Buftex

Right....if you would have had "zero problem" with that, I am sure somebody would find problem with it...like saying he was just campaigning. I can understand Obamas leadership abilities being questioned, I really can...but this is just a silly argument. Could be, I don't know. Does that matter? I think when he gets back with his birth certificate, I am going to ask to see his tax returns from 1989. The guy in the cubby next to me says he thinks the boss hasn't paid taxes every year.

Yeah, but the guy who works in receiving wants to see it...

Now, Donald Trump has to produce a document that says he is not a total piece of ****!

How did that work out? Now, he his leadership is questioned, because he did just that... Some folks will find an argument in anything...my boss told me to do a bunch of stuff today, but now he is off, getting a copy of his birth certificate, to prove he should hold his job...I think I will screw off the rest of the day...

Because, people on this board, for the most part (not all) automatically think ownership/managment is right, and athletes/labor are wrong. The reason the deal is considred a "bad one" by so many, and the owners, is because the players, collectively, are getting more money than they are accustomed to. They will argue (as I have seen here) that the players make millions to play a kids game, and are too stupid, for the most part, to invest and save, and end up broke. So, of course, it is better for the owners to keep more money...that is the kind of logic that exists here.

Sorry. Your an idiot...logically accurate. Not my fault you are too pompus to explain yourself... Your first post on the Romney gaffe: "In Romney's defense, there's a long, long history of "peacetime" not including dinky little undeclared wars. For example, "Pax Britannica". It's less a "gaffe" than it is a convenient excuse for his opponents." I asked you a question (do you not consider the expense of the two-three wars as a factor in the current financial situation?) your immediate answer was: "I refuse to answer that, not on the grounds that no matter how many times I read it, it's a blatant and idiotic setup of some kind, but also on the grounds that I pretty much already have, repeatedly." You made one post on this point, so I am not sure where you "repeatedly" explained your position. It just sounds like you are not man enough to realize, like Mitt-wit, you said something really stupid. Who are "his oppenents"...what is being "convieniently" excused? I assumed, you were talking about Romney's oppenents? I assume you meant the "wars" were merely a "convenient excuse" for Obama to use as part of the reason for our defecit woes? Wisen me enlightened one! WTF are you trying to say? I am sorry if I missed your point in the reams of other posts you have made over the years...you could just answer the question, or ignore it...

My teams: Bills, Sabres, Celtics, Expos... a combined 4-9 in championship games/series, in my life. Thanks Celtics! btw- Celtics won 13 championships, before my time, as a fan...I loved the Buffalo Braves in the 70's...didn't start following the C's until the Bird era. And, I was born in 1965, too young to appreciate the AFL championship Bills teams. If I didn't like the NBA (like many here), I would be sitting at 0-6, and minus a baseball team! GO CELTICS!!! Beat the Heat!

Or just a potent combo of greed and arrogance. However, I had the same thought...I can see some of the newer blood owners, like Dan Schneider and Jerry Jones, wondering why they should be held back, and taking less money for teams like Buffalo, Cincinnati, etc... why not just roll the dice and hope that the NFL's protected illegal monopoly is busted up, so they can make more money for themselves, individually. If small market teams fall by the way side, so be it. They will blame it on the players. I think the judge in this case was very wise, and the owners have been very disingenuous about their motives. They may love the game of football, but they love money more...Goodells' Wall Street Journal piece was unbelievable. I never thought I would ever be on the verge of just hating the NFL...its' been such a huge part of my life, for as long as I can remember... Sorry dayman, your wrong. Don't quit your night job! They have only been talking about this for two years now... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

A point that keeps being missed by some...

Taibbi is awesome! "I get that the Missouri quarterback physically grades out just like a string of other first-round passers who’ve succeeded in recent years, but I can’t get past his name, which sounds to me like "FLABBY GERBIL FART.”

It only gets better...second season was amazing.

Is it me, or doesn't she look like a young Dyan Cannon?

As of now, this has gone in the players favor. The owners are the only ones who have the power to make this work, but they won't, if it will cost them money...not sure how you can knock NFLPA leadership...it may not be Goodells' fault that this happened (it isn't), but, at this point, he is just a spin master for the owners, who, once again, appear to be on the wrong side of labor dispute. We'll see what happens in the next day...I can tell you though, if the 2011 season doesn't proceed on schedule, the owners will have nobody to blame but themselves for this mess. I am sure the owners are missing Gene Upshaw right now... I liked this: "Right now, that lockout looks to be the most self-destructive move that a league has made in a long, long time. The lockout was enjoined by a judge on Monday, meaning it’s now over. The league is appealing Judge Nelson’s ruling, but from what I can tell the league’s appeal seems on shaky ground, and as our own Michael McCann says, the league now has a whole lot to worry about. The players, assuming the ruling is not overturned, now have serious negotiating power. The owners, assuming the ruling is not overturned, now have a serious problem convincing anyone that they aren’t already overflowing in money. This thing has a chance to become a major embarrassment for the owners … and perhaps more than just an embarrassment. It could be a financial catastrophe."

I heard Paul Hamilton earlier, talking about all the FA's the Sabres have coming on the horizon. He contends (and I have no reason to disagree) that if the Sabres don't try to sign Drew Stafford to a cap-friendly deal, before his case goes to arbitration, they will either lose him, or pay him way too much...I like Stafford, I hope they handle this situation the right way. Hamilton believes, just based on numbers, that Stafford would command elite money, if his case goes to arbitration. I would hate to overpay a guy like Stafford, at the expense of, say, a Tyler Ennis or Nathan Gerbe. btw- Hamilton didn't mention Enroth, but I could have sworn he was a restricted FA, after this season. Anyone know if that is the case? What does that mean, in terms of the NHL?

Go away...your avatar is offensive...

Maybe she lost a bet?

Great article Dave..thanks for the link... Goodell is a tool.

Yeah, I know...I think he is a great coach...I really pray that Pegula delivers, on his end. This season ended with a flurry, and was very fun....but I want them to win the whole thing...I do think they have some great young talent. Philly was the better team, no crime in losing to them. I just want to have to come up with excuses as to why we couldn't defend our title, for a change!

I am glad I am not the only one who heard that...on the Versus broadcast, they interviewed Lindy during the 2nd period, when it was still in reach (though, in reality, not) and it sounded like he was already making excuses for them to lose (I think he mentioned all the guys coming back from injury, their youth)...I love Ruff, and I want him to stay with the Sabres...but if I have one criticism of him, he does this too much. And then the players start repeating it...like they know that losing isn't all that bad a thing, because they have a good excuse. I think the excuses are legit, but let the media, or the fans make them...not the head coach.

I agree with you, he likely should not have released this, as it just dignifies a stupid argument. However, I think Obama, and his people, were sensitive to the point that the many of the conservative talking heads have been making, that this "birther" issue was somehow being used by the Obama people as a positive. It likely was, but Obama, to a fault, in my opinion, doesn't like to give the appearence that he is using cynical means to garner support. It's all politics.

Romney was making the point that Obama has run up the defecit to record numbers during "peacetime"...DC seems to be making the point (I think) that using "war costs" as an excuse for part of the problems with the defecit is merely a "convenient excuse"...and that Romney saying we are in "peace" is merely a "logical inaccuracy". I don't see it...

How is Romney saying we are in "peacetime", when there are 3 wars going on, "logically accurate"? How would the family of soldiers fighting in any of the places we currently have troops, or have lost family memebers, feel to find out their family isn't sacrificing for a "real war"? And how does it compare to "Mission accomplished"? I would give Bush more a benefit of a doubt than Romney for the two statements...Bush was, perhaps, caught up in the emotion...Romney is just tapping his inner Palin/Bachman. Or maybe you just realized you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, to score points?

Maybe...but there are two pretty formidable declared wars...either way...I take it as yet, another of example, of a Republican candidate who is not very in touch with things...how could anyone planning on running for president say something so mindless? Let me ask though, not to change the subject (Mitt is a twit), but you really think the cost of three wars (or 2 1/3) is only an "convenient excuse" for the current state of the economy? To me it seems like calling them "convenient excuse" is more a "convenient excuse".

SABULHAWKS!

I realize, you are not making this argument, but I hear it all the time....it is a very weak argument!