Pegulas to buy energy business

[Mr. WEO]

53 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

that they were not developing players..at all. No big loss. Wins at that level mean zero if you are doing it with players who will never help the NHL club. Drafting plays a part in that, but successful coaches can develop players as well. Chris Taylor was no huge loss. 

 

March Sabres fans , including me, were" blow the whole thing up, this entire organization is trash"

 

Sabres blow the whole thing up, same fans are 

 

"Pegulas blowed the whole thing up..WTF they are cheap and don't know what they are doing"

 

This is the 3rd time they "blew the whole thing up".  How's it going?

 

The Amerks are also Rochester's pro hockey team.  That's worthwhile in and of itself.  They were doing well and well attended.  Because the owner can't figure out how to staff his NHL team for the life of him (same GM for both teams til 2017), he has to blow up the local success story because not enough players are getting called up?  How many were called up before the Amerks recent run of success?

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Same fans who thought the NHL was a joke and didn't give a ***** about the Sabres years before the Pegulas came on the scene.  But now it's evidence that they're bad owners. 

 

Like I said, I wouldn't care if they sold everything but the Bills, if the Sabres were ensured of staying in Buffalo.  Let them focus on the most important franchise.

 

Pegula HAD to fire the staff on the Amerks....because nobody knows the future!........or something.

 

So it follows that he won't be hiring another Coach or GM----Is he liquidating the franchise as well?

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Pegula HAD to fire the staff on the Amerks....because nobody knows the future!........or something.

 

So it follows that he won't be hiring another Coach or GM----Is he liquidating the franchise as well?

 

Maybe he will.  Maybe he'll sell them.  Without fans, minor league hockey, and sports in general, are dead.

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Maybe he will.  Maybe he'll sell them.  Without fans, minor league hockey, and sports in general, are dead.

 

Botterill was about to extend Sexton and and Taylor when Pegula chopped him

 

In typical Pegula "kiss of death" fashion, only 3 weeks earlier, Kim said this: "“He’s our GM. Our plan is to continue with him. I realize, maybe it’s not popular with the fans, but we have to do the things that we feel are right. We have a little bit more information than maybe a fan does, some inner workings that we see some positives in.”

 

 

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Botterill was about to extend Sexton and and Taylor when Pegula chopped him

 

In typical Pegula "kiss of death" fashion, only 3 weeks earlier, Kim said this: "“He’s our GM. Our plan is to continue with him. I realize, maybe it’s not popular with the fans, but we have to do the things that we feel are right. We have a little bit more information than maybe a fan does, some inner workings that we see some positives in.”

 

An owner giving a vote of confidence and then firing someone.  That's a new one.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

An owner giving a vote of confidence and then firing someone.  That's a new one.

 

"You have to have continuity," Pegula told USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell during league meetings last week. "I don’t care if you’re drilling oil in gas wells or you’re running a sports team. If you keep changing things, nothing’s going to work."

 

Despite reports, Pegula says he never considered letting Ryan or general manager Doug Whaley go after last season, and there's "no way" their jobs rely on a playoff appearance this year.

"Our coach needs to know that, through the good and the bad, there’s stability. The players need to know there’s stability," Pegula said. "And by the way, that doesn’t help our players any to start reading that their coach is going to get fired."

 

 

 

This was late October, weeks before he (of course) canned Rex before the season ended.

 

Special props to "If you keep changing things, nothing's going to work".  Poor Sabres fans having to read that goofy nonsense.

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

"You have to have continuity," Pegula told USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell during league meetings last week. "I don’t care if you’re drilling oil in gas wells or you’re running a sports team. If you keep changing things, nothing’s going to work."

 

Despite reports, Pegula says he never considered letting Ryan or general manager Doug Whaley go after last season, and there's "no way" their jobs rely on a playoff appearance this year.

"Our coach needs to know that, through the good and the bad, there’s stability. The players need to know there’s stability," Pegula said. "And by the way, that doesn’t help our players any to start reading that their coach is going to get fired."

 

 

 

This was late October, weeks before he (of course) canned Rex before the season ended.

 

Special props to "If you keep changing things, nothing's going to work".  Poor Sabres fans having to read that goofy nonsense.

 

Yes, poor Sabres fans.  Take it to their board.  Your anti-Pegula stuff is embarrassing you here.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Yes, poor Sabres fans.  Take it to their board.

 

Why?  Would they agree with you that the Pegulas have not done a bad job managing that team?

[papazoid]

Back in February of 2011, Buffalo Sabres owner Terry Pegula - in his introductory press conference - said when it came to the team, he was not going to spare any expense.

"If I want to make money, I'll drill another well," Pegula said.

 

guess it's time to make money

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/alphabet_soup/2011/07/will-pegula-have-to-drill-another-well.html

[Doc]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why?  Would they agree with you that the Pegulas have not done a bad job managing that team?

 

Because this is a Bills board.  And until the Pegulas came around, you thought the NHL was a joke.

[major]

4 hours ago, papazoid said:

Back in February of 2011, Buffalo Sabres owner Terry Pegula - in his introductory press conference - said when it came to the team, he was not going to spare any expense.

"If I want to make money, I'll drill another well," Pegula said.

 

guess it's time to make money

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/alphabet_soup/2011/07/will-pegula-have-to-drill-another-well.html

Pegulas must be drilling in search of the ark. The Bible speaks of the Ark leveling mountains and laying waste in entire regions. An Army that carries the Ark before it... is invincible.

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Because this is a Bills board.  And until the Pegulas came around, you thought the NHL was a joke.

 

It is kind of a joke still.  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

It is kind of a joke still.  

 

I don't disagree.  So why bring it up, on a Bills board no less?

[billsfan89]

On 7/21/2020 at 11:51 AM, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Meh-it depends what you define "far left" as. This is, far and away, the farthest left the Democratic party has ever been. But they definitely aren't the Bolsheviks. 

 

That said, you are right, it won't happen overnight.  But the Pegulas are making a longer term investment, in a political climate that does not look good for natural gas. 

 

This is the farthest left the Democrats have ever been? FDR was pushing for universal healthcare and an economic bill of rights that included a job guarantee. The current Democratic party voted against cutting the military 10% and has a nominee that is basically a 1970's Republican who said he would veto Medicare for all. I suggest you look into US political history pre 1980.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

I don't disagree.  So why bring it up, on a Bills board no less?

 

I'm commenting on a topic that is and has been widely discussed on this Bills football board doc.  I wasn't the one who brought it up, as you well know.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

34 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

This is the farthest left the Democrats have ever been? FDR was pushing for universal healthcare and an economic bill of rights that included a job guarantee. The current Democratic party voted against cutting the military 10% and has a nominee that is basically a 1970's Republican who said he would veto Medicare for all. I suggest you look into US political history pre 1980.

Economic v Social policy. Your point is well taken. My argument is that the leaps in social justice policy, and the fact that they are still so close to the FDR era in terms of economic policy, makes them the farthest left the party has ever been. 

[Billsfanatixs]

New Energy Feild 

[TigerJ]

The Pegulas are smart investors.  It's a given that the price of oil is going to go up eventually.  It is a matter of how long it will take and what their risk tolerance is.  They're getting assets at a great price, but until the price of oil and gas rises, those investments are going to bleed money for a while as they cannot be operated profitably.  I don't know how fast that bleed will be or how much the Pegulas are prepared to lose, but if their calculations are on track, they will make their investment back plus a whole lot more.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Economic v Social policy. Your point is well taken. My argument is that the leaps in social justice policy, and the fact that they are still so close to the FDR era in terms of economic policy, makes them the farthest left the party has ever been. 

 

Close to FDR economically? Are you serious? The Dems now are 1970's Republicans economically. Do you really think that this current Democratic party is anywhere near FDR on economic policy? Their candidate for president would favor vetoing universal healthcare. The Democrats voted against cutting the military budget a measly 10% to put into other programs. The majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class. They take a ton of big business money and only mildly sway from the Republicans on Chamber of Commerce issues. Don't let AOC and a few others fool you because right wing media has a hate (and probably real) ***** to cover them. The vast majority of the Democratic Party is far from FDR. I would love it if they were "so close" to FDR, this country would be in far better shape. But that's not the case at all.

 

Bernie Sanders a fairly moderate social Democrat who was the closest any of the parties major candidates since the 1970's to come even close to FDR's economic policies and the entire infrastructure of the party untied and put its resources to defeat him twice. And yes on social issue the Dems are farther left than they ever have been but that's simply how progress works. We are only 3 generations removed from half of the US being in a literal apartheid state. Desegregation and civil rights were considered radical platforms in the 1950's to 1960's and early 1970's. Gay people not being viewed as monsters was a radical position in the 1970's. Civil rights for gays in terms of marriage was a radical position as recently as the early to mid 2000's. 

 

Where did you get this idea that the Dems are "so close" to FDR.

[billsfan89]

41 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

The Pegulas are smart investors.  It's a given that the price of oil is going to go up eventually.  It is a matter of how long it will take and what their risk tolerance is.  They're getting assets at a great price, but until the price of oil and gas rises, those investments are going to bleed money for a while as they cannot be operated profitably.  I don't know how fast that bleed will be or how much the Pegulas are prepared to lose, but if their calculations are on track, they will make their investment back plus a whole lot more.

 

I would also think that they see some other use for the assets outside of oil and gas which long term have a murky future. Maybe the equipment could be repurposed for other mining uses such as rare earth materials, nickel or thorium. 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Close to FDR economically? Are you serious? The Dems now are 1970's Republicans economically. Do you really think that this current Democratic party is anywhere near FDR on economic policy? Their candidate for president would favor vetoing universal healthcare. The Democrats voted against cutting the military budget a measly 10% to put into other programs. The majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class. They take a ton of big business money and only mildly sway from the Republicans on Chamber of Commerce issues. Don't let AOC and a few others fool you because right wing media has a hate (and probably real) ***** to cover them. The vast majority of the Democratic Party is far from FDR. I would love it if they were "so close" to FDR, this country would be in far better shape. But that's not the case at all.

 

Bernie Sanders a fairly moderate social Democrat who was the closest any of the parties major candidates since the 1970's to come even close to FDR's economic policies and the entire infrastructure of the party untied and put its resources to defeat him twice. And yes on social issue the Dems are farther left than they ever have been but that's simply how progress works. We are only 3 generations removed from half of the US being in a literal apartheid state. Desegregation and civil rights were considered radical platforms in the 1950's to 1960's and early 1970's. Gay people not being viewed as monsters was a radical position in the 1970's. Civil rights for gays in terms of marriage was a radical position as recently as the early to mid 2000's. 

 

Where did you get this idea that the Dems are "so close" to FDR.

This is a super marxist approach to historical analysis. Not very vogue for today's political climate. The fact that you describe Bernie Sanders as "a fairly moderate social Democrat" tells me that your issue is not that the Democrats aren't liberal, but that they aren't liberal enough. It colors everything you think about the party today v. the party then. 

 

Let's start with universal healthcare. FDR supported it, but knew he couldn't get it passed, which is why he never seriously pushed it.  Why couldn't he pass it? Because he couldn't get the votes from his own party, nor the Republicans. Its basically the same situation that today's Democratic party is faced with. Still, as of today, over 50% support universal healthcare. There has never been more support for universal healthcare, both inside and outside of government. Sanders, who almost took Biden, supported universal healthcare, as did every other major Democratic challenger. Even now, I think its pretty obvious that the only reason Biden doesn't openly support it is he is trying to win swing votes, and all he has to do to win the election is not be controversial.  

 

I don't really know what the 10% military budget cut gets you. It didn't pass the Senate, despite considerable Democratic support. By the time it got to the House, it was all political calculus: no use taking a controversial stance if isn't going anywhere. Besides, its not like FDR was the pro-peace candidate. 

 

Aso the wildly generic and nonsensical statement: "'[t]he vast majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class." I don't really even know what this means.  If you want to know what empty rhetoric looks like, it is this. 

 

Your argument on social issues is just "yeah, it was inevitable."  That isn't an argument.  Those issues enjoy almost universal support from the Democratic party in a way that could not be dreamed of even 10 years ago.  You can't just glaze over that, because you want more from the party. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[billsfan89]

2 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

This is a super marxist approach to historical analysis. Not very vogue for today's political climate. The fact that you describe Bernie Sanders as "a fairly moderate social Democrat" tells me that your issue is not that the Democrats aren't liberal, but that they aren't liberal enough. It colors everything you think about the party today v. the party then. 

 

Let's start with universal healthcare. FDR supported it, but knew he couldn't get it passed, which is why he never seriously pushed it.  Why couldn't he pass it? Because he couldn't get the votes from his own party, nor the Republicans. Its basically the same situation that today's Democratic party is faced with. Still, as of today, over 50% support universal healthcare. There has never been more support for universal healthcare, both inside and outside of government. Sanders, who almost took Biden, supported universal healthcare, as did every other major Democratic challenger. Even now, I think its pretty obvious that the only reason Biden doesn't openly support it is he is trying to win swing votes, and all he has to do to win the election is not be controversial.  

 

I don't really know what the 10% military budget cut gets you. It didn't pass the Senate, despite considerable Democratic support. By the time it got to the House, it was all political calculus: no use taking a controversial stance if isn't going anywhere. 

 

Aso the wildly generic and nonsensical statement: "'[t]he vast majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class." I don't really even know what this means.  If you want to know what empty rhetoric looks like, it is this. 

 

Your argument on social issues is just "yeah, it was inevitable."  That isn't an argument.  Those issues enjoy almost universal support from the Democratic party in a way that could not be dreamed of even 10 years ago.  You can't just glaze over that, because you want more from the party. 

 

FDR didn't push for universal healthcare because he died in office (in his 4th term, as it turns out his economic agenda was insanely popular.) FDR used his popularity as president to push his agenda not work his agenda to be workable within the system. FDR literally put healthcare into his economic bill of rights platform he was building for his 4th term. 

 

Democrats always favor means tested half measures. Look at the primary for an example of this. Sanders was the only democrat in the primary to push universal student debt forgiveness. Everyone else either wanted means tested solutions or half measures like lowering interest. Sanders was the only democrat to push for medical debt forgiveness (medical debt should be non-existant in a developed nation.) Sanders was the only one who wanted fully publicly funded public college and community college. Any other candidate always put forward means testing or half solutions even Warren someone supposedly to the farther left of the party. Even Medicare for All which some polling shows a majority of Republicans favor was only in full force supported by Sanders throughout the primary (Warren and Gabbard softened their stances and the rest outright backed away from it.) 

 

Even in the Coronavirus Relief bill back in March their solution to people losing their health insurance because they lost their job (another moronic idea) the vast majority of the party was proposing to subsidize COBRA (the most expensive insurance there is) or open up Obamacare exchanges. The radical idea of expanding Medicare to everyone in the US temporarily during a public health crisis wasn't even broached by this party you think is far left. So no it isn't empty rhetoric it is a study of recent political history and the actions of the party. 

 

Yes maybe for a conservative the Dems are too spicy and left on economic issues, but for the significant majority of the country that favors a populist left agenda they are at best center left. Based on their favoring of means testing and half measures over universal programs and bold action. The reason Biden isn't supporting Medicare for All isn't because of swing voters (swing voters like the policy 60% support among independents in most polls) but because he doesn't believe in it. He likes the Healthcare lobby and its money. It's that simple.

 

As far as the social policy argument. My point wasn't this is inevitable. But rather that at any point since the 1970's you could look at the Democratic parties social platform and view it as "the farthest left they have ever been." That doesn't mean that they are correct or wrong (although typically they end up being correct) but rather that using that as a gauge for the parties overall platform is misleading. But that also doesn't always even translate into policy. For all the talk of social and racial justice what major moves has the Dem party taken to actually do any action other than lipservice?

Edited July 23, 2020 by billsfan89

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

26 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

FDR didn't push for universal healthcare because he died in office (in his 4th term, as it turns out his economic agenda was insanely popular.) FDR used his popularity as president to push his agenda not work his agenda to be workable within the system. FDR literally put healthcare into his economic bill of rights platform he was building for his 4th term. 

 

Democrats always favor means tested half measures. Look at the primary for an example of this. Sanders was the only democrat in the primary to push universal student debt forgiveness. Everyone else either wanted means tested solutions or half measures like lowering interest. Sanders was the only democrat to push for medical debt forgiveness (medical debt should be non-existant in a developed nation.) Sanders was the only one who wanted fully publicly funded public college and community college. Any other candidate always put forward means testing or half solutions even Warren someone supposedly to the farther left of the party. Even Medicare for All which some polling shows a majority of Republicans favor was only in full force supported by Sanders throughout the primary (Warren and Gabbard softened their stances and the rest outright backed away from it.) 

 

Even in the Coronavirus Relief bill back in March their solution to people losing their health insurance because they lost their job (another moronic idea) the vast majority of the party was proposing to subsidize COBRA (the most expensive insurance there is) or open up Obamacare exchanges. The radical idea of expanding Medicare to everyone in the US temporarily during a public health crisis wasn't even broached by this party you think is far left. So no it isn't empty rhetoric it is a study of recent political history and the actions of the party. 

 

Yes maybe for a conservative the Dems are too spicy and left on economic issues, but for the significant majority of the country that favors a populist left agenda they are at best center left. Based on their favoring of means testing and half measures over universal programs and bold action. The reason Biden isn't supporting Medicare for All isn't because of swing voters (swing voters like the policy 60% support among independents in most polls) but because he doesn't believe in it. He likes the Healthcare lobby and its money. It's that simple.

 

As far as the social policy argument. My point wasn't this is inevitable. But rather that at any point since the 1970's you could look at the Democratic parties social platform and view it as "the farthest left they have ever been." That doesn't mean that they are correct or wrong (although typically they end up being correct) but rather that using that as a gauge for the parties overall platform is misleading. But that also doesn't always even translate into policy. For all the talk of social and racial justice what major moves has the Dem party taken to actually do any action other than lipservice?

 

Ah. There is so much I want to dive into, but at some point I have to respect the rules of the board.  I think we are compelled to find a different venue for this, and so I will only make three brief points: first, FDR wanted universal healthcare to accompany the Social Security Act; it was removed because he thought he would lose the rest of the bill if it included universal healthcare, illustrating that he made political calculi similar to what today's Party make. Second, most of what you say here are reasons the Party is not far enough left, and are not reasons FDR was farther left than today's party. Third, though your point on social justice issues is well taken, I don't think the Party has ever so radically redefined its approach to social justice issues. Where it once was dragged begrudgingly to address these issues, the approach of today's Party is to lean into them. Let's just keep in mind that FDR interned Japanese Americans and refused to support anti-lynching legislation.  

 

There is more to be said, and I would like to go deeper, but like I said, this isn't really the right forum. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Ah. There is so much I want to dive into, but at some point I have to respect the rules of the board.  I think we are compelled to find a different venue for this, and so I will only make three brief points: first, FDR wanted universal healthcare to accompany the Social Security Act; it was removed because he thought he would lose the rest of the bill if it included universal healthcare, illustrating that he made political calculi similar to what today's Party make. Second, most of what you say here are reasons the Party is not far enough left, and are not reasons FDR was farther left than today's party. Third, though your point on social justice issues is well taken, I don't think the Party has ever so radically redefined its approach to social justice issues. Where it once was dragged begrudgingly to address these issues, the approach of today's Party is to lean into them. Let's just keep in mind that FDR interned Japanese Americans and refused to support anti-lynching legislation.  

 

There is more to be said, and I would like to go deeper, but like I said, this isn't really the right forum. 

 

Good point.  Today's Democratic Party's attitudes on race-based internment and lynching would put them far left of Karl Marx.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Ah. There is so much I want to dive into, but at some point I have to respect the rules of the board.  I think we are compelled to find a different venue for this, and so I will only make three brief points: first, FDR wanted universal healthcare to accompany the Social Security Act; it was removed because he thought he would lose the rest of the bill if it included universal healthcare, illustrating that he made political calculi similar to what today's Party make. Second, most of what you say here are reasons the Party is not far enough left, and are not reasons FDR was farther left than today's party. Third, though your point on social justice issues is well taken, I don't think the Party has ever so radically redefined its approach to social justice issues. Where it once was dragged begrudgingly to address these issues, the approach of today's Party is to lean into them. Let's just keep in mind that FDR interned Japanese Americans and refused to support anti-lynching legislation.  

 

There is more to be said, and I would like to go deeper, but like I said, this isn't really the right forum. 

 

Everyone makes political calculations, but FDR was still pursuing universal healthcare (which is such a win for everyone besides insurance companies I have honestly no clue how anyone could not support it) in his 4th term making it the priority of his platform in his 4th term. Not to get lost in the weeds here but the Democratic party of today is a center right party by most industrialized nations standards and even by America's warped to the right standards it is still a center left party not pushing any real radical change in any meaningful sense. All of their solutions to economic problems tend to be incremental steps that are usually heavily means tested. 

 

FDR however often preferred universal dramatic solutions that speak to the core of the Progressive movement and what it means to be firmly left economically. You have social security which was a universal program that almost any working American has access to, you had massive jobs and infrastructure programs that didn't include any tax cuts for the rich. Whereas Obama's stimulus bill was 40% tax cuts. FDR promoted massive public works and universal programs that are no longer seen in American mainstream politics no matter how badly they are needed and shown to be effective. 

 

The fact that the party twice threw everything it had to stop Bernie Sanders tells you that economically they are far from FDR. I have never seen such an epic coordination against a single candidate in my lifetime. And the reason they stopped Sanders was two fold. One like Serpico if you don't take the money (corporate pac and campaign contributions) then your hands aren't dirty and you become a problem for those who take the money and less conspiratorially they don't believe in his platform. 

 

As I said before even on social justice issues do they actually do anything on those issues? In 2015 Ferguson happened under Obama and all that they did was some moderate police reform mostly built around the idea of body camera funding and non binding mandates. They didn't even push anything and have it killed by the GOP they watered down any and everything deemed left of center to the point where it is DOA or ineffective if it gets passed. So yes the language might be more radical by some members but does it actually result in anything? I don't agree with all of the social platforms and language but will it translate into meaningful policy?

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Everyone makes political calculations, but FDR was still pursuing universal healthcare (which is such a win for everyone besides insurance companies I have honestly no clue how anyone could not support it) in his 4th term making it the priority of his platform in his 4th term. Not to get lost in the weeds here but the Democratic party of today is a center right party by most industrialized nations standards and even by America's warped to the right standards it is still a center left party not pushing any real radical change in any meaningful sense. All of their solutions to economic problems tend to be incremental steps that are usually heavily means tested. 

 

FDR however often preferred universal dramatic solutions that speak to the core of the Progressive movement and what it means to be firmly left economically. You have social security which was a universal program that almost any working American has access to, you had massive jobs and infrastructure programs that didn't include any tax cuts for the rich. Whereas Obama's stimulus bill was 40% tax cuts. FDR promoted massive public works and universal programs that are no longer seen in American mainstream politics no matter how badly they are needed and shown to be effective. 

 

The fact that the party twice threw everything it had to stop Bernie Sanders tells you that economically they are far from FDR. I have never seen such an epic coordination against a single candidate in my lifetime. And the reason they stopped Sanders was two fold. One like Serpico if you don't take the money (corporate pac and campaign contributions) then your hands aren't dirty and you become a problem for those who take the money and less conspiratorially they don't believe in his platform. 

 

As I said before even on social justice issues do they actually do anything on those issues? In 2015 Ferguson happened under Obama and all that they did was some moderate police reform mostly built around the idea of body camera funding and non binding mandates. They didn't even push anything and have it killed by the GOP they watered down any and everything deemed left of center to the point where it is DOA or ineffective if it gets passed. So yes the language might be more radical by some members but does it actually result in anything? I don't agree with all of the social platforms and language but will it translate into meaningful policy?

 

So we not respecting the rules of the board? 

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

So we not respecting the rules of the board? 

 

Fair point I will not reply anymore

[Capco]

@JoshAllenHasBigHands Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  Here's where our two parties lie on a complete left-right spectrum of the major political parties in the world.  

 

If you drew a line connecting those two highlighted dots and found their midpoint (i.e. the middle of America), it would fall quite far to the right of the center as defined by the aggregate political policies of the entire world.  

 

The United States is one of the most right wing industrialized nations in the world.  

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 hours ago, Capco said:

@JoshAllenHasBigHands Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  Here's where our two parties lie on a complete left-right spectrum of the major political parties in the world.  

 

If you drew a line connecting those two highlighted dots and found their midpoint (i.e. the middle of America), it would fall quite far to the right of the center as defined by the aggregate political policies of the entire world.  

 

The United States is one of the most right wing industrialized nations in the world.  

I wasnt disputing that America is a center-right country. I know this chart is true. Im saying our Democratic Party is farther left on that spectrum than its ever been. Couple others were disagreeing, arguing that FDR was far more progressive than today’s party.

[Milanos Milano]

Well the IPO closed. How long do you think until they start acquiring assets? 

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Well the IPO closed. How long do you think until they start acquiring assets? 

 

 

It's not just a physical asset buying company:

 

formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses in the energy industry in North America.

[Milanos Milano]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It's not just a physical asset buying company:

 

formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses in the energy industry in North America.

Either way, Terry controls a 1/3 of the shares and is CEO. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Either way, Terry controls a 1/3 of the shares and is CEO. 

 

ok...

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

ok...

Dude knows how get that ROI. I trust him. 

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Dude knows how get that ROI. I trust him. 

 

 

You mean you gave him your money in that IPO?

[Milanos Milano]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You mean you gave him your money in that IPO?

You don’t think he can take 300 million and increase the market capitalization of a company he is leading? 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, IronMaidenBills said:

You don’t think he can take 300 million and increase the market capitalization of a company he is leading? 

 

You said you "trust him".  Unless you gave him your money, what are you trusting him with?  Did you?

 

 

His other business has a new "goal" of staying "viable".

[Doc]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

You said you "trust him".  Unless you gave him your money, what are you trusting him with?  Did you?

 

 

His other business has a new "goal" of staying "viable".

 

Which other business is that?  The sports and entertainment one? 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Which other business is that?  The sports and entertainment one? 

 According to them yes.

[Doc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 According to them yes.

 

...and?

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

...and?

 

has a new "goal" of staying "viable".