlines treat customers right and which do not. They should choose to not support those who mistreat customers. If your local airport supports that airlines, then don't support that airport. Encourage advertisers to not support that airport. At some point an airline executive is going to think, wow... if we charge a bit more for a slightly larger seat I bet we would get a lot of passengers. They'd probably be right. All of this is tough. People don't like the concept of not flying (in this case) or not supporting a cell phone company, or anything else. Because we are so materialistic in this world and we feel like we HAVE TO HAVE things. We are trained to try and live beyond our means. Why do credit cards even exist? How often have you heard someone say, "I can't live without X". The key to all of this is to tell you that you now know at least one libertarian who doesn't want a 12 foot wall around his property and donates to charity. Just because I want the freedom to choose how to live my life and where I spend my money doesn't mean that I won't support others who struggle to live their lives. It does mean that I don't have to... just as I would not expect someone to support me in a time of need unless they wanted to do so. Of course if we live our lives working to make those around us better then there's a greater chance someone wants to help in a time of need.

So, what you are saying is that greed will ultimately overtake the thinking of a libertarian? Curious how does that work? Greed is a trait only libertarians have?

The reason I wouldn't is simply that both Donald and Hillary are beholden to their parties and special interests that, when closely scrutinized, are not very different from each other. They are cut from the same reversible cloth and that cloth is horrible quality. There are good Republican and Democrat representatives. Unfortunately they never get to the important roles in the party. I cannot support them because as an independent I am not allowed to vote in primaries. But I would not have voted for Jill Stein. I read some of the tweets. I think it's interesting, especially about being exploited. Here's the thing, Republicans do the same exploitation of their supporters as well. If Walking Away from the Democratic Party means that you feel you need to walk to the Republican party then you are just choosing to be slapped by the right hand rather than the left. It may take awhile for the pain to become unbearable in the other cheek, at which point you think going back to the Democratic Party will be the answer. In the end, you die having only been beaten up by two side of the same political machine.

Well, technically he's correct. If you are not there as a lobbyist you don't get defined as being part of the swamp. But yeah... I'm not sure it matters. ?