LaFontaineToMogilny

It's hard for me to see what you are implying

I am now firmly in favor of losing the entire season

So, both sides are hellbent on cracking each other and tomorrow they will start canceling games. It's beyond ridiculous and laughable. I have recently come to a realization that has made the whole situation much easier to deal with: While I do watch hockey to watch the players and not the owners, it's the jersey that is the most important. I like the Sabres, simple as that. But, as much as I love watching the Sabres, the real love is the love I have for the game of hockey. That is not going anywhere, and luckily, neither is hockey. If the league and players dig in so deep as to miss a season or two, even fold all together, there will still be hockey. There's juniors, college hockey, European leagues and beer leagues. I'll be fine without the NHL. I'll be fine without the Sabres. A few months ago this seemed liked an impossible stand for me, so much of my life is tied in together with my irrational love for the Buffalo Sabres, yet here we are. I am ready to turn my back on the whole thing, go ahead NHL test my resolve. Cancel the season, cancel two or three. Fold the whole damned thing. I guess I have just had enough.

Sepp Blatter makes me religious. He's the type of man I hope will face eternal torment.

The show is best when they talk about non NHL hockey. I would still like to hear from Division I hockey coaches, Junior team players and even international hockey. The CBA lemon is squeezed completely dry, and listening to Kevin Sylvester plug his book and how the Sabres would line up if they played football is meaningless. Yet, still much preferred to Colin Cowherd as many have already pointed out.

I listen to this show every morning on my way in to work. I feel bad for Sylvester as he must be hanging on by his fingernails at this point. There is just not enough material to stretch out over 2 hours 4 days a week, and the host isn't exactly world class. I was very excited about this show, but at this point I don't expect it to survive much longer.

I'd say that the security focus shifting to South East Asia is a direct result of the Obama administration deferring more of the responsibility in North Africa and the Middle East to Europe, and that that again is a direct result of the improved relations between the US and Europe. The operation in Libya is a prime example. It's a very marked turn around from the 'you're either with us or you're against us' policy Bush used in Iraq. Also, I think it's fair to say that the US is still committed to the 'Special Relationship' and has fairly recently reaffirmed the alliance with the UK as the most important international relationship in the world. If anything I'd say that US - Europe relations has been strengthened considerably the past few years even to the point where Obama has moved a little off the very firm commitment US has had to Israel. The way I see it, the minor push back against Israel is an effort to align the US more closely with the European stance.

The French PM typically does not represent France internationally. The last time the French President was invited to the US was in May this year, three days after he was sworn in as President. In his term as President of the USA, Obama has met with France more often than any other country. Also, are you saying that neither Europe nor the USA are relevant internationally? If so, what countries/regions do you consider to be driving world policy these days?

Judged on the economic development of Europe vs the USA since the fall of the wall wouldn't it make more sense to say that it is the United States that are becoming irrelevant? Anyhow, maintaining a good relationship with France should be a priority since France is one of the most powerful countries in the world, has a strong influence in Northern Africa and is traditionally a strong ally of the US.

Do you, in your heart of hearts, really think that Barak Obama was running for President of the United States without knowing how many states there are in the Union?

Well, contrary to popular belief, the United States typically is held in very high favor in Europe, regardless of which party the president is from. The 8 years of Bush was a historic low point in the relationship between the US and Europe. That had more to do with specific policy around the Iraq war and Bush's personality than party affiliation. That said, McCain would probably be a marked improvement over Bush as well, so you are right that Obama's 'golden touch' in Europe is at least partly a 'not bush' thing.

But does it matter if things are not worse or better? So the Middle East is a push, but in the rest of the world the US has greatly improved it's standing, is that the conclusion? If I were Mitt Romney, foreign policy is the last thing I would want to campaign on.

Are you saying that Obama has damaged relations with the Middle East? Do you think the USA is even more hated in the Middle East than during Bush? From my vantage point the Obama administration has a long line of successes internationally from greatly improving relations with the most important allies, to diminishing al-qaeda, in office when the US left Iraq, etc. I see of course challenges: unclear power-structures after the Arab spring, Iran rattling their nuclear ambition, Obama and Netanyahu not exactly getting along, Pakistan not towing the line, etc. But to seriously think that the US hasn't taken great strides forward internationally under Obama is mind-boggling to me.

Not to take sides, but as someone who lived in Europe during the Bush years, Obama has done wonders for restoring the relationship between Europe and the USA. European-centric as I am I would rate it as one of Obama's most successful accomplishments.

I see the quote and I think: He probably wonders why there is no mechanism invented in airplanes where smoke from fire can be removed from the cabin to be replaced by oxygen rich air from outside the cabin, presumably by some combination of valves and powerful fans or similar. I don't think Mitt Romney is seriously wondering why they don't just open the windows on an airplane when the weather is nice outside. So yeah, a gaffe, and nothing that I would chalk up as anything disqualifying anyone from office. I take the same mindset when Obama seem to imply that people who build a business didn't really do it, or that there are 57 states. I took the same mindset when Bush would drop one of his trademark curiosities. I look at it this way: There's many people out there who would be interested in being president of the USA. It's a pretty huge undertaking that requires years of preparation, massive amounts of money, relationship building and way to many backroom deals. Mitt Romney has gone through this process and is running for an office that very many people really really want him to win. To get there he's bested a large number of people with political ambition. This all takes resources and intelligence. I don't think Mitt Romney could be so stupid as to think airplanes should have windows that open when there's a fire and not have been weeded out of the race long before he got in a position to be even remotely close to getting into office. I find it much more reasonable to think that Romney is a reasonably intelligent man who sometimes doesn't quite manage to put his thoughts into words. It happens. It happens to Romney, it happens to Obama and it happens to everyone else.

Delightful irony that dug in Romney supporter chooses 'All I want is everything you got' as their member title?

This post is the very center of this conflict. The owners claim too many teams are losing money, the players point out that the league is profitable. And teams like the Sabres and Caps certainly muddies the water even further. As long as teams make the choice to run in the red, is it fair to ask the players to roll back salaries to cover these losses? The solution seems painfully obvious; a reasonable (ha ha) roll back of revenue percentage to the players, a more robust revenue sharing system for the owners, and we drop the puck.

Yes, they requested a formal session before the deadline. Unrelated note; Says Gary Bettman about the previous CBA: "It actually turned out to be more fair than perhaps it should have been," I am trying my best to stay impartial in the whole thing, I just want to watch hockey, but I can see why players would hate Gary Bettman. The previous CBA was apparently too fair, we need a lock out to get something less fair in place? Is that the message you want to bring to the table?

Baseball has guaranteed contracts.

Pretty much any player 30 years old or older, so, all the veterans :) Andrew Peters clearly wouldn’t be comfortable eating a meal prepared by Bettman, but who knows how other players felt? I don't think it's unfathomable that there would be lingering resentment against Bettman just on a personal level. Heck, I've never had Bettman take any of my money back, and I get the creeps just looking at his turtle head. One has to hope the NHLPA has representation more reasonable than me.

Definitely not a good idea to carry a grudge for almost a decade, and especially not a good idea to let it blind you to a potential deal. I can't imagine the last rumblings are anything more than just the last ditch posturing to determine if the final deal will be at 50/50 or if the players can squeeze out another percent or two. Last I saw the players proposal were at 54%, seems like it should be possible to get something done here. I can't imagine the divide being that huge that they are willing to risk the progress the game has made the last few years. In fact, I think both sides should be interested in showing the public that they can get a deal done before the 15th. The way they are going now both sides are losing the support of the fan base.

It's pretty clear after listening to Andrew Peters on Sabres Hotline this morning that, fair or not, the very presence of Gary Bettman is not doing the negotiations any good. He pretty much said that he doesn't trust Gary Bettman to not put in some hidden loopholes in the CBA that will screw the players over. If this is a common spillover feeling since 2005 amongst the players there's no wonder the league continues to be plagued by labor dispute.

Thank you! It's always a blast (the two times it has happened) for me when Norway qualifies, and this time around I won't feel guilty of they do. If they grab a spot it is at the expense of either Switzerland or Iceland, not two countries that I would consider it a disaster if they won't qualify.

Cherundalo on the left back? Is that typical? As for Norway, started out the qualifiers with a very disappointing loss 2-0 way against Iceland, won 2-1 at home against Slovenia last night. Persuasively the battle will be between Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. That's why the loss to Iceland was devastating. Luckily Iceland laid a turd against Cyprus which basically gifts Norway back the points they lost on Iceland to start the group. If they can take care of business at home, and beat the doormats away the group will likely come down to Norway's away games in Switzerland and Slovenia. The group is definitely winnable, but to be honest it looks like Switzerland has the inside track right now.

What position does Cherundolo play on the national team? Still right back or do they play him in the middle?