Campy

Thanks. And keep in mind that if the FAs crash and burn, they were only placeholders and the goal was still achieved - we got to the cap floor. I think the only thing GMTM and Co are concerned with is signing guys that are hard working on and off the ice, that are hard to play against, and can show the young guys by example what it takes to play in the NHL. Just my take.

I disagree. You're a 3rd/4th line guy who thinks you could be a top 6 player if only given the minutes - you just want a chance to prove yourself. Then along comes Buffalo, offers you top 6 minutes and a $2.5MM raise compared to a lesser role elsewhere. What do you do? You're a guy who has been clinging to an NHL roster for the past year - scratched a bunch of times and not many teams are showing interest. You consider you might even be out of the league this season, forced to ride buses to road games in the 'A' and hope for an injury call up. Then along comes from Buffalo, offers you $2MM. What do you do? Those are the guys who would jump at the chance of playing in Buffalo this season.

:clapping: Well done X. I hope it works out something like that...

Murray on Erhoff: "I’ve said at the start that if you don’t want to be here we’ll make it happen. He’s made I believe $22 million in three years and feels that we’re not going in the right direction, but he really hasn’t had much part in the direction the team has gone. So time to move on." http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/2014/06/tim-murray-to-buffalo-news-sabres-have-started-process-of-buying-out-christian-ehrhoff.html

John Vogl ‏@BuffNewsVogl 11m Agent Rick Curran tells The News his client was "surprised" by the Sabres' buyout decision, but all other comments will remain with Ehrhoff.

John Vogl ‏@BuffNewsVogl 3m But frankly, Tim Murray says, Christian Ehrhoff's desire to not be part of the Sabres and defenseman's inability to improve team are huge. John Vogl ‏@BuffNewsVogl 2m Sabres GM Tim Murray says he's made it clear that if someone doesn't want to be in Buffalo, he'll get them out. So bye, Christian Ehrhoff. And in related news, I've committed to stepping up to to help the team: Campy Campbell ‏@CampyVB 5m @BuffNewsVogl Please tell Murray I can help - I'll take $8MM on a 1 yr deal to help the club reach the cap floor

NBC ProHockeyTalk ‏@ProHockeyTalk 37m Trouble Bruin? Iginla to meet with other teams http://wp.me/p14QU5-9Nnv

Well played! :clapping:

Yeah, about that... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

Got it. Anybody who disagrees with you must be too married to his "dogma" to see your wisdom - regardless of how misguided or incorrect your beliefs are. Is that how it works? Okay, I'll play along with you... Iran hasn't moderated at all and the 6th amendment doesn't really exist. Happy now?

That's just it - Rohanni is more than a figurehead. He is able to walk the fine line between the Ayatollah and moderation - see the part where I mentioned easing the restrictions on women's dress, raising the age of responsibility, and releasing political prisoners.

Because every media outlet in the world (except Fox News) has reported on it. The elected a president (Rohanni) who is a moderate won in a landslide. Because they entered negotiations with the US in good faith regarding a deal to halt their nuclear ambitions. Because they have eased restrictions on Muslim dress and have increased women's rights by raising the age of legal responsibility from 9 to 14 years.. Because they have released scores of political prisoners. Because they has reined in the Revolutionary Guard and they are no longer considered a death squad. Because they have a stated goal of building a modern and relevant society. Yeah, that's wrong. The 6th amendment states the "accused" (note that it does not say citizen, criminal, or non-terrorist) have a right to a speedy trial and an impartial jury. Are you confusing the term "terrorist" with "Insurgent," "freedom fighter," or "rebel?"

Nothing personal, but you're wrong on the first point and I strongly disagree with your second. Terrorists break laws, therefore, they are criminals. Why make more of them than what they are?

Mike Harrington ‏@BNHarrington 4m Several updates on #Sabres/Leino post, including @capgeek saying it will be 6th-largest buyout in NHL history. http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/2014/06/leino-put-on-waivers-as-first-step-to-compliance-buyout.html

You shouldn't roll your eyes; they will put a negative spin on it. Just like the Dems would do if the situation was reversed.

I don't see him playing in N America next year. I think he will be back in Finland.

I'm not upset it hasn't happened because I'm confidant that it will, but I really did think Ville would be one of the first compliance buyouts we'd hear about. I mean, there really isn't much to mull over on this...

The difference between asking for permission and informing of a decision already made is not insignificant.

Wasn't familiar with that one - thanks. And I'll repeat, what a mess...

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I do pay attention because I have a fair number of clients in Oil & Gas exploration & production (E&P) here in N America and my company has contracts in that part of the world and I'm just thinking out loud... I'm a little confused on the proposed east-west pipe you mentioned (but remember, I'm not an expert). The Kirkuk–CeyhanI oil pipe just went online last month, so that one is completed. The only proposed pipeline I'm familiar with is Qatar-Turkey. There are a couple of potential routes it could take - one is Saudi Arabia-Jordan-Syria and the other is Saudi Arabia-Kuwait-Iraq - but it's a natural gas pipeline. That said, I do think you make an interesting point regarding Russia. They have the most expensive E&P costs in the world and they are feeling the squeeze because the margins just aren't competitive. That certainly supports your hypothesis, but just a couple of months ago they signed a $10B deal with Iran in which they will build thermal and hydro power facilities and export 500 MW of electricity to Iran in exchange for 500,000 barrels of crude per day. But since Iran agreed to limit their oil exports as part of the deal made that ended their nuclear posturing - and because the Russian deal brings them right up to that threshold - I imagine the west is keeping a close eye on it. I don't think that means France or the UK will start bombing or anything, but there could be some pressure placed on Iran and that could, in turn, threaten Russia. So even without that east-west pipeline project you mentioned, Russia is motivated to further destabilize the region. What a mess. When Washington talked about avoiding "entangling alliances," I wonder if there was any way he could have envisioned a world like the one we have now.

The Iranians have been cooperating with - and offering support to - al-Maliki's government in Iraq for quite a while. Combined Iranian/Iraqi forces took back Tikrit last Thursday and are also guarding a few other cities - including Baghdad. If we do go the Iran-route, I would suspect US aid would be in a support role (money, air support, specific intel, etc).

One could argue powerful people in the US has been doing it for 116 years given the shady circumstances around the USS Maine at the start of the Spanish-American War, the Lusitania in 1915, Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. But I think the difference this go-round is the desired outcome, a neverending war.

I think I am coming to the conclusion that our response to 9/11 had one desired outcome and that Bush43 was not out of his mind when he was flown to that aircraft carrier. The mission really was accomplished: perpetual war.

Good point. Because the US has no documented history of interjecting in the affairs of sovereign nations to protect its interests. It never happens. Especially not in Iraq. Advocating for an Iraqi government shake up (not likely since al-Maliki recently won an election in a landslide), drone/air strikes on ISIL (possible but effectiveness would be limited), support to Iran (although it likely would be a back channel deal because the average American is clueless about the role Iran has been playing in Iraq), or supporting the Kurds (whose peshmerga is among the best fighting forces in the region), the US will do go after the ISIL somehow, some way. To believe otherwise is ignorant.

It's not a question of us not having their oil, it's a question of a terrorist organization making billions off of it. For that reason, there is no way the US does not lead an international effort to either weaken ISIL or support the Iraqi government. An Iraqi civil war that went unchecked by the west would make things even worse in Syria and could potentially destabilize Turkey and Iran. It would be an absolute fricking nightmare...