Drunkard

I understand that, but a bunch of people claiming moral high ground and chastising PA for celebrating the injury of a player he chooses to root against while a bunch of other people pile on like self righteous do gooders isn't good hockey discussion either and if I feel like adding my two cents to defend PA or point out their nonsense I'll do it.

Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?

Exactly. You get way more bang for your buck during the downturns using the dollar cost averaging that most people use to invest. Think of it more as the stock market is having a sale and the prices are temporarily lower than normal. It's also why more and more of your portfolio should move toward debt securities (bonds) vs equity securities (stocks) as you get closer to retirement. The older you get the less time you'll have to recoup any losses from crashes or "market corrections" so it's best to be more conservative in your investments as you get older.

I finally read through the rest of the McDavid injury thread and the thin skin of religious people never ceases to amaze me. It may be a hockey board but the influence of religion and people's morals were all over that thread way before I ever mentioned the all powerful scaley one, our lord and savior, RJ (Raptor Jesus not Rick Jeanerette). People were using their personal versions of morality to chastise PA left and right trying to assume some position of moral authority and claiming that he crossed some sort of line in celebrating his injury, so I decided to add my two cents and poke the bear. Kudos to Whiskey and others for not leaving PA out to dry to face the self righteous morally superior horde alone though.

That guy just exudes class. He should walk around with a top hat, cane, and monocle like Mr. Peanut. He's almost as classy as the Prime Minister of England who stuck his in the mouth of a dead pig.

Aids blood can corrode titanium though, so we're safe and he's in for an uphill battle of recovery. At least that's what raptor Jesus told me in his newsletter. And for the record, I don't really care about the McDavid injury one bit, I just like having fun at the expense of the people who are up in arms about it. I save my voodoo and witchcraft for Boston teams mostly.

Enough to disregard the health and safety of every one standing in the way, at least passively. Wishing ill on the enemy doesn't even require getting off the couch after all.

No, I'm praying for the aids and ass cancer. That not only eliminates them from the game against my team, it eliminates them from contention permanently, although Magic Johnson played again so I may have to make it some kind of Super Aids or some kind of toxic waste "accident" where their faces melt off instead. Maybe some sort of flesh eating virus where they just disintegrate slowly into the piles of dung that they are. Don't get me wrong I completely understand about your preference to beat the best competition when they are at their absolute best, but I just don't care about that crap. Even if the Bills were able to make Tom Brady our prison bitch for the next handful of years until he finally retires every Pats fan would still have the argument that we couldn't beat them when he was in his prime so it would kind of be bittersweet anyway.

What about life threatening illness though? I pray to raptor Jesus for Tom Brady and Bill Belichick to get stricken with aids or ass cancer all the time. Does that make me a bad person? Does it mean I won't get to go to heaven and play football with regular Jesus once the rapture happens?

I prefer 40 but I'm ok with 20 as well. It should definitely not go over 40 or under 20 though. Under 20 leads you to having to click way too often and over 40 could cause pages to load too slowly, especially in those threads where people imbed lots of youtube videos or post gif images and quote each other's posts so there are a ton of items that have to load. My crappy gubment internet can't always handle it.

Is that in metric or standard?

I agree that it's a good problem to have but all else being equal I'd rather the team be balanced and good all around rather than stacked in one area and deficient in another.

It doesn't make it untrue though. I think Reinhart will turn into a better version of O'Reilly within a couple seasons and we'd be better off spending the money on other positions. If it's not true then where do they slot in a couple years? Which one gets bumped to wing or the 3rd line?

Hillary is the female version of Mitt Romney. Her views shift with the political wind and sway depending on who she is talking to. She's leaning farther left on most issues now to steal some of Bernie's thunder and secure the nomination. Once she does she'll pivot back towards the right and be the pro-war, pro-wall street centrist that will attempt to appeal to as many undecided voters as possible. At that point I'll still be forced to hold my nose for vote for her though, because the alternative (regardless of which Republican it is) will be an anti-poor, anti-middle class chickenhawk war monger that will run up even bigger deficits than any Democrat would by cutting taxes for the wealthy while putting our troops in conflicts they don't belong in while pandering to evangelical zealots and gun nuts and we'll only get about 25% of that nonsense if HRC wins.

He's surprised me for sure. I'm one of his biggest detractors because while he's the right type of player to shelter Eichel and Reinhart for now, I feel he'll be redundant and overpaid by the time Eichel and Reinhart are ready for primetime roles. I doubt he keeps up this type of scoring pace, but I'm happy to eat crow for the moment and I still hope we can trade him off for a good return to Toronto or someone else in dire need for a good center once we start having a give out big raises to the young guys and we find ourselves up against the cap.

It may not matter all that much in the short term, it just goes to show more of the hypocrisy involved. When their side has control of the purse strings they spend with reckless abandon and the worst part is they start wars that cost the country in dollars and soldiers for years after they are gone. Then when the other side has control of the purse strings it's suddenly time to tighten up the belt.

I'd agree with this and that's probably why I support Bernie (along with his platform of course) and I support Paul more than anyone else on the right. When I hear most Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility I think it's all a rouse for cutting taxes for the wealthy while cutting aid to the poor and I'm reminded of Dick Cheney's comment that deficit spending doesn't matter in the short term. Rand Paul seems to genuinely want to be fiscally responsible, although my coclusion could also be based on the fact that the majority of Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible in one breath while wanting to cut revenues at the same time as greatly increasing spending on the military like the chicken hawk war mongerers the majority of them are.

Only the carpenter ant after it gets infected by the zombie fungus. http://m.livescience.com/47751-zombie-fungus-picky-about-ant-brains.html

That would be awesome and at the same time.

It was ridiculous but that was the only movie to give me a nightmare since I was a kid. Then again I was a big time heavy drinker in those days too so my imagination was probably more vivid.

Good horror movies: Devil's Rejects, Teeth, the Hitcher, I Spit on your grave, 30 days of night, Feast, Funny Games, Kalifornia, the Mist, P2, Pathology, Strangeland, Trick R Treat. Any of these you haven't seen are good for a watch.

I'd give Johnson the nod against his old team and I think DB will too. If Ullmark can keep playing well though I'd be fine with him getting equal starts with Johnson or even a majority of starts going forward until Lehner is fully recovered.

I understand all that but you're living in a fantasy world if you think they are going to turn back the clock on equipment advances. They are not gonna be able to get goalies to wear smaller pads. It just won't happen. They can trump up the safety issue or increased chance at injury or threats of lawsuits. Every sport is trending towards increasing safety and doing things to make sports safer. They aren't going to make any decisions that can even remotely be misconstrued as making things less safe for any players. Yes back in the 80's and 90's they wore smaller pads but back in the 70's most players didn't even wear helmets and if you go back a little further the goalies didn't even wear them. You're fighting a losing battle that will never happen but they could get the same effect with bigger nets and no backlash from a safety standpoint.

I still don't see how that would help goal scoring as much as making the net bigger. The fact that going into the butterfly can block the entire bottom of the net does more to hurt scoring than the size of Bernier's pants or Lundqvist's shoulder pads and chest protector.

Under the illusion of safety if nothing else. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease and I imagine goalies would be screaming to high hell if they were told their pads were too big and they had to change. They'd complain about making the nets bigger too, but they wouldn't have the safety argument to fall back on whatsoever. It seems like an easier and overdue fix anyway. The goals are too small. Even if the pads thinned down somewhat the goalies are getting bigger and taller. I'm tired of seeing these 6'6" Scandinavian dudes who can block the entire bottom foot to foot and a half of the net just by dropping into the butterfly. Make the nets wider and taller.