Posted by Frozen-Man
on 27 February 2012 - 11:09 AM
i said this...where?
That is the inference from this post:
i can't wait to see the wings do absolutely nothing today. so glad they have all that cap space.
You articulate no good trade that the Wings could make, nothing that has been offered that the Wings should but didn't accept, and everyone is agreeing that sellers prices are ridiculously high this year (at least up to this point). The problem is that since all you do is whine, complain, moan, flame, and generally do whatever you can to be negative (hence the -640 rating) no one gives you the benefit of the doubt that you might just this once be making a reasonable and rational proposition.
Posted by Frozen-Man
on 01 December 2011 - 01:53 PM
I absolutely can’t stand Eddie O, his dislike for the Wings is so obvious. He really has to reach to say anything good about them. If it was an offensive play by the Wings he reports on the play by the defensive team and if it was an awesome play by the Wings defense he reports on the great attempt by the opposing team. It makes me sick!
WAIT, stop it right here – EDDIE YOU SUCK!
I'm not a huge fan of Eddie when he is commentating but I met him in a hotel lobby after game 1 of the 2008-2009 Stanley Cup Finals and he was very nice, to time to talk to everyone who came up to him and when I talked to him really complimented the Wings and how great they were in game 1
When he is commentating he can't get over his bias over the Hawks but in person he was a pretty nice guy.
Posted by Frozen-Man
on 30 November 2011 - 01:00 PM
Well there were both huge in a stanley cup win last year, one scored more goals than anyone on our team and the other is a top 3 defenseman in the NHL.
So yeah they could destroy most of the wings in hockey, than beat them up
I don't disagree that Lucic was beneficial to the Bruins in the Playoffs last year but it is a extremely misleading to say that Lucic "scored more goals that anyone on our team" in the Playoffs last year. While technically true Lucic scored 5 goals in 25 games which is .20 goals/game. Z on the other hand scored 3 goals in 7 games which is .43 goals/game. At that pace Z would have scored 10.75 goals in 25 games and more than doubling Lucic's goals. In fact Z, Dats, Eaves, Homer, Helm, and Mule all had better goals/game than Lucic. Additionally, Bert, Cleary, and Flip were all right behind Lucic at .18 goals/game. When you play well over twice as many games as the players that you are comparing it not that relent how many goals were scored but rather how many goals were scored relative to the number of games that each player played. In fact, Lucic was tied with 3 other players for 5th-8th on his team in goals/game. It took Lucic 447 minutes and 32 seconds to score 5 goals throughout the playoffs whereas Z got 3 goals in 153 minutes and 56 seconds. Lucic also scored more goals that Bobby Ryan or Patrick Sharp, more than double Ryan Getzlaf, 5 times more than Dustin Brown, Patrick Kane, or Johnathan Towes. Like I said I don't disagree that Lucic is beneficial to his team but I find your comparison of his goals scored to the Red Wings goals scored to have no real relation.
I would imagine this ordinance probably would be upheld as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of free speech.
Well, I'm not certain that it would even be considered speech under the 1st Amendment. The seminal flag burning case stated that "[t]he First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of 'speech,' but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected 'the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled `speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,' United States v. O'Brien, supra, at 376, we have acknowledged that conduct may be 'sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,'" Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) Based upon the factors listed thereafter in the case I'm not sure the conduct would reach the level required for speech. If however, it were determined speech the question would then be "whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 403 (1989); see alsoUnited States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).
The key issues would be that it is likely not even considered speech and if it is speech is not prohibited because of the State is attempting to suppress speech but rather the ordinance is for safety purposes. Similar to the fact that while burning a flag may be protected free speech and a law prohibiting burning flags would be a violation of the 1st Amendment a law that prohibits burning flags in a public building (while having no prohibition against burning flags in other places) would not be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Partially because as you stated time, place, manner restrictions but also largely because the law is not to suppress speech but rather for public safety concerns.
If the NHL and the board of governors said it was illegal to wear hats in NHL sanctioned games, you better believe NHL patrons would get arrested. That doesn't mean the NHL "owns" the police, it means the police are enforcing the laws.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't get arrested (as police enforce laws and ordinances not an organization's code of conduct). They could be removed from the premises probably but the police would have absolutely no authority to arrest them for violating NHL rules unless there was a city, county, state, federal law/statute/ordinance that they were also violating and that officer was an agent of the entity law/statute/ordinance.
It always amazes me how many Americans don't have a clue what kind of political system we have. Hell most teachers think we are a democracy and we aren't. Idiots
It really is amazing. You would think that the Pledge of Allegiance would help "and to the republic for which it stands" (emphasis added) - - or perhaps Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (emphasis added) - - and while sadly it is rarely taught in public schools today all throughout the Federalist Papers, especially Federalist No. 10.
We could have lost this badly to a team we detest or would affect the standings
I can only hope this serves as the wake-up call some are claiming it was.
I gotta agree, and ultimately a loss is a loss points wise. As much as this game hurt to watch I would rather a 10-3 loss that might wake the players up than a 3-2 loss where the team might go along like everything is fine and chalk it up to Dats being gone and having a 3rd string goalie in. At least this has the potential to shake them up.