Scottysabres

But we don't need to make it about losing Risto for futures. William Nylander, make it happen Botterill. We have enough D depth now to make up for minute eaters.

It's not hate, he's expendable. Get what you can for him. We're trying to build a cup contender here, not a stable of "if only's".

Yep.

And they won't. Mitts has the talent, buy no one on his line can compensate. Reinhart is a lost cause, trade him.

We need chemistry. We have talent, but no chemistry. Nylander, William. That is a start.

No, they won't, unfortunately. Is it winnable? Yes. But you have to show up to win, they aren't. Sorry.

I move Risto now! Nylander is my target.

2-0 now. Are you sure it was an over-statement? ?

This team is pathetic. What in the tarnation are they being paid for? Play some hard nosed hockey boys!!!!!

My 9nly complaint is rain on Halloween. The kids came, but were soaked. I gave each one triples. Your welcome mom and dad's ?

why are we losing? COME ON BOYS!!!!! GO SABRES!

While no one likes the situation, I cannot on any way support floods of immigrants at the border. A very good friend of mine was affected by heavily by this. Do what is necessary to secure the border, I want no more pain for my fellow citizens.

I said, it was not my intention to insult you. Bit you appeared, by your posts, to be heavily indicating and actually straight out said Trump is trying to destroy it. Factually, that is not the case.

No, I don't. We currently have less than 300 ships globally, with less than 100 at sea most times. And out of those just under 300, 121 are dedicated to Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific operations. Meaning those slots never leave the defense of the US coastlines unattended. If you believe, and I've experienced it personally, that the US navies primary or one of its primary goals is protection of trade lanes, you are mistaken. The only goal the United States Navy has is defence of America and its territories. War college can be a real eye opener. My youngest son just finished last year, exact same mission statement, 27 years later.

Need I remind you it is not the Executive branches responsibility to establish legislation? Or has that slipped your mind? You appear to me in any event, to be under this false premise that the President is a monarchy, that is not the case. Legislation starts at the Legislative branch, specifically the peoples house, the House of Representatives. Our representatives. And I've heard Trump many times put it at their feet.

Well, we come full circle back to the origins of Trumps policy, don't we? It is not only the US who benefits from those shipping lanes, and having 2 sons on the navy, myself a vet, a father, 3 uncles and 2 grandfathers all vets, I can assure you the US navy isn't keeping the "shipping lanes" safe, as they spend less than 35% of their time in them or responding to calls of distress about them. The US navy is projection of monetary power, not keeping the oil and cargo containers flowing. In both cases by the way, China is the largest recipient of benefits, not us currently.

I completely disagree with this. He hasn't tried to destroy anything. Forgive me if this insults you, but honestly, those talking points fall on deaf ears over here. As one who has 2 sons, 2 daughters and a wife, it would be a blessing if he repealed the ACA and replaced it. Just because it didn't personally effect you doesn't mean others weren't heavily effected by its passage I am not 9n this conversation to bash him. He's done nothing to date I warrant worth the time.

Trade policies Immigration policies Tax policies Government purchasing policies

Being a vet, I can tell you factually a carrier air group can devastate a target. I can also tell you bombers can and have taken off from right here in the US on Combat missions around the world.

I, personally find Trumps actual policies refreshingly pro American Citizen. Two 5humbs up for 80% of his policies. Where I take issue is healthcare (the biggest one) and his roll back of a few of the EPA clean water and air regulations. By no means should that indicate I am anti-business or fossil fuels however. I believe the single payer system, rated in accordance to income AND usage (for example, family as opposed to single with no children) would help to stabilize the system. More importantly, the most important natural asset America has is its citizens, the people. We PM our machinery to prevent catastrophic failure, we should be doing the same with healthcare imho. Does that mean a single payer tax? Yes, yes it does, but there can be no denying the benefits of such a system. I didn't dislike the Affordable Care Act because it took money. I disliked it because 9t was a rush job, half-assed lie to my face straight out scheme by one political party because they feared the next election cycle. That sucked, and quite honestly, I don't expect better from our elected representatives, I demand better. As for the EPA, yes, rolling back a majority of the regulations wasn't a bad thing, but the emphasis on air and water is non-nogetiable to me. We must, and can do better, so it's not so much what he has repealed in as much as what he is not attempting to accomplish.

We depend on it because why? We didn't used to, and we not only survived, but thrived. It can be that way again, if we choose it to be. There are, I concur, reasonable situations where we may have to step in. But that threshold had better be dam high. Not just some call from the world for our hard earned treasure, our blood, our children to go and take care of a situation not remotely related to us and serves no interests. Use of WMD's are one where we should respond. Only, that should be globally shared and the punishment for its inhumane use should be immediate termination of parties responsible. We can do that with air power.

Not on my vehicle. I voted for him in 08, wrote in Ron Paul in 12, and 16. I voted twice for Clinton, once fore Gore and did not vote in 04. I felt the same way about what happened to Clinton as I do about what's happening to Trump, railroaded. I could never understand how a blow-job got so out of hand (no pun intended). So to imply I lean to one parties side is more than a bit presumptuous in my humble opinion.

He both furnished the weapons and swayed others to the crime via direct statements. Color me pink and call me Barney but something tells me Trump hadn't met this bombing suspect and convinced him to specifically send bombs in the mail. And while i think Trump is a simpleton on a personal level, I can find no evidence he is actively promoting murder. So, you deny that is actively happening?

I believe I've stated both parties, and in a previous post directly stated Bush as guilty. It most certainly was much broader in scope under Obama, yet no less significant under Bush.

IRS, FBI, DOJ, EPA and DHS were all used as weapons against American Citizens due to political affiliation. Its actually well documented.