SabresFanInRochester

The connection between lobbyists and politicians will move towards being severed and hopefully exposed for what it is so that buying favor is removed from politics. I am tired of politicians acting to improve their personal situation instead of representing constituents. I am also tired of politicians qualifying as experts because they studied political science in college, then get a job in politics or community organizing groups, and rose through the ranks. I am sorry, but the government is a tad bit fiscally irresponsible, and I don't think there is enough knowledge of business by a politician to straighten it out. This goes for both sides. On the second note, you're happy because a crappy oversight and system worked in your favor, so c'est la vie. This represents why I am tired of the system. It's only a problem if it doesn't go in your favor? Are you still crying in your cereal because the system allowed Bush to win even though he didn't have receive the majority of votes? Get over it. It works both ways. Let's work towards correcting the underlying problems. I don't know how Bernie did it, but he was getting serious traction. He had a legitimate shot, but that superdelegate system ensured he would never sniff the White House. Don't give me the BS labels -- Republicans are racist. Bush is responsible for Katrina. blah, blah, blah. They work both ways and if you just pander to your party by using that rhetoric, I don't have time for that level of conversation. I am basically telling you I am not going to throw the same labels at you. I would expect the same respect. I view superdelegates very differently. I do not understand your party, but to me, it is a pay-to-play scheme. Supportdelegates backed Hillary because of anticipated reciprocation of favors. I think both sides do it, however, the Republicans simply call it business as usual.

Yes, he is a better fit, BUT, I am not going to voice my political opinion by voting for someone who doesn't stand a chance (Johnson) and allow someone who I cannot stand to get in (HRC) because votes are taken away from Trump. I learned the hard way when I voted for Perot.

I cannot vote for someone who does not know about Aleppo. :nana:

I was just thinking about the analogy someone gave above regarding using an auto mechanic to fix your car instead of a layman in reference to how could you elect Trump, a non-politician. I own a Volvo. I know when I take my car in for service, I am going to get raped. I am going to overpay on their hourly rate, I am going to overpay for certified Volvo parts, and I am going to bitch and complain, but ultimately I will have to bend over and take it. However, I can go to my 3rd party mechanic, who has a diagnostic card reader, and although it doesn't give the same readings, he knows enough and will have outside guidance to figure it out. I am dreading Volvo (HRC) and will give a 3rd party (Trump) a chance with the proper guidance through his card reader and fellow mechanics (advisors and staff.) Oh, hold on there. Trump's party doesn't want him or like him. Remember how hard they fought to defeat him so another one of the cronies could be on the ticket? Plenty of sources mention politicians and insiders bitching about how the political system will change if Trump gets elected and their jobs will no longer be as fat cat as they used to be. That is what is needed, in my opinion. Frankly, Sanders would have created that same disruption, although not to the same extent, if he landed on the DNC ticket. Both parties are corrupt, however RNC was unable to rig the system to stop Trump, but the DNC was able to rig the superdelegate process to block Bernie. Don't throw these generalistic lobs at me -- Do you expect me to start quoting Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America" and have you lulled to sleep that it was the Democrats that wanted slavery and fought against women's suffrage? Come on.

I am afraid that what Trump says he will do is rhetoric or political jargon. However, there is a chance he is being honest and will work to fix government. I KNOW that what HRC says is exactly what I do not want.

I appreciate your responses and I respect your opinions. I do not agree with your underlying political beliefs, and I can tell you that I didn't read your reasons, and decide to switch my allegiance to HRC -- That's right, I am voting for Trump. But your reasons and beliefs do not make you wrong, and my opinion certainly doesn't make me right. So let's see if we can have an intelligent exchange here. I am an independent, although, my views lean towards conservative and libertarian. I don't trust government. I don't think government is honest and I do not think the people that we elect to serve us are in it for the correct reasons. You should not make more money coming out of political office than you did when you went in. I am a fan of the old school model (and Texas) where politicians serve part-time. Our constituents should be representatives of us, and more common, instead of career politicians. I am in independent because I have always been scouring for that candidate who is going to finally change things to do what I believe needs to be done: Institute term limits, get rid of lobbying, and reduce politician pay to that of a part-time job. Is Trump going to do all of that. No. But, I love that he openly refused money during the RNC because he didn't want to feel obligated to repay someone. That's the right attitude. And the exact opposite of what I see happening through the Clinton Foundation. My political foundation is built upon the notion that the Constitution protects the People from government. If it is not written in the Constitution, then the federal government doesn't have the right to impose their will -- States have that right. Why is this important? Because I don't want to get up and leave the Country, which would have logistical problems. However, it is not impossible for me to move to another State that could be more inline with my expectations of government. (You might be thinking -- then what the fudgesicle are you doing in NY???) I am amazed by Democrats who see HRC as flawless -- that the attacks on her health are merely conspiracy theory, and that her Foundation is not cheating the system, and the email server scandal was overblown, yet a layperson doing the same would have landed them in jail. To a Hillary supporter, Hillary's flaws and gaffes are dismissed as political attacks, while everything about Trump is either a lie if it sounds good, or when he says one of his numerous unbelievable comments, it is a obvious character flaw and displays his ineptitude. I understand Trump has a closet full of skeletons and some serious issues -- I am scared shitless thinking about him being in charge of the US, but it is better than the alternative. I support Trump because what I see out of Hillary tramples my wish to limit Federal power.

Could you do the same thing, but for Hillary? I do not know how either party can say their candidate is legitimate and honest, and the other party lies, is fraudulent, and dirty. I hate (HATE) that I just involved myself in the politics forum. Ewww... can't shake the cringe and I am fighting myself to simply erase this message and move on. Why? Because people generally refuse to consider anything other than their opinion, especially in politics. And when they have a chance to exude their "intelligent" and flawless argument, the ears get pinned back and holier-than-thou attitude persists. I get it -- Republicans provide tax breaks on the rich. [Leave space for 10 opposing-party line talking points here.] Democrats provide exorbitant entitlements. [Leave space for 10 opposing-party line talking points here.] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/how-wall-street-devoured-corporate-america/273732/ I think the point is that the finance sector is making money and other industries are not as profitable.

Perhaps, but I think it was more posturing for a contract. When you look at the end result, IMO, he accepted a discount to stay with his club. I don't think his comments ever got to the point of distraction, but I also don't live in Tampa and follow it that close.

It's my thought/belief that when a player and team have an ugly disagreement, the player moves. I don't see too many successful 'kiss-and-make-up' in the league. Maybe you can provide examples to show otherwise, but: Suban was just shipped out of Montreal. Hasek was sent packing from Buffalo when there were behind the scene issues with coaching/management. O'Reilly was said to be unhappy with his contract situation in Colorado. These are just a few all star players who had issues with their teams, and I think allegiance and team-player attitude ultimately comes into play. I am struggling to find an example of a great player who was unhappy but buried the hatchet with his team and played out his career.

Make a trade with Tampa for Drouin. Sign Vesey.

I agree that the title is misleading. Should be "Vesey's dad is surprised by the move." Frankly, I don't give a rat's a$$ what his dad says to the media. And then the article continues by quoting statements from Jimmy Vesey that were made month's ago, prior to the Sabres acquiring his rights: That's dated intelligence and irrelevant. On a separate note, I would love to know -- when a player's rights are traded, what percentage of the time does the acquiring team fail to sign the player? We always hear about a player leaving at the trade deadline and there is hope or belief that they will come back after the season ends as a UFA. It seems routine that that player signs an extension with that team once they get there and get comfortable. I think this trading for rights allows us to help Vesey get comfortable and so I believe that Vesey will end up signing with Buffalo. I do want the signing to be prior to Friday so GMTM knows who to pursue in the draft. And if it means trading down because now Ennis or Girgensons are expendable and you have the resources to get it done, there would be enough direction to know that the top defenseman is the prize.

I cannot believe I am saying this -- kinda hate the guy: Hartnell is listed as trade bait in the tsn article. Having him on a line with Jack and Sam would provide someone who would watch their back and fit in a top 6 role.

That's true -- Chicago was reported to have this locked up... during late-April. [April 27th - deal could be done as early as next week.] I don't know the reason for the delay in closing the deal, but maybe the Chicago deal soured. I will watch Daddario as I wait for the signing -- thank you!

Could this be the answer at LHD? This source is Michael Pachla at Hockeybuzz, but the original is Friedman... Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman in his 30 Thoughts, has the Buffalo Sabres in on Czech defenseman Michal Kempny. Friedman wrote that "Kempny has some outstanding possession numbers. Buffalo, Chicago and Vancouver are among his most serious pursuers." Kempny, who wears No. 6 for the Czechs, is a 6'0" 194 lbs., left-handed d-man who has been playing in the Kontinental Hockey League in Russia. The 25 yr. old had 21 points (5+16) in 59 games for Omsk Avangard last season. Keep an eye on No. 6.

Oh, the woman in the white dress... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhfntLl6xx0

Well done! Thank you for sharing. I hope next year's video is rightfully created to "We are the Champions."

What a bastard Ennis is -- he should suck it up and put on a happy face and play through it so we can acquire another player. Chump. Seriously, the guy has a concussion, and the top concern is that he is worthless in the trade market?

Dan was playing it smart -- if he holds onto Eichel, and Samson in the shootout, he can use them in the 4th or 5th round. It would have worked beautifully if our backup goalie could have stopped Boston's three best shooters.

Nah, wait until the next game when he creates the line of Moulson - Eichel - Gionta. But only for one game. Then maybe Legwand - Eichel - Gionta.

I was wondering what happened there I started to think maybe the Jets didn't call a timeout and the reason for the break was because the clock needed to be reset to 49 seconds. So the refs reviewed that on their own? I used to love the NFL but all of the rules and replays (and simple fact that the Bills suck year after year) has really taken me away from the game. I wouldn't even be able to tell you who won the games this weekend -- don't care. This replay business in hockey is a step in the wrong direction. Now the refs, if that is indeed who called the challenge, can question their own judgement??? WTF

A few observations over the last stretch of games: Eichel's movement with the puck seems to be curtailed from where it was at the start of the year, and his production is down as a result. I would love to see him have freedom with the puck. Not sure who told him not to, or if the opposing teams are just taking him away.(I doubt that teams suddenly solved his game.) Reinhart has been pushed down the lineup and I would like to see him up on a higher line. He has done as much to justify being on a top line as Gionta or Moulson. The Sabres looked the team of old with all their shots that missed the net. Some were intentional -- trying to get a bounce off the boards -- but NONE of them created chances. And the number of shots that simply missed -- hit the f#%@-ing net!

James Tanner was part of a panel on HockeyBuzz to list their top 5 NHL teams. He picked Buffalo for #5. The link and segment pertaining to Buffalo are below. I don't know if they are the 5th best team -- alright, I do... probably not -- but they are playing some solid hockey. Friday's game against Philly was one of the best games I have attended in years! They are dominating and if it weren't for holding your breath every time the opposing team shoots, they would be winning close games. 3-1 in the past 4 games (and this is minus Kane.) Their stats are good. Let's see if it continues to translate to wins. http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/HockeyBuzz-Hotstove/NHL-Power-Rankings-Surprises-At-The-Top/187/72216 5. Buffalo Oh what did you do Tanner? Buffalo? You idiot! 52% possession. Ridiculous 95 PDO. Lead the league in high-danger scoring chances and third in HDSC differential. They're shooting under 5% and are dressing a goalie I barely ever heard of, but they are a team that is not just on the rise, but a team that has risen. O'Reilly is a monster. Eichal and Reinhart get better by the game. Their D is good, their F is solid. Do I really think that for 82 games their the fifth best team in hockey? No I don't, but I do think they deserve some props, right now, for being one of the best teams in the NHL so far. Let's not even look at their record, records are useless right now and have way more to do with luck than anything else. Buffalo is a good team, threatening greatness.

The sound of reason: Give it some time. 1/10 into the season isn't time to trade everyone away and start over. We just did that! I personally cannot wait for Bogosian to enter the lineup. I think he will make a difference. Our goaltending is suspect, which was a wildcard coming into the year. With Lehner injured, we still don't know what we have there. I like what I see out of Eichel, Kane, Ennis, O'Reilly, Reinhart, and Deslauriers. I'm okay with Moulson. I think Girgenson is starting to find his way, but doesn't look as dominant as last year. Foligno, Gionta, and Larrson are pegs getting plugged in and I am not sure I have seen them fit and belong anywhere yet. I don't like McGinn on the top line. Just doesn't seem to match the level of play that is around him. I don't know about the whole let's just find two players who fit together and plug in a third, but time will tell if we find a consistent line. Go Sabres! I am WAY more excited about what the Sabres have going on this year as opposed to the Bills. It's still a race to see which of the two makes the playoffs first. I think we will have to wait until 2017 to find out the answer.

Wouldn't one of those teams be Chicago?

Not making light of the situation. I think he will be able to plea out of most of it. I look back at Heatley in 2003 -- no alcohol involved, but still an idiotic offense when someone was killed. No jail time and I don't think there was suspension involved. I consider this a worse outcome than O'Reilly's. Different circumstances -- I know. From Wikipedia -- On September 29, 2003, Heatley was driving a Ferrari 360 Modena with Thrashers teammate Dan Snyder in the passenger seat.[43] Heatley, who was driving between 55-82 MPH in a 35 MPH zone,[44] lost control and skidded into a brick pillar and iron fence.[43] Six days later, Snyder died from his injuries. Heatley was charged with vehicular homicide as a result of the crash. He pleaded guilty to second-degree vehicular homicide, driving too fast for conditions, failure to maintain a lane, and speeding. He was sentenced to three years probation and ordered to give 150 speeches on the dangers of speeding, and pay $25,000 to Fulton County for the cost of investigating the crash.[44]