...

You're supposed to be smarter than to resort to hyperbole like this. I would have thought you can discern the difference between political dissent and base prejudice. So, I can't complain about anti-Christian prejudice? Does that mean I can characterize all Muslims as willing to kill all Christians? Can I characterize all Jews as man-handlers of the economy for their own gain? Can I say all secular humanists are advocates of sex with minors?

I want the country to default. The economy is so propped up and the country so politically divided, there is NO rational way of dealing with it. Everything needs to collapse and be rebuilt and it may as well happen now while my kids are still kids. People in this country are so spoiled and stupid, they need their eyes open. Since aliens won't be landing soon, enter the collapse. Bring on the misery so people will wake up finally and see from a fresh perspective the gift they were given and carelessly destroyed.

This is happening all over the place. This is the FACT of the reality of Obamacare. Why did Congressional employees demand either an additional stipend to help cover costs (saying the can't afford it) or an opt out? Why will Congress and the president NOT be participating in this system? This is a fundamental lack of understanding of WHY health care costs so much prior to Obamacare. If, for example, you do(did) not pay through or involve insurance, you could negotiate a substantially lower price of your costs - something tax-free medical accounts are for.

Really, this is how you want to engage in a debate? You want to ascribe all opponents this cartoonish, made-up perspective and attack? And if someone denies holding that perspective you don't want to believe it and try and force the argument into one of minutiae and point-by-point comparisons, eventually looking for the one "gotcha" point you can hold over their heads. You argue like a 12-year-old.

This is such ridiculousness. This is politics for the Comedy Central crowd and hardly worth a response except for the fact that it's a pervasive point of view in the media on the internet. There is zero critical or original thinking here; indeed, it's a robotic regurgitation of the "cool person's" perspective spoon fed to people not interested in actually reasoning through politics, but only interested in being on the "winning team that makes me feel good about myself". The anti-Christian rhetoric is flat out offensive and prejudiced and if I cared enough I would flag your post on that merit alone. It's easy (and lazy) to cherry-pick popularized phrases from the Bible and hold that against an entire group of people. Would a reasoned response with the appropriate lines from the Bible in context even be worth the time? My guess is no. I will just say that when more people are "poor" and unable to contribute to the system which is supposed to uplift the poor, what are you supposed to do? What good is a broken, second rate economy to ANYONE, let alone the poor or children? This anti-business, pro-poor/pro-children narrative looks really good in 10-second clips and on bumper stickers, and I'm sure it makes you feel like you're doing the world good spitting out phrases your heroes in the media and online do, but it's highly deceptive and tragically wrong. As they should. The ACA will put the stake in the country's heart.

Why?

Yes, really well done and for the non-winter months it does sum up the activity here, not to mention represent the colors, architecture, and superficial vibe of the place. One thing I really like about our area is that it is indeed colorful, and I'm talking about the effect of light reflecting off surfaces and nothing else.

Uhm...you need to smoke one and think on that. A little hint: if you're asking the question, you need a better supply.

What do you expect when it's the same architect? Your post has pretty much sealed the deal for me. If I knew how to give odds, I'd give them on Hodgson getting the "C" - it makes perfect sense now that he will.

The little that I caught if looked simply like EJ couldn't get anything done because he was always under pressure. The o line looked like ass. EJ is too much of a rookie yet to keep his cool when pressured like that,

Agreed. At least he's out there doing SOMETHING against players larger than he. And when the coaches can anticipate it, they put Big John out there as well. I think a NHL team needs these types of players - for those wanting PURE hockey, ah, this IS pure hockey. Kaleta lays it out there 100% every game, even when he's not 100%. He's fast, great on the PK, a very good defensive player, and he can finish garbage goals and short-handers when the time comes. Totally worth the money and the roster spot.

They need it to keep the Chet and Muffys happy since they're about the only ones who can afford tickets thanks to the new policies. Look out for minorities doing shoe-shines and manicures next.

I guess I would be shocked if they were. Hockey is a great sport and deserves whatever attention it gets. I think it makes a market like Buffalo look good when fans mob the local rink pre-pre-season practice sessions. Would they rather get a little too much attention sometimes, or play in a place where hardly anyone gives a damn? Money isn't everything.

That's one way of explaining it. Another is to say that the Bills have cultivated reliable expectations over the years.

You're trying to get someone banned, aren't you?

They just have to get the penalties under control. Is it like hockey where they're trying to set a tone? Like that last penalty to Williams?

I'm digging the Bills new coaching staff. Love the aggressive plays. It makes me want to watch the Bills again. What's with the bands wrapped around the arms just above the elbows?

I want to see the boots. Did the boots come with the jersey?

That's awesome!

This is a great analogy. The pursuit of business is what's on trial here. The ultimate question is: are all business pursuits "bad"? IMHO, the obvious answer is no. Business, by its definition, is "a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood". Because it relies upon others to survive, it is compromised at its core. Let's strip away the modern economy and the concept of trade. Let us return to the fields and woods to farm and hunt for ourselves for survival. If someone in the family falls ill, and no one has the skill to aid the sick person, they are doomed to die. If the fields suffer a disease that attacks the vegetation, that year's crop is doomed. If the deer are over-hunted in an area, those who rely upon the deer in that area for meat, will most likely starve over the winter. What then? There is no trade. There is no economy. People will die. And they will suffer long before they die. Let's reintroduce an economy and trade. The Smith family lost its crop to disease, and the only deer Mr. Smith could kill was malnourished. Mr. Smith could then, at least, trade his labor for food for his family. Maybe his wife can trade some blankets she made for more food. In fact, one of the blankets went to a family where a child is sick in bed, and needs the blanket to stay warm. The Smith family survives the winter thanks to business - but the compromise is that Mr. Smith has to leave his family every day to work in Mr. York's fields, and Mrs. Smith had to take advantage of a sick kid to move one of her blankets. Compromises on ideals? Absolutely. But this system is far better than Mr. Smith going over to Mr. York's cabin in the middle of the night and slaughtering his family to steal food.

Questions is serious? If so, I'm not trying to shame anyone, just having a decent conversation.

Sylvester just said to Flynn "people are comparing you to Pominville"...where is he being compared to Pominville other than here on Sabrespace?

Because it IS superficial. In the same way taking your kids to "meet Santa", or telling them that they did a good job in the soccer game (which their team lost), or applauding their performance in the school musical are all superficial. Because to the kids, the entire thing ISN'T superficial, it's the most important thing in the world at that moment. I'm guessing you don't have kids, PA, because you'd know that they're perpetually in a fantasy world, and everything is in the now. It's a tough line between breaking down the barrier between their fantasy world and reality. I think while they're stuck, sick in a hospital, it's OKAY to give them moments of fantasy where for a few minutes they forget they have tubes stuck in their arms and can barely lift their heads off the pillow. This is the stuff that is NOT superficial - in fact it's quite the opposite. You're making an assumption that the parents are idiots. This has nothing to do with brain-power. If you've ever had a kid in a hospital, you'd know that it crushes your heart and soul seeing your kid in a bed with monitors, bags and all of the equipment around, hooked up to IV tubes and oxygen breathers. A parent will do ANY-F*CKING-THING to make their kids happy at that moment, which includes allowing Marcus Foligno come in for a photo op as part of a Sabres visit to the ward. But you're right, it has to be a person or organization with status. I don't think the Walgreens Leprechaun can get away with it. That is the way it is, and it's not the Sabres fault. For all of the stupid things the Sabres do, you can not blame them for society's ills. If you want to blame the Sabres for doing a hospital visit, why not blame all of us for using too much electricity and exploiting Chinese child labour to complain about it online? How about holding Obama responsible for using the IRS as a political attack dog? Once you're on your moral high-horse, when do you get off? Is it fair to arbitrarily select your moral enemies if fairness is your concern?

You need to work on that, then.

It's a win-win-win-win situation for all involved, mostly, so I don't see the issue, even morally. A lot of players are family guys, or family-oriented, or were just raised right, and for whatever personal reasons want to "give back" because they are, indeed, getting a lot. The teams facilitate the action, and provide added bonuses such as swag, Sabre Tooth, and the added effect of consolidating visits so they have more impact - when you have three or four Sabres walking around the peds ward, followed by Sabre Tooth and then some interns handing out t-shirts and hats, it makes a hell of a lot grander impression on the kids then just one player walking around. The teams get the give-back vibe, too, because, you know, the people who work for them aren't robots. But they know, like the parents, the hospital, and the players, that there is a PR aspect to it all. The team likes the PR, of course, and the parents just like seeing their sick kids light up like Santa Claus was personally visiting them. The players get a much needed ego adjustment, to go along with whatever personal fulfillment they get, and also honoring possible contractual obligations. The hospitals, I'm sure, like the fact that it helps their patients, even if it's only in a superficial way. But they like the PR, and, in fact, may need in the future the cache such PR develops. For example, if the hospital did what it could to help out a kid, even if that includes inviting the Sabres over for a PR visit, when that hospital hits hard times, the people whose kids were at that hospital may in some way help out, either by voting for a bond, helping with campaigns, doing fund-raising or whatever. The hospital could survive the hard times to save and help more people in the future - thanks, in small part, to having the Sabres by for a PR visit. The world is not idealistic - the world is pragmatic. But pragmatism doesn't have to mean dog-eating-dog; it could mean dog-cleaning-dog, or dog-playing-with-dog, or dog-hunting-with-dog.