LaFontaineToMogilny

I think that an Israeli attack on Iran is unlikely, and if it occurs I think the US will find itself in good company when they distance themselves from the attack. I don't think the US would get involved militarily, I doubt the whole region will break out into a middle eastern war, and I most certainly don't think it will trigger a World War. I think the most likely scenario is that an Israeli attack would reinforce Iran's drive to go nuclear and they would likely get some sympathy for their cause around the world. It would probably lead to some harsh rhetoric and some symbolic retaliatory strikes from Iran, but not much more. The real damage will be that Israel will probably deepen the wedge that is already growing between them and the West and renewed resolve and legitimacy for Iran's nuclear ambitions. You theorize that US will seem cowardly to other allies in Europe if they don't support an Israeli attack in Iran, I think you overestimate the support Israel enjoys in Europe. I think there is significant frustration in Europe, including England and Germany, over the Israeli hard line Netanyahu has implemented. I don't think there will be any fall out between the US and European allies over not backing an attack in Iran. In fact, I think it would be more damaging for that relationship if the US provides military aid to such an attack.

Indeed, I believe I left the door open for the possibility that you are incredibly naive? Obviously, the Democratic initiative to not 'disenfranchise' voters is nothing but the flip side of this debate. Both sides are doing everything they can within and just outside the boundaries of decency to advance their own cause. As for where I fall on the political spectrum, you really have no idea and it really doesn't matter. If you want to try to peg me down I can tell you that I am not a citizen of the USA, and where I am from I would identify myself as a social liberalist. That is going to place me to the (extreme) left for most reading here because they are going to assume that social liberalism is the same as what is often called modern liberalism in the US and that I am thus a hard left liberal. In truth; I am not sure my political viewpoint is represented very well in the USA. I am in favor of much expanded personal freedom, a capitalist economy while also recognizing that the government needs to play a role in regulating the economy, and a strong 'social contract'. Now you can go ahead and place me in the political landscape if you wish. If there is a party or candidate out there that correspond to these views I don't care to hear about it. As I said, I'm not a citizen and I have no right to vote in American elections, photo ID or not.

Your response is just as blinded/intellectually dishonest as anything else in this thread. Anyone who honestly believes that the voter ID issue is purely an honest attempt to end voter fraud and create a fair balanced election for everyone is either extremely naive or willingly drinking the kool-aid. Voter ID always becomes an issue three months before an election. If the motivation was to create a system to avoid fraud there would be calls for a standardized, easily audit-able voting methodology, not just a voter ID red herring. If anyone actually wanted required photo ID to remove voter fraud they would suggest legislation that gave a reasonable time frame to make sure that a system could be put in place where people who want to vote have a chance to also get valid photo ID. Instead, you can rest assured that the issue of voter fraud will be the furtherest from anyones minds as soon as the election is over and the mandatory finger pointing and suspicious incidents on either side is done with.

It is also a common conception in Europe that Americans are uneducated about and uninterested in the rest of the world. If only they could see posts like these they would realize how much their opinions don't matter.

Faen!

Condensation and belittling returns! How many post left of page 6? Is there hope yet?

Not to mention the 'leaks' this morning about how the players would ask for no salary cap, or a luxury tax and what have you. Now the Union and Fehr get to say "no, no, no, we will ask for no such things. Look how reasonable we are being."

You are ruining my chances in the over-under. As expected from a rabid neo-nazi right wing nutcase / lazy long haired deadbeat hippie slacker

I'm in!

I have no appetite for any form of delay or work stoppage to the NHL season. After the last lockout it took two years before I started following NHL hockey again, this time I am hedging my bets and have now become an Amur Khabarovsk fan. It will be fun to root for a team from the town that spawned both Mikhail Grigorenk and Alexander Mogilny. Thanks to recent innovations in technology I expect to be able to watch the games on internet enabled devices. I am not going to pretend that I won't care that I can't watch the Sabres, but I am not going to take another kick in the hockey nuts like I did in 2005.

This is bad news for TheMatrix31 who is hoping to sway at least one voter to denounce communism and embrace simple logical reasoning with his internet efforts. I guess he needs to target 'followers' who are not invested in the fate of the country? As for my previous statement, don't worry everybody, I'm not a citizen and thus can not vote for neither Cholera nor The Plague, I was simply making a humorous remark meant to illustrate that hoping to sway the electorate by engaging in partisan bickering on the internet is perhaps the closest we'll ever come to a definition of futility.

I was going to vote for Romney, but as a direct result of reading your posts in this thread I have decided to vote for Obama instead. I have also convinced my wife to do the same. So you're 2 in the hole so far, so you should aim to sway three voters at least to end with a net plus. I will let you know if I turn my father in law as well, in which case you'll be directly responsible for three lost Romney votes.

I'll take the under

Again, I am drawing on very non-existing experience with playing in the NHL, but I think you underestimate the respect around the league that follows with being ready to stand up for teammates and yourself even if you and everyone knows you will not win the fight. At the very least, your own locker room will see that you're ready to do what you can for them when the call comes.

For one, you never know what kind of 'dicipline' they will come up with. In the case at hand it was less than a slap on the wrist, for a play that I personally find to be extremely dangerous. Second, in my experience, if you let a team get away with constantly crossing boundaries they will just see how far you can be pushed. It's also something that other teams will see and try to exploit. With the stakes so high as they are in professional sports, teams will try to exploit any advantage no matter how dirty or offensive to the sensibilities. That doesn't mean that referees and the league should not punish players who cross the line, but some times you have to draw a line yourself as well.

Yeah, I see your point. Let's just say that the way you're trying to make your point, and the actually point you're making are both included in the multitude of levels I was talking about. But this is getting silly, I think there's a time in hockey when it is absolutely necessary to step up and physically defend yourself and your team, some disagree. It is my humble hope that most of the Sabres player fall closer to my point of view, but sometimes one would wonder...

I find your question ludicrous on a multitude of levels.

Hahaha! Well played.

You are right, I am a nobody. I have never played professional hockey or any other sport professionally for that matter. My experience is limited to a couple decades of competitive contact sports in the very bowels of various league systems. I am by no means a bloodthirsty thug, in fact I would like to see the legal violence in hockey much more regulated. However, in my 'career' it only fell on me once to step up when an opposing player was putting my team mates and me at unacceptable risk. I broke that guys nose, and paid the price for it. I am not proud of it, but I'm not ashamed of it either. Given the same circumstances, I would do it again without a seconds thought. When you play a contact sport you assume a certain level of risk. You will also from time to time run into players who play 'on the edge' or games that are particularly important or where the makeup of the game for some reason or the other turns toxic. Sometimes, one single individual will snap and go way beyond 'the edge' and put other people in unnecessary and unacceptable danger. That's what Lucic did when he decided to drive through Miller who had no reason to expect to be hit. Lucic went way beyond what is the agreed level of risk in professional hockey. Knocking an unsuspecting goalies mask of, concussing him in the process, is a very dangerous play. The way I see it it is basically just the luck of the draw when you walk away from a hit like that, and when you end up like Steve Moore. When stuff like that hit happens, it doesn't matter if it's your star goalie or a AHL temp. You respond right away to protect your team mate, your team, and ultimately yourself. You can't defer to the league or referees to discipline, you have to show the aggressor, and everyone else watching that crossing the line comes with a price. Of course, the best way to respond is to immediately fight and decisively defeat Lucic. However, it didn't seem like any of the first responders trusted their ability to knock him out. If that is the case, you still have to inflict damage. Use your stick or whatever it takes, as I said before, all bets are already off. And I'm sorry, but when the safety of your team is on the line, how much money you'd lose in wages during your upcoming suspension has to be the LAST thing on your mind. That said, there is obviously also a limit to how harshly you can respond, and a Marty McSorley move is obviously going to far. A solid cross check in the face however, is well within the boundaries of fair payback. That's my opinion, even though I am too slow, too weak on my skates, too old, too unskilled and waaay too soft to play in the NHL or any other professional hockey league.

It doesn't matter who was on the ice, how big and scary Lucic is, how tired Gaustad was after a long shift or how many stitches McCormick had in his face. Hockey is a rough and hard game. There's a high risk of very serious injuries and even a great potential for fatal incidents if players step outside the basic safety framework of the sport. If you go beyond the rules for how to play the game (and I mean the rules the players enforce themselves to keep the game from being a deadly thug match, not the NHL rule book) then all bets are off. You are no longer in territory where civility is noble, you can't defer to the league to discipline accordingly. You have to respond in kind, and respond quickly. It is not a situation that is similar to someone grabbing your girls boobs in a bar, it's more like being in a street dust up and someone draws a knife. All bets are off, and anything that needs to be done goes. Three Sabres had free access to Lucic directly after the hit. If they can't concuss him with their fists, they still have a stick to lay across his mouth and knock out every single tooth he has. If he's to tall to crosscheck in the face, then break his ankle, spear him in the groin, whatever it takes. It has to be done. These are all appalling actions that have no place in the game of hockey, but when you step into the territory Lucic did then that is the kind of response that is needed. It doesn't matter if the suspension you get afterwards is 6 games, 20 games or the rest of the season. Letting players getting away with 'breaking the code' is far more damaging.

And Bobby Ryan has played right wing for the Ducks, but yeah; He is more proven on the left wing.

Bobby Ryan played right wing in the AHL, and I think he did so in the OHL as well.

I think I'll leave the post where it's at. My reservations about Bobby Ryan are well documented, but let me sum them up for you: Bobby Ryan has good size and great hockey skills. He also plays incredible small, has twice the commitment issues as any player on the Sabres, paired with being a drama queen and an incredibly fragile personality. Lindy Ruff would be a terrible coach for Bobby Ryan, and Ryan's approach to the game is the last thing the Sabres need. I honestly think that adding Ryan for Stafford is a sideways move, you gain some skill, but you also take on a head case that is guaranteed to take games, not shifts, completely off. As I have said before, I would not trade Ryan for Stafford straight up because it really doesn't add anything in my opinion, adding Sekera, Adam and a 1st would be ludicrous. I say this as someone who as watched a lot more Bobby Ryan hockey than I care for. He has had terrible work ethic his entire professional career. This has been the knock against Ryan since he was playing in Portland. Maybe Lindy Ruff is exactly what Ryan needs to actually give a crap, but I highly doubt it.

If the Sabres make that deal they are overpaying for Ryan. That should be all the red flags you need. Of all the people on this board, I am pretty sure you'll end up hating Ryan the most. There is a reason why Ryan is the first to get moved down the lines and why he is perpetually rumored to be on the trading block.

I feel like I am trapped in a reoccurring nightmare. This can't be happening!