HopefulFuture

I would move Ehrhoff for Campbell in a larger swap for the 1st overall 2014. At least that cap hit would offset some of the cost, but not as much as I'd like as Florida has cap space. Would be an interesting discussion on such a deal though. i concur. And I agree with your statement on TM not going after Spezza. I think he does have a great deal of respect for him. I do wonder will Spezza will end up, another great twist to this off season.

It is rather funny that most of the bottom tier teams are on that list, except Buffalo. You think TM's presence as GM here has something to do with that?

Yea, I just copied and pasted it then highlighted the 2 I'd like to see the Sabres get this draft. I was leaning Bennett, and used to state such, what changed my mind was reading up on Reinhart's hockey sense and ice vision. Seems to be a clear playmaker there and something that could really help our snipers pot the puck in the net. Of course, those snipers have to position themselves to do so :) Ehlers on the other hand, I just recently caught some video of him, love the kids speed, just love it. Speed kills, as they say. Murray's comments about moving back up into the 1st round, I'm so hoping he'd also like to get that speed on the roster in the future.

Kim Pegula is the stronger tie to the WNY. Having been born and raised here unlike her husband, Terry, who fell in love with the French Connection and the Sabres. I have no doubts about the future of the Sabres, Bills (should they purchase them) and the Rochester Americans.

I say Reinhart, Ekblad, Bennett, Draisaitl, Ehlers, Dal Colle and Nylander. Yes please to the 2 in red.

lol, ah, ok. Still, that kid does show some amazing speed, at least in his highlight video's I watched.

Just caught some video of this prospect named Ehlers. I forget who does the drive-by postings in threads on Ehlers, I have to say, I'm on board. I'd like Buffalo to trade back up into the top 10 and get him, he seems like the perfect player to bring into this organization. Here is the link where I saw the video of him. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2014/NHL-Draft-Profiles/Nikolaj-Ehlers He is quick, reminds me of a Briere/Afino cross breed with work ethic. Who ever the poster is that was on this guy from the get go, way to stay ahead of the curve here.

Hagel is getting owned by Forbes in the house cmte hearings right now. No assessment of risk to US lives if these detainees rejoin the fight and we have to back after them? WTF? That is complete incompetents on the part of both the President, who is the Commander and Chief and his immediate subordinates. How the hell do you not take that into consideration and attempt to plan ahead? And not that I disagree with prisoner exchanges during war, because others have rightly pointed out, prisoner exchanges are a part of history, but to do no homework on post exchange release risk is just straight out dumb.

Good back and forth today Campy, better than what I'm used to, no offense to anyone else, a couple others were very good as well, shrader and d4rk. Look all, I know I come off as a "know it all" or as arrogant. Please do not take my unwavering stance on the Constitution or other subjects as things I spew without thinking first or with an air of entitlement of such thorough knowledge. I'm not the best at wording, hence the copy and paste from time to time. But in the end, my rock is responsibility and accountability and especially at the governing levels. I am utterly and completely astounded by the apathetic approach by most of our citizens as to what has happened to our nation, and I'm not referring to the "golden years", I'm referring to the common sense approach to facts and what is right and what is wrong. It's clear to me, through common sense that many I converse with do not even know the basis for their own existence as what is known as "Americans". It's just way to important to not know that where we came from and how we came into existence is as equally as important as to where we are or where we are going as a people. To cast off or throw aside the values of the founders the way I have seen here is to flirt with disaster. Whether or not you like these men, the fact remains they were well beyond their years when forming this nation. Just a fantastic study of their writings, thoughts and ideas that quite honestly not nearly enough of our educational time is spent on. I've said it often, and I'll keep saying it, freedom isn't free. You have to stay vigilant and constantly guard those freedoms. Take a good hard, long look at our governing bodies from municipal on up through to the Federal level and you'll find corruption running wild in a good portion of them, it's our responsibility as citizens to stay on top of it, especially at the Federal level where the gravest threat comes from when it comes to our individual rights and freedoms. signing off on this thread for a bit, god speed and good luck in the political realm all, I'll catch up with this one around the 16 elections ;)

Oh no, this is a good discussion. It should show those not fully aware just what our governments role has been in the mess in the middle east in a little more detail, if they weren't already aware anyways. Yes, the Afghan support is part and parcel of the anti-American sentiment, but it wasn't until Bin Laden warned of US forces on the Peninsula that an edict to attack America came down. If the Saud's would have let Bin Laden take on Saddam, things may have been different. Bush, Cheney and the large Petro players were not about to leave the fate of the Peninsula's oil reserves hinge on that. There is another fiasco in it's own right. We support a secular tyrant in the region against the Iranians in Saddam and basically give him the weapons he utilized not only against those Iranians but against the kurds, his own people, at least nationally speaking and no one expected blow back regionally, population wise or for that matter, even religiously. I contend the Islamic world has seen the worst of what the American government can be, and by extension it's citizens, meaning us, since we put these leaders in power. I can't blame the way the feel. I have to use common sense and look at it from their point of view. We've done very little in the way of good over there. Unfortunately, most times these facts are lost in heated conversations or, and this is the saddest thing I've seen, a good portion of the American populace are ignorant to these facts.

Agree completely on the test run in Syria, but I don't state it started with Iran, merely that it's where the roots of dissent toward America is. Remember, the Syria situation isn't a true rallying call in the area, Iran is. Same can be said of the Persian Gulf war for Al-Qaeda, but then again, Americans were being attacked long before that conflict emerged.

Once we treat them as POWs we are, in affect, recognizing them as enemy combatants, not illegal combatants. Which I'm of the opinion they should be. Sending them back to their native nations to face justice no matter the outcome of those proceedings is also what I stated I was of the opinion we should do. When I was asked what my position was by Glass, that option isn't on the table. Sending these individuals to spend a year in Qatar isn't sending them back to face justice, it's giving them a way station with a small amount of time then allowing them to go where they wish, to rejoin the fight against my fellow citizens in theaters of military operations or worse, allowing them to plot attacks against the homeland. But, as I must say again, there is also a very good chance that if they were returned to their native lands to face justice, they may be set free anyways. It really is a no win situation when put in that context.

No argument here. I concur. Lead by example.

Absolutely d4rk. this I can agree with. I actually put most of the fault on the British Empire of the 1800's since they were the larger of the 2 colonial powers that dissected up the region and separated obvious cultures into different nations The Kurds are a good example of this.

Well, there is 2 separate conversations going on. One is directly tied to the detainees the other is tied to the 2nd amendment. These detainees that are not US citizens are not afforded the rights of the Constitution of the United States of America since they are not citizens. As my conversations on the Constitution have been firm and unwavering from the outset, I pointed out the founders statements on the document and have backed it up factually. I've never stated that those god given rights should, could or would be extended to non US citizens, once again, merely pointing out while being called on that particular subject factual information. As for the detainees themselves, I think I've stated quite clearly, it's a fight to the finish, I'd rather we were on the winning side of that fight. I see it no other way based on the stated goal of Al-Qaeda and it's affiliates is to destroy America and kill as many Americans as possible, which, my family, friends and myself happen to be. I've never debated whether or not it was law. Others are doing that. I'm merely stating what is widely known on the founders intentions of this nations founding. My original statement was that the founders believe these rights were god given, and, there is historical context to back that factual assertion up. Whether or not I hand type or copy and paste is an after thought, the facts do not change.

By establishing a republic, our Founding Fathers declared "unalienable" rights for each individual that cannot be altered by civil laws. The government of the United States was created by the Constitution, which transferred 17 limited powers to the national government of the new "Republic." The Founding Fathers added a common law attachment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, which further clarified and limited the intended powers of government. Man's laws are known as civil law, from the Latin root word civilus, meaning citizen. Bouvier's Law Dictionary states, "the civil law is what a people establishes for itself." In a democracy there is no such thing as a natural right also know as God-given right, since laws can be passed to control, limit or eliminate anything. In a democracy there are "civil rights" established by civil law which are, legally speaking, civil privileges granted by man's government. Yet today government can and does pass laws as it pleases without limitation and control. The laws of government now clearly override the natural rights of American individuals. America is no longer a republic. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to clarify that "unalienable rights," which existed before government was formed, could not and would not be "infringed" by the federal government in any way. But, as many of the Founding Fathers warned, the Bill of Rights has been trampled by the unchallenged power of the government of the United States. Ah yes, the Treaty of Barbary. I figured this would come up. Here is some great historical context from the founders themselves: Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…" Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me. Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged. The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government. Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation. This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated: "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation". In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.' It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion. When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.

Yea, completely agree Campy. Some very sound reasoning in your posts, and I've agreed with that course for as long as I can remember. I look at our governments role in this region of the world Hatred toward America truly has it's roots in the middle east from 1953 on. The over throw of an elected government that led to the installment of Shah, who's abuses to his people for 25+ years of actual rule. Iranian politics put aside for a moment, that incident was the first recognized as meddling by America in the middle east where people suffered at the hands of that meddling. There are of course many more examples of our government meddling in middle eastern nations internal affairs and various reasons are given for such, but the common person on the street of these nations for the most part could care less about those reasons, they see America as an evil empire and some of these cases, they'd have every right to view it as such. These situations combined with the modern day movement by groups to form true Islamic states, regardless of how these individual groups view Islam itself, is something that's been fostering for some generations now. I can't see a christian founded nation changing the over all view of an area of the world dominated by Islam, these battles date back to the crusades for one reason or another. The best course of action was to never entangle ourselves, hind sight is of course, 20/20.

You don't have to like my assertion of the founders factually written documentation of the first 10 amendments. But in the same token, you don't have to feel anger toward myself and millions of other law abiding gun owning Americans that had no part in the tragedies that have taken place in these recent years. If you want to vent your anger toward these tragedies, if the perp's are still alive, go rant at them, if they are dead, go rant at their grave sites if that makes you feel any better.

And I would agree with that sentiment. It's not something we, as a nation with different values, are going to change. It's up to the population with that ideology to change it, and that ideology and culture have been around much much longer than this Republic we live in has. That is why I state that this war is going to go on for generations. I have to point out once again, just because we pull out of Afghanistan in no way shape or form mean this war is over. Well, we've never faced a war of this nature before. I'm not stating they don't deserve to be treated humanely, but the moment the take up arms against the US, the nation where I happen to live and be a citizen of, they are taking up arms against me. I think I'll differ from you on this view point, I like life and if keeping POWs for as long as this battle wages, then so be it. As I stated earlier Glass, this is a fight to the finish, I'd rather it be us (meaning myself as well) then them. I don't make that decision openly vengeful or any other of that nonsense, I see it as it is. They would do anything they can to kill me, my family, my friends, my countrymen, I'm not on board with that, if that offends some I really don't give a dam, the ability to draw breathe means something to me, in any event.

Well Glass, these are very good questions. And to be honest, I've thought on them for a while. There would most certainly have to be an addition to International Law and since terrorism is a true international war, with multiple nation states fighting against an ideology, The Hague is where tribunals should be held. I agree that ethics must prevail. In the end though I don't want to push the Western Ideology on anyone. These groups have to come to terms with their own code of ethics that emulates human rights. By all accounts, this most recent situation, it sounds as though Bergdhal was treated humanely, however, it must be noted, beheadings, torture of American service personnel and other atrocities to civilians have been reported and known to have happened by some of the groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda either directly or indirectly. That isn't going to change over night, nor is it going to change in our life time. It is culture. Honor killings, while disgusting to myself for the ease with which a human life is lost is a natural part of some cultures. We, as a nation, didn't say squat about them when happening in those nations that allow them. When it became a talking point to demonize a culture it was all the rave. That is self-serving, to me in any event. How many would have to be put into POW camps? How long can it be sustained? Those answers lay in the culture of those we fight. For now, if keeping them until the war ends (which would mean a life sentence) is the norm in all conflicts, then so be it. If it saves one American life, it's worth it. Of course, the opposite affect of this would be the obvious strengthening of the enemies ranks as they make such a policy a rallying call, but then again, judging by the enemies actions to date, it doesn't matter, they have plenty of rallying calls already.

That would be correct. Oh, and I do not subscribe to Al-Qaeda as being illegal combatants as described in article 4 of the Geneva Convention. They may not wear a badge on their sleeves but they do have a structured Command in their ranks.

At first glance, it appears that way, doesn't it. But then, if it were that simple, why didn't the releases take place as I question, in the early part of Obama's first term. What information was he briefed on that made that not happen. You question the overall scenario, I question the details. My line of thought is this, 9/11 was an act of war. As such, the prisoners from the Afghan campaign should be held until the end of the war. If the war hasn't ended and they die POW's, so be it, it's happened in all wars, this one is no different in that respects. You asked for my solution, that's the legally correct one in accordance with the Geneva Convention. How does this particular war end? This is the real question, and one neither Bush nor Obama or anyone around them can answer, because they are fully aware of what I already am, they aren't fighting a governing body, they are fighting an ideology and there in lay the real dilemma. So, my post earlier, which appeared like a rant, was actually structured to show the truth for what it is. To me, Gitmo could have been the Florence, Colorado Supermax prison, it wouldn't matter the location, they are Prisoners of War. Were they mistreated? You know, throughout this particular conversation, no ones asked me if I felt if it was right or wrong to torture these individuals for information. I can only assume that is because I'm a Constitutionalists, and as posters here are aware of this they would expect me to respond by saying the United States of America needs to honor it's treaty obligations including the Geneva Convention. And ya know something, they'd be right in that I would.

Well, not largely. he's turning them over for political expedience. It was a campaign pledge of his, and, you'll be surprised, one I agreed with to a large extent. Gitmo was a Bush creation and was a stain on the nation. Oh, and the 16 election approaching, wouldn't it be nice for Hillary, who happens to be in the same political party, have a nice talking point on how much democrats have done to end the abuses of the Republican encroachment on rights. But then again, Obama didn't take office and make it happen by 2010, oh no, he waits until mid term of his last 4 years to truly start the process. Stinks of politics. He's not turning over the detainees for justice in their own nations, which is what I point to. Every nation should have the responsibility to impose justice on them, unfortunately, many of the nations these individuals come from are barely stable or using tyranny to control their populations, So, the US keeps them so as to not upset the apple cart. And what of individuals such as KSM, the mastermind behind the 9/11 planning? Do you honestly believe he could get a fair trial here in the states after he committed an act of war on the nation? I don't. Military tribunal? The US government is incapable of honesty, don't trust that route either. How about the Hague? That would require giving up information that the US sees as national security information and as such should not be seen by anyone but a few.

As I stated, turn them over to their respective nations. Including Afghanistan. I see no difference between future battle field combatants and the current ones. Here's a list of the detainees from last year. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/u-s-releases-names-of-indefinite-detainees-at-guantanamo/

i never said you did, the conversation flowed this way on the previous page. My post was to MILFHUNTER meant as a half hearted joke since MILF points out the liberal side of it, and it's not the first time of put in a quip like this in this thread. My post even quotes MILF. You were the one that responded directly after about drinking. I don't believe we should be detaining anyone outside of Al-Qaeda, those that are American citizens in that organization can be afforded the Constitutional rights. Those that aren't US citizens can be turned over to their respective nations for justice. What difference would it make if they let them go, we are, in effect, doing the same thing. As I said, this is a war, but not against any governed nation, it's a war against an ideology, and it's not going to end anytime soon.