K-9

Like you, I can appreciate the difference between a good strategy and the skill necessary to implement it. We are simply NOT a highly skilled team and we are particularly not built for 3 on 3 with our two fastest skaters out with long term injury.

I've got no problem what so ever with passing the puck all the way back to the goalie if it means getting three gassed players off the ice in OT, which is what I observed the other night. Possession rules in 3 on 3, especially when the other team is gassed.

If he's a pylon, what's Franson?

Is Canada's lack of facilities and practitioners an issue in this regard? Do western European countries have the same issue regarding accessibility? I honestly don't know. This was the desired impact of the Rubio poison pill.

It's a multi-layered problem for sure. Insurance companies need to be eliminated because there is no need for a middle man and the costs associated. I found the linked article interesting with regard to the reasons why it's so expensive in the US. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080615/6-reasons-healthcare-so-expensive-us.asp

Yep. And to quell Philly's momentum. It looked like the Flyers were on a PP the entire 3rd period, even before we took the penalties. DD'd got to have a better grasp of the ebbs and flows of the game.

I really want to embrace this. Really. They play like DD coaches. Lindy would be bag skating their quitting butts today. DD will probably take them to the movies.

There was a day when BCBS was a non profit organization. Oh, they still made a ton of money, but they weren't beholding to the shareholders that drive the policy and health care decisions of today. Insurance companies need to be removed from the equation entirely. Then we can get back to health CARE vs. health INSURANCE. That's correct.

I totally disagree with Moulson that the Sabres "gave it to them." Philly TOOK it. Huge difference, Matty Mo. Our lack of speed on both the front and back ends was exposed. Again. GMTM has to see that there are issues unrelated to missing Eichel and Kane, right?

That was kind of my point; that profit came before everything, including their own morality. As you say, slavery was hardly a political issue at the founding, but it was an issue that the founders wrestled with none the less. And many of them correctly predicted what it would do to the US moving forward.

It's always best not to view older history through the prism of modern day societal norms. Our founders were quite aware of their hypocrisy concerning slavery and many predicted it would have to be reckoned with or it would tear the country apart (talk about prescience). But much like today's elite (BIG money class), they didn't have the political stones to be more aggressive in ending the practice at the time. I use the term "big money" even though the southern plantation owners, holders of the most slaves, were forced into indebtedness by the unfair trade and mercantile practices imposed by England. Regardless, our founders have been romanticized to the point of mythic proportions; deities almost. And I can well imagine them not being too happy about it. 3/5ths, actually. But what's a fraction or two among gerrymanderers?

Mouslon en fuego.

Moulson on the top line. Need I say more about the woeful condition of our offensive firepower?

In addition to his four lost game checks, the Bills can dock Dareus a prorated 4/17ths of his 2016 option bonus of $7m.

Then it's on them to cure their ignorance about the history of all these trade deals. My question is when did America decide that profit trumps patriotism?

Asking questions makes a person an apologist? It's unfortunate you feel a need to drop out of the discussion as I was genuinely interested in the insight you provided regarding the flash drive and who might be in trouble, etc. You will have to pardon my cynicism about the GOP's relentless attacks, all timed to coincide with with her presidential campaign. This "system" that's protecting her is under the control of the most powerful investigative body in our government, if not the world, and she has real political enemies within it. I need a little more than "she needs to be in jail" in light of that. Perhaps I'd have more faith in that body if I thought it could do better than spending several years and $75m to entrap a Clinton in a lie about an extra- marital affair.

Well, they should. Because Trump, Clinton, or anybody else in the White House isn't gonna change a damned thing about those trade deals. Not. A. Thing. Those jobs are gone and never coming back. Period. Sometime within the next 15 days? After the election? Is this a set up for yet another Clinton to be impeached?

You mean those bipartisan trade deals? The ones few republican congressmen, if any, voted against? Those trade deals?

According to whom? I mean other than those that oppose her politically. Not following State Department guidelines is not the same as breaking federal laws. FBI said she was careless, but broke no laws. Do we put people in jail for being careless? Is the FBI corrupt? If so, when is Congress going to press charges?

This makes sense only to intellectually honest people having the debate and won't be given the time of day by those most needing to hear it; those that buy into the "gov'ment gonna take your guns" rhetoric.

The NRA, guns, and ammo makers LOVE this crap. Huge demand and price spikes after every mass shooting and the anti-gun rhetoric that follows.

Outstanding. Seriously good stuff to ruminate on. If only we could apply this level of analysis to say, Bogo's level of defensive play.

Thanks for the clarification.

Don't let the small frame of the TV sway your opinion on the number of women Trump has in his corner. Remember the Iran hostage crisis? When all we saw was the limited field of vision the TV provided and we all thought the streets were full of protesting Iranians day after day?Had they panned the camera a few degrees in any direction, we would have seen business as usual on the streets of Tehran. A good lesson in how the media can actually create the story they are covering. Trumps numbers with women are at historical lows. That's all we need to know about his level of support from the women vote.