Taro T

It would be so friggin' nice if these guys could break the whole debate back into a 2-3 part question. (And actually agree to 'reasonable' answers. Yeah, I know a significant portion of the issue is nobody is willing to agree on what 'reasonable' is.) 1. What percentage of GDP should the government spend? Obama says 25% (1/4 of the total). Ryan says head towards 20% for now (1/5 of total). Me, I'd like to see it closer to 18% (roughly 1/6) but understand they'd have to get to 20% before they could get lower. 2. If they could agree to that, then the follow up questions are: how to distribute that from 'the wealthy,' 'the middle class,' and 'the poor;' (and the foreigners(?)) and how much gets paid for today (current taxes) & how much gets paid tomorrow (debt). And those would theoretically be easier to answer than simply 'how much do we spend in flat out trillions.' Because if they would actually come up with an agreement that 'we'll spend X%' then the debate moves to 'how do we grow the GDP' rather than 'how do we increase revenues to pay for everything we want.' You want more money to spend on your pet projects, then grow the !@#$ing economy. Yeah, I know it will NEVER happen, but there's my 'I've got a dream' dream.

While the logic is sound, it doesn't look like any network executives agree w/ it. Me, I could see either Bills-Bears or Bills-Broncs having similar/better ratings compared to some of the others like TB/KC or NO/Oak.

Not a shocking proposal, but pretty idiotic on the whole.

Sheesh, no love nationally for that annual classis Bills-Lions slugfest? How shocking.

Mandating 'nutritious, sensible school lunches' is a great way to start under-nourishing kids. As you would be hard pressed to find kids that would be willing to eat the crud that passes for school lunches more than 2-3 times / week. My gut feel is that any attempt at mandating school lunches would probably result in kids consuming additional empty calories as they hit the candy machines to fill up after eating 3 or so bites of what they were supposed to be eating. I'd also be interested in seeing some stats on which income levels produce which percentages of the 'fat' kids. My guess is the lower deciles are overrepresented. If that's the case, what good would fines produce? This looks more like a money grab by the lunch provider (supported by well meaning dolts) than anything else.

Crozier had serious health issues during his Sabres' tenure. He DIDN'T lead the team to the playoffs in '73 - he split that year w/ Dryden (because of his stomach problems) and Dryden got the 1st 2 starts in the playoffs. In '75, again due to health issues, he was the effectively the backup behind Bromley and then Desi. He came in in relief for Desi in the 1st game against Moe-ray-all and started the next 2 until he got yanked in game 3. He played games 3 & 6 in the Finals. When HEALTHY, even at his age, he was better than Dryden, Bromley, Daley, Desi, etc. but he wasn't healthy often enough to say he 'led' the team. They were better w/ him in the net than the others, but he just simply wasn't able to be there often enough. Barrasso looked GREAT his 1st 2 years in Buffalo. And then people figured out that the 5 hole was ALWAYS open, and he didn't look nearly as good in Buffalo ever again. (By the time he was traded, he was giving up over 4 gpg.) He bore down while in Pittsburgh after his daughter got sick, but even then the success he had in Pittsburgh was due to Lemieux & crew far more than it was due to him. You already know the answer to your 2nd round question, so I won't bother w/ that one. And you don't expect Miller to be better than Hasek? No !@#$ing **** Sherlock. Dom was (arguably) the best goalie ever. If the criticism is that he isn't better than Dom, I can't argue w/ that. But I wouldn't say anybody else was better than him either.

Restricting is MUCH different than eliminating. Considering there is noone on either side of the table looking out for the taxpayer during negotiations, I am just disappointed that it took this long for this correction to occur. I am also disappointed that it isn't happening in NY as well. There has to be a rationalization to the way benes are provided moving forward. Let the public workers get fair salaries up front (which they still get to do under the WI law) but don't let them hide huge costs under the table. Workers currently getting pensions should continue getting them, but public workers that are younger should be on 403b's. And to keep public salaries 'fair' with what their output is worth, perhaps they should get big raises to account for some of the lost value of their future benes. And give the workers the RIGHT to choose whether to pay union dues or not. If the union leadership is truly working for them and providing a value to them, they'd be fools not to pay the dues, right? My guess is though, when the dues become optional, a lot of workers won't see the value they supposedly are receiving.

Interesting how he and Walker are both from Wisconsin. With Madison as liberal as it is, wouldn't have seen this being the origin of movements for fiscal sanity.

1st off, they aren't cutting out collective bargaining. They're limiting its scope to salary and not to perks. The unions can still collectively bargain, they just don't get to negotiate clauses such as an individual's state pension will be based on the actual salary collected in the last 3 years of employment regardless of how much overtime, sick time, and vacation is included in that baseline. And I haven't heard many (any?) people complain about Soros backing Dems. Am I to assume you are opposed to that because he's rich like the Koch Brothers or are you in favor of it because he gives to leftist causes? And the bolded items in your last paragraph are about the only things I've seen you post that I'd agree with. Glad to see you finally got one right.

Not since the early '80's. That's the Jennings you're thinking of. The Vezina is awarded to the netminder that the GM's think is the best.

Wow, now Enroth isn't getting compared to Dom, he's getting compared to Ken Dryden? Big difference between the 2. Dryden was highly touted and the Habs wanted him sooner than they got him. Habs wanted Dryden in their system and he balked and went to Cornell. Habs had a good goalie in Vachon and a servicable backup in Myre but neither had the potential of Dryden. Vachon had missed the playoffs for the 1st time in nearly forever the previous year. Dryden came up and didn't lose a game in the RS. The guy was a monster sizewise for his era and won 6 SC's in 8 seasons. And really, Miller doesn't belong in conversation with Crozier at the tail end of his career w/ serious stomach problems, Fuhr at the end of his career, Tommy 5 Hole in the Sabres portion of his career, Edwards, & Sauve? I would like to see how Enroth reacts to shooters 'having a book on him' before I annoint him the Sabres' "next superstar goalie." He has very good reactions and a quick glove. I'd like to see shooters not take advantage of his size for more than a handful of games before we put his # in the rafters. Right now he looks to be a very capable backup, and if Miller isn't minimum 95%, I'd rather have him between the pipes; but that's all it is for now.

And drooling Americans.

Well the EPA has considered adding ethylene to the list of carcinogens simply because it ripens fruit. (Fortunately that didn't get very far.) So some of their other decisions haven't been terribly surprising. Though I still haven't seen any legitimate justification from them for regulating CO2 other than Bush misstating in a debate against Gore that CO2 (rather than CO) was a pollutant.

Uh, did you see the 4th goal against the Caps? Box score says Gragnani scored it, so it was a double deflection that scored the game winner, just like last night.

Of course he's joking, horses can't skate. In Canada it's a snow track, not an ice track.

That's technically true, but in reality no negotiations would have taken place until January/February '12 if the deal ran into March '12. Neither side would have felt the urgency to get the deal in place and both would have thought that showing up w/ a legitimate 'fair' offer would be showing weakness - which would have caused the other side to dig its heels in further. ('Hey, if they're already here, just imagine where they'll be in February when the rubber starts to hit the road. We're winning!') And there was a reason for the owners to lock the players out now - it improves their leverage as the players haven't gotten any money for '11 yet and face the possibility of a full year without a paycheck. Just like a strike late in the season would benefit the players as the owners would lose all their playoff money and the players would have already received most of their salary for the year.

NHL players get (at current leaguewide revenue levels) 57% of all designated receipts. That # is so firmly set in stone that portions of the players salaries are held in escrow until the accountants look at the books in the off-season and the actual salaries are adjusted up or down to the agreed upon 57%.

The FO typically refers to the GM & scouts. That portion of the organization is unchanged as of yet, which is what Doc was referring to. Expecting major additions to the scouting department in the off-season. Though the FO hasn't changed, the guys approving/nixing the FO's handiwork have definitely changed.

But would you feel better about Obama's golfing if he wore a friggin' laser on his head?

Does Charlie speak French?

Well of course, he'd naturally be the one to find out about it before anyone else. Were there any suspects of Italian descent living in Moe-ray-all?

If it were to happen, a loud cheer would be emanating from the Bills warroom as they'd be guaranteed to have available to them at worst the 2nd best defensive player in the draft. (Of course, past Bills drafting history would lead me to believe they'd take the 202nd best defensive player in the draft with that pick, but on paper at least they'd have at worst the 2nd best guy and possibly the best one.)

The school's response is idiotic. I'd like to know what the parents' response is/was. If one of my kids pulled that stunt, they would not be using a cell phone for a REAL long time and they'd be wishing that were the worst of it.

Provided you don't get U-turned.

Close. It was the Dems and it was to prevent a redistricting vote. It didn't work in the end, but it is good to see that they tend to be consistant.