pastajoe

Don't forget about Kaleta. Nolan likes him and I expect him on 4th line when he gets back. Larrson will go to Amerks.

With Ott gone, Stewart has become my favorite player after Kaleta.

McCormick will be the 4th line center, which means Grigo will go to Roch until Reinhart goes back to junior or there's an injury. In the long run it would be better for Grigo to get quality minutes in Roch and play on PP.

NATO is a defensive partnership. If one member is attacked then members have to respond. If a member goes on the offensive, there is no obligation to join in. Countries can decide if and how they want to assist on their own. And this isn't a new war, it's the continuation of the war against terrorists threats.

I think Strachan is better than Weber.

Not having their two best forwards tips the ice a bit.

Can we just give Texas back to Mexico and seal the border around it. It would solve multiple problems.

They'll probably keep 7 D, so I expect Strachan to be the 7th who will get occasional games. I don't think Weber is a top 6 D anymore, but they'll keep him for leadership this year and probably pair with Risto. Maybe trade deadline depth for a playoff team.

It won't surprise me if Reinhart is sent back to juniors, in which case: Moulson-Ennis-Stafford Foligno- Hodgson- Stewart Deslaurier-Girgensons-Gionta Flynn- McCormick- Kaleta And Mitchell or Ellis could be the extra forward to plug into 3rd or 4th lines.

I agree with this, but I would rather they gave the A to someone other than Stafford who could be traded at the deadline.

Blame the messenger because the facts don't match your narrative? Read the Senste report that the story is based on.

You mean this disproven issue? http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5773476 They should be focusing on important issues like investigating Bengazi for the 15th time, trying to repeal the ACA for the 50th time, and Bigfoot.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't have been involved in WWI, WWII, and the Korean War? I don't know many people who would argue that. But a majority agree that Vietnam was a mistake; a misunderstanding of the regional issues from Cold War thinkers. Which was repeated by invading Iraq, which will have greater negative consequences for the world than Vietnam ever did. My Carter / Reagan reminder is relevant because of the revisionist perception that Carter was terrible on foreign policy, and Reagan was great. And I didn't even get into Iran-contra for the self-proclaimed Constitution and rule-of-law experts.

They conveniently forget that Carter brokered the lasting peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, the previous most dangerous confrontation in the Middle East. And that the patron saint of conservatives, Reagan, stuck our military in Lebanon and got 241 servicemen killed by suicide bombers, thus emboldening other jihadists to attack Americans for decades since.

That is some bat-schiit crazy talk right there. Remind us of what episode of Doomsday Preppers you're on.

Who knew that at the end of his term we would be talking foreign policy, and not the Great Recession, which he successfully led the country out of despite the consistent lack of cooperation from Republicans. Obama was partially elected to get us out of Iraq. Check. The fact that a contingent force was not left in Iraq is squarely on the Iraqis for not coming to a political compromise, and not approving the Statement of Forces agreement. He did the right thing with his speech in Egypt. Show the world that we would no longer use the military as a first option, but as a last. The chemical weapons were removed from Syria without firing a shot. But there will always be those that will not take the opportunity given them, and in that case the military is and has been used prudently.

Lots of overexaggerations going on here about how all police are abusive, and that we need to arm against them. This is a specific case of a specific police force overreacting to protests about a specific police officer who may or may not have been justified to defend himself from a possible assault on him. How about waiting for the facts to come out before jumping to conclusions. And what a great way for some to show their displeasure by looting stores of sneakers and clothes. The protesters should be calling those people out too for giving the police a reason to come out in force.

The 1975 game 6 final was on NHL Network this week. That Sabres team had the Flyers on the ropes the whole game, but Bernie Parent stoned them, as he did throughout the series. A couple of lucky bounces would have been the difference in winning the 2 games they needed. That team was closer.

So you want slave labor to build the wall, or put people you know nothing about and may not speak English in the military, or give them Gov't jobs that don't exist when many are calling for smaller gov't. And what if they refuse? Or what if they're children?

I still want to hear the plan to physically secure the border. Station troops every 100 yards? There's almost 2000 miles of border with Mexico. Lets be generous and say 500 miles are secure. That leaves 1500 miles. There are 1760 yards in a mile. so if they're stationed every 100 yards that's 264,000 troops. And if you assume 3 shifts of 8 hours, that's 792,000 troops. Now throw in all the support for food, shelter, medical, and transportation, and you can round that number up to 1 million troops that you want to dedicate to the border. And you think that will be less expensive than the current process? Or should we build a wall? How high? How many years will it take, and you think that will be less expensive that the current process? And when a child comes towards the border, and a soldier shouts "Parada!", and they keep coming forward, do we shoot them? Are you willing to be the first person to shoot a child to send a strong warning? Regarding special status for Cubans, who cares that it's a communist state. The people in Cuba are probably safer and have better medical treatment than those in Central America. They are allowed to stay if they touch land. It's a double standard to appease the Cuban vote in Florida which leans Republican. It shouldn't matter what type of gov't your country has or how you got here.

Once they turn themselves in and ask for asylum, the law says they cannot be returned to their countries until after their case has been reviewed by a judge and are deemed not eligible for asylum. It is different than if they originated in Mexico. That is why Obama asked for funding for additional judges to expedite the process. And why are Cubans who make it to US soil allowed to stay? Seems like a double standard.

To clarify, I should have said border patrol agents.

It's always been an issue of not if, but when.

The current border crisis does not involve illegal aliens. Under the law passed by Congress, they are refugees. And they are freely turning themselves in to border guards for processing. But there are so many that it is overwhelming the local resources. Obama asked Congress to modify the law so they could be sent back to their countries quicker, and for funding to pay for additional shelter, border agents, and judges who could rule on their status quicker. But as usual, the Republicans would rather do nothing, and confuse people with their rhetoric, as it seems some here are. Other than ordering children shot if they cross the border, I don't know what else the complainers want. Obama's following the law.

Well there was the case where George Washington died after he had about 35% of all the blood in his body drained over 12 hours to "cure" him, when in fact he needed a tracheotomy to help him breath due to a swollen epiglottis.