SarasotaSabre

i thought this thread was about the draft lottery, not who the next coach of the Sabres will be? Plus, no one has suggested Babcock is coming to Buff anyhow ..... anyhow, not sure where you're going with this

I can see your point. I just don't know how sincere Milbury is about anything Buffalo. He could have spun it any number of other positive ways.

another myopic statement ..... again

comment

yeah, and Milbury made that semi-douche about Buffalo being crushed - buzz off

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=17&id=807570&lang=en

I actually think this statement by Ted will not be used against him for future job openings. Everyone with half a brain in the NHL knows the moves TMGM made before this season, and in-season, were strategically done to support the full mission of the tank while giving a modest perception that he was trying to make the Sabres mildly competitive. Once this die was cast, everyone knows Teddy was set up to fail and he had to know that was part of the gig. If you looked at TMGM's verbiage and body language in the presser announcing Ted's firing, his posture was very smarmy and defensive. In no way can Ted's thank you statement be viewed as a "GM killer" type of attack; it is all about self-preservation. Hopefully he'll land on his feet somewhere. This is twice he's gotten the shaft from the Sabres or-gan-eye-zation.

sorry, bad day on SS, I was replying to what Carpandean stated .....

sorry - It may be a bit of naivete on my part to suggest that all those granted amnesty may vote in lockstep for the Dems, but conventional wisdom would have most believe the newly-minted immigrants would bite the hand that feeds them by voting Repub; I mean, why would they? Immigrants legalized into our systems are endowed with healthcare, education, and a bevy of other social services. Even if they don't all vote D en masse, I am betting the farm it will be an overwhelming supermajority. And I understand well-taken pragmatism of mass deportation, but it should be noted how easily these 11m plus got here in the first place; an environment toward promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy; lax border security, underfunding of Border Patrol, unfettered granting of work visas - all benefitting those who entered the Us ILLEGALLY, aided and abetted by a DHS which emasculated their own Border Patrol. The argument you're proposing is that the children born here to parents who in most cases entered here ILLEGALLY are now entitled to the rights of citizenship afforded them by the Constitution. If it sounds like I have an axe to grind, I do: my wife, who emigrated from Brazil, followed every proscribed step in the book, spent a sh**load of $$ on immigration attorneys, was delayed and put off by technicalities, jumped through every hoop asked of her, and followed everything to the letter of the law, only to be treated at times like a common criminal by some with an anti-Latin American bigotry. Hell yes I'm pissed when I see the exact opposite take place; Mexicans/Central Americans to know how the system is rigged in their favor, who simply show up and are not turned away....and if they are somehow detained temporarily, they go to a less stringent border crossing and blend in. It's that simple. I am the ancestor of immigrants, a grandson of an immigrant from Italy who was given a choice in 1916 as a condition of legal citizenship: he was told he had to enllst in either the American or Italian army to fight in WW1 on the Allies. He proudly fought for the Americans and believed in the American dream, not gaming the system by breeding once he got here.

Sorry, my level of defense comes from many partisan attacks on this Board just b/c I sway against the political grain. I took your questions as being very loaded with innuendo, to say the least, but the defensive posture is not and should not be an admission of my stereotyping any class of people. If you think these terms are offensive, then why are they used by all newscaster/pollsters? Maybe not "low intelligence", granted, but definitely "single issue voter". This term is a reality and there is nothing offensive in it, whatsoever....some people feel so passionately about a single issue, like pro-choice, that they will vote on that issue alone. What is offensive about that? If "low intelligence" implies too lazy to get informed about the issues, then call me guilty as charged. I just think you are trying to flame me with a flamethrower. And if you are naive enough to think the Obama amnesty initiative does not have voting bloc implications, then pick another one to suit you: pro-life, pro-choice, corporate cronyism, environmentalism, etc. Both parties are guilty of pandering to cultural issues. Just don't pretend one party is guilty of it and not the other. I'm just curious, seriously: how is Obama's stance on amnesty based on pragmatism? I appreciate your clarification and what you said makes sense.....FWIW, I wasn't implying that my BA was responsible for letting me believe what an analysis was or wasn't. And they don't owe me a dime, they gave me a ton in scholarship aid.....))

OK I get it, thanks for the voice of reason

this is a bit of a red herring, IMHO ....sorry if you won't accept a working-man's view of analysis and how I apply it in my daily life, or if it doesn't meet your academic requirements. I never intended to have a published data sheet with trends/graphs/charts. And no, Weave, I did not use any bias to "determine any bias of various outlets"; as I have stated before, I use my different sources (left/right) to perform a comparative evalation. Shouldn't be too hard to understand, of course, unless you remain consumed by painting me into a corner. Your channeling my practical use of an analysis into a classroom definition is splitting hairs, IMO. And thanks for pointing out that my BA doesn't jive with your stance - that was not my intent to state my bona fides for.

EVERY time you read posts like mine? Now that's painting with a broad brush, with all due respect. I'm sorry, but the elitist reference is based on the way you interpret my comments, plain and simple. And when I make a comment about single-issue & low-information voters, it's with an acknowledgement that our political system is badly flawed b/c both parties prey on these voters, and I am honestly saddened that this is the reality. Do I think I invest more time in forming my opinions politically and knowing the issues inside & out ? Hell to the yes.....does this make me elitist? Hell to the no - I am the furthest thing from blue blood and I have been working since I was 13 to help put myself through parochial schools and college through scholarship. Nobody is beneath me except those who expect, for example, big things to change by the next party in power, but don't educate themselves on how they can make a difference. For example, there are states which are depending that a Civics class must be part of a high school curriculum in order to graduate; I am all for this and feel all could benefit from this. It's very saddening to see a "man on the street" interview being asked the most basic questions about our political system/history, and being met with blank stares. And that party line I "seem to espouse the most" appeals to base emotions, somehow different from the Democrats? That's nonsense - both parties do it in spades. For example, are you denying that our President is trying at every turn to enable a new voting bloc of 5 million based on one issue - immigration amnesty? That irony you spoke of is fundamentally flawed.

don't mind you asking and I am glad I piqued your interest. How was what I described most certainly not how I tried to make it sound? I simply expanded my what I believe my analysis entails, and it was not a claim. I am not trying to represent myself as a Ph.D in Political Science, so I am sorry to disappoint you in that regard. If that was the expectation, then let me state for the record that I have a B.A. in Political Science/Economics and have always remained very engaged & informed with what's going on. And I'm not really sure that a simple statement about how one analyzes various news content on a sports board would carry the expectation that a study or white paper would be cited as source material.

ah, here it goes: a minority voice of opposition writes something in opposition to the proletariat, and a firestorm erupts. And what's your problem with me being a well-informed participant to our democracy? Isn't that the goal of what is possible in our system ? If so, why do you resent my ability to be well-informed? And don't try to bait me with the latter question; if you think (or want to think) these terms are code for something else, have at it and pleasure yourself with it. A single issue voter is what it is; what don't you get? Same as a low-educated voter; perhaps easily swayed by the latest flavor of the month or always voting along party lines b/c everyone in their family tree has. It's really simple, but your need to challenge me carries a pretty obvious connotation. thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it Eleven ! another attempted baiter I see....it's pretty elemental, Weave, not rocket science. Long story short, I try to consume as much as I can from a variety of sources, left and right, look for the cogency of the argument or bias within, and compare how a story is being delivered. I also take mental notes on which stories are underreported or buried, or if there is a misrepresentation of some kind. Is this an acceptable expansion ?..... :flirt:

good point, well-written...

Propaganda would be one way to describe the news programs if one has the initial premise that there is an inherent, extreme bias driving the content. I long ago thought that a country of ignorant people was the result of our broadcast news culture; you are partially correct in defining the majority of ignorant people, but you fail to identify the minority of those well-informed who consume news media from a variety of sources, mostly online. Then there is the single-issue or low-educated voter, bloc on its own altogether dude, you have your opinion and I have mine. I happen to think yours is wrong, but I'm not the one demanding that you check yourself - twice. Not appreciated at all.

Disagree that all 3 major networks are in the middle....left of center, but definitely not middle. And I don't need to check myself, thanks for the suggestion though. You have your opinion and I have mine; one that I base on analysis, not a political knee-jerk. I agree that CNN is close® to the middle and MSNBC is nutty unto itself; obviously you are a Fox hater and that needle won't move; it is what it is. to suggest that there was more of a center/right voice before Fox controlling/setting the message is just patently false

The only comment I failed to write herein was that the one thing a monopolist can't stand is competition, especially successful competition. Despite the overt dislike of FNC by the supermajority of posters on this board, it was FNC that broke the monopoly of network news. Despite the level of "right wing bias" associated with FNC, I would argue that competition is good and should raise the bar of news quality. Sadly, though, I don't believe the bar has been raised overall, i.e., ad hominem attacks on FNC personalities, stories which are buried, blind allegiance to Obama, etc. I wish things were different, but they're not.

No doubt that Fox swings from the right side of the plate, to suggest otherwise would be intellectually dishonest; however, it could easily be opined that any type of newscast even slightly to the right of MSNBC/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS would be typecast as "conservative", even something in the so-called middle. Because of the polarity in this country, that middle does not exist; the labels given to the pablum dished out to Joe Sixpack are what sells. As another poster put it adroitly, the bias is apparent by what content is included/excluded. One of the best college classes I took as an undergrad was "the Politics of the News Media" - very relevant today after all these years. Definitely a favorite of mine. BTW, I really enjoy this site and especially this topic - and I'm not taking it too seriously. I know the actual truth can't sell in today'e media market and this is the caveat emptor I use as my measuring stick, so to speak.....

hysterical much ? there's a fundamental difference between lying "unapologetically" and bias; you don't seem to grasp this and you call BW "embellishing one story"......nice try

A ha, that explains your acumen... I was contrasting Icehouse's spot-on comment against those who pretend and guess at shizit they know nothing about relative to injuries

great call Icehouse, someone who actually knows anatomy with a good comment. A broken fibula/malleolus would be the best possible outcome, far easier to heal than the calcaneus. The critical factors are 1) the fracture pattern (i.e., oblique vs. comminuted) and 2) degree of soft tissue injury

embarrassed to report 34 and sunny with a slight breeze in the ATL

I went to college not far from there.....Massena up by Potsdam - :flirt: