Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Private entities must know what they're doing to some extent, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be near as big as they are.

Halliburton?

Parker wrote:Clearly. You've made my point. If the corporations succeed, that's fine. When they get government bailouts to pay bonuses to executives whose legacy is massive failure, I'd like to think there is a problem. Capitalism is supposed to reward the successful, not to steal from taxpayer to reward the failures.

Corporations and other businesses directly impact everything, though. Take Ohio as an example. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. As a result, there's been no growth in the state and the population has either moved to other parts of the state or left the state altogether. Why shouldn't big business write policy? Big business creates jobs. Aren't jobs the chief thing to an economy?

Parker wrote:And you don't see any problem with this?

With the national debt? No. Because we're the United States and we can tell everyone to fuck off. It's just a growing number. Even if someone stepped in after Barry for 8 years, he'd put but a small dent in the debt. And then the next guy down the line would raise it again.

The notion that we'd even attempt to pay it off is laughable to me. Every day, you hear about some new 56 billion dollar plan, and you stop and wonder "Where does that money come from?" It comes from nowhere. It's imagined. Or printed without actual gold/silver to back it.

I'm not saying that these are my own personal views, that it doesn't matter. But that's going to be the overriding opinion. At least until China asks for their money back and we're working in sweatshops for 13 cents a day.

I'd love to see it paid off and erased, but I'd have to live to infinity to see it.


The problem with it is what it does to inflation rates. It also indirectly led to the mortgage crisis. It'll continue to have lasting effects on the economy, but, because no politician, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or any other party, believes in accountability, money will be printed and thrown at the problem.

One little jab at Obama...

Parker wrote:Halliburton?

One example of how many businesses that run smoothly?

Don't tell me "All it takes is one", because it's not. Not with such an enormous infrastructure in place. Halliburton's like that parking lot speed bump that is too damn high for your car. You slow down to a crawl, run it over, and keep right on going. That's what it's become.

CapsGM wrote:How is the national debt a crock of shit? Responsible spending is necessary at any level - public, corporate, personal - just look at some of the Eurozone economies (i.e. Ireland, Greece), who have faced big problems because of their debt.

Not disagreeing with that point. The notion that we'll pay it back is a crock of shit.

Eurozone economies can't really print money the way that we can in the US.

The national debt's a problem. Paying it off isn't a problem because I don't believe it's in the cards. Femur's older than me and probably more informed, and he sees it otherwise. So maybe it is in the cards.

I'm all for responsible spending. But when it hasn't been done in 15-20 years, it takes a lot more effort than will be put forth.

Again, just my opinion. Tim, you're a finance guy, you'd probably know better than I. But, I can almost assure all of you that it won't be paid off until maybe after my children's children's children are attending college or something like that.

Hey, so I guess we're into the 2nd round now? Solid time frame.

Montreal Canadiens wrote:Hey, so I guess we're into the 2nd round now? Solid time frame.

Wtf with you coming in here and talking about the draft!

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:

Parker wrote:Halliburton?

One example of how many businesses that run smoothly?

Don't tell me "All it takes is one", because it's not. Not with such an enormous infrastructure in place. Halliburton's like that parking lot speed bump that is too damn high for your car. You slow down to a crawl, run it over, and keep right on going. That's what it's become.

Don't be so naive. I could give you a comprehensive list if you really need one. Halliburton is just my go-to example when it comes to a corporation that succeeded only because of cronyism.

Parker wrote:Don't be so naive. I could give you a comprehensive list if you really need one. Halliburton is just my go-to example when it comes to a corporation that succeeded only because of cronyism.

Send it over.

How many are actually "big"? Or at least your definition of big?

Maybe I'm posting this in the wrong thread

I'll make my pick, once Jon approve's the trade, when I come back home at around 6' eastern time.

Femur wrote:i am, however, much more optimistic than y'all...this stuff (by stuff i mean this hybrid Marxism/Maoism/Stalinism/Fascism/nanny state/etc./etc/etc that we are currently being ruled by) is not our bag...old Europe stuff, not USA.

So the US, ruled by two virtually identical right-wing corporatist parties is Marxist? You might have caused a small earthquake in London making Marx spin in his grave so fast.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Private entities must know what they're doing to some extent, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be near as big as they are. Nor would they be as influential as they are. The common person has a vendetta against any high-ranking official, whether it be a politician, a CEO of a company, a police captain, anything. It might be jealousy, it might be something else, but they got there because they, in most cases, deserved to be. You can make the corruption argument if you want, and I'm sure you would, but I'd venture to say that at least 80-85% of company CEOs, COOs, etc. made it there on their own accord or were benefactors of a family fortune/prestige. If the apple falls far from the tree, that's an altogether different thing.

What percentage of people have success as a happy accident? Very few I would guess.

I see nothing wrong with this.

You see nothing wrong with nepotism and cronyism?

If your postulate that powerful/influential people are there based largely on merit alone were true, then the demographics of people in power would be the same as those of the 'meritorious' general population. Instead they're dominated by old white men - most of whom were wealthy enough before they got into a position of power. So either old, rich white men are just intrinsically better than the rest of the population (don't go down this road) or the system is, in fact, corrupt. Hell, there aren't even 20 female CEOs of the 500 Fortune 500 companies.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:But, I can almost assure all of you that it won't be paid off until maybe after my children's children's children are attending college or something like that.

Fair enough, and I do agree. Every country holds a certain level of debt (you can even say an optimal/sustainable level of debt), and it will never be completely paid off. It will definitely take a long time before the U.S. pays it down to such a level, if they ever do.

Parker wrote:

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Private entities must know what they're doing to some extent, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be near as big as they are.

Halliburton?

Lehman Brothers, General Motors..

SharksGM wrote:So the US, ruled by two virtually identical right-wing corporatist parties is Marxist? You might have caused a small earthquake in London making Marx spin in his grave so fast.

totally agree with you and Parker (and others) about the corporate part, but right wing? America 2011? surely you jest?

quick local story for you: the township i am in has just successfully passed a law banning a guy who owns a car dealership from putting inflatable animals on top of HIS roof (which my kids love, btw), and a judge has amazingly upheld this law.

NashvilleGM wrote:Maybe I'm posting this in the wrong thread

I'll make my pick, once Jon approve's the trade, when I come back home at around 6' eastern time.

You could just uh...send a list with your selection.

48th pick might be available but in a package with Vitaly Vishnevski

I'm looking for a pick next year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGlbRrF_Bas

I was reminded of this skit when reading all you're guy's BS.

Second round should be done tonight, putting us two days ahead of last year's pace. Wahooooooooo!

Guys, remember, 8 hour time limits for rounds 3 & 4. Please start sending in lists so we can move the process along and so you don't bitch at me when you get the highest CSB.

Make sure the lists are sent to all 3 Committee members, especially with me going out of town for a few days.

Last year, we finished the second round at 8 am on the Sunday a week after the draft.

This year, the third round might be done today.

wtf?

Hey could I get an official time on my deadline? I won't be able to scout properly until this evening.

The next pick is due by 9:32 PM PT unless it is traded.

AvsGM wrote:The. next pick is due by 9:32 PM PT unless it is traded.

Oh no problem then. I'll have the pick made before then.

SNELL!

I see the dilemma of having to choose between a 4th line grinder, 7th defenceman or career AHLer is too much for some to handle.

SharksGM wrote:I see the dilemma of having to choose between a 4th line grinder, 7th defenceman or career AHLer is too much for some to handle.

Chill out, anyway, what else do we have to do...

My apologies - the two picks previous to mine passed the time limit, and my time period started just after I went to bed. We're back!

NashvilleGM wrote:

SharksGM wrote:I see the dilemma of having to choose between a 4th line grinder, 7th defenceman or career AHLer is too much for some to handle.

Chill out, anyway, what else do we have to do...

Free agency. There's 4th line grinders, 7th defensemen, and career AHLers to sign.

the Lammer! the flowing robes, the majesty. he hauls off and hits one; big hitter, the Lammer.

NashvilleGM wrote:Chill out, anyway, what else do we have to do...

It doesn't seem that difficult to send in a list. I don't understand why active GMs are letting time run out instead of just asking for BPA or top CSB or something.

But since you asked... we will go back to political chat!

Here are a couple of questions for y'all but Femur in particular - if the modern political climate in the U.S. is one of 'socialism', how do you explain:

1. B. Obama 'caving' to virtually every Republican demand, from Obamacare (which is virtually identical to Republican proposals from the 90s) to extending the Bush tax cuts to cutting 'entitlements'?
2. That by almost every metric you care to name, the U.S. (and pretty much every Western European country too) was much closer to socialism in the 1950's - and yet conservatives look almost as fondly on the post-war era as they do on the Reagan years? Bonus points - look up the history of how the top marginal rate & tax bracket has change over the last 60 years.

No one cares about the US and their economy.

But like Sharks said, its not hard to send a list or to send a PM telling them to auto your pick.

SharksGM wrote:1. B. Obama 'caving' to virtually every Republican demand, from Obamacare (which is virtually identical to Republican proposals from the 90s) to extending the Bush tax cuts to cutting 'entitlements'?
2. That by almost every metric you care to name, the U.S. (and pretty much every Western European country too) was much closer to socialism in the 1950's - and yet conservatives look almost as fondly on the post-war era as they do on the Reagan years? Bonus points - look up the history of how the top marginal rate & tax bracket has change over the last 60 years.

1. obammy didn't cave to any republicans...he didn't get a single republican on obamacare nor the stimulus...not a single one. he had super majorities in both houses. the reason he had to ram obamacare through in secret is because we the people don't want any part of it, and the demmies in states not called new york, california, maryland, and conneticut had to face the people. you think last year elections were a blood bath, wait until next year. pretty much every dem senator (except in the marxist states i said above) will be gone along with barry. that leads me to number 2...

2. socialism is but one aspect of the libbies being in charge; they are also acting as fascists (i.e. firing CEOs of private companies), politbureaus (flying all over the world and living high while lecturing we the people about how we have to live smaller), marxist (constant droning on about "the rich", constant refrain of government good / private sector bad/ etc), and frankly totalitarian (EPA regulations are said to be averaging 1,000 pages A WEEK!)

americans (unlike our brothers up north) reject socialism; that is why our socialists (obammy, reid, pelosi, et al) have to lie about their plans to get them through. my proof is simple: they never campaign on giving out welfare; they campaign on jobs (which they spend all their time destroying). they can only do it one in a generation, and we the people will now spend the next 20 years or so trying to win back some of the freedoms and repair as much damage as possible until we the people get comfortable again they sneak into power once more.

Socialism? Please. I think Inigo Montoya said it best...

Femur wrote:they can only do it one in a generation, and we the people will now spend the next 20 years or so trying to win back some of the freedoms and repair as much damage as possible until we the people get comfortable again they sneak into power once more.

I'm not that big on American politics, but I'm pretty sure the Republicans were in power when the Patriot Act was passed and when they decided to start unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not defending the Democrats here but the Republicans basically bankrupted the country, both economically and morally.

EDIT: I should point out that I have voted Conservative in every election since I turned age of majority. Mainly because the Libertarian Party will never be taken seriously.

Kind of unrelated, but something I'd want to point out -

Don't be fooled by the socialist father of universal healthcare being voted the greatest Canadian, I'm not sure that apart from the aforementioned healthcare and 'socialism' being less of a dirty word (but still a dirty word) there are that many substantial differences in how much Canadians have embraced social democracy, which has been fantastically slow to take (to the point where just now a pseudo-Social Democratic party is in opposition) - and the continued dominance of centrist and centre-right parties in federal politics would point to Canada being a slightly more liberal (and socially progressive) shadow of the American discourse.

Or is a prong like 'universal healthcare' a big enough difference between the respective welfare states that Canada is a lovely shade of pink on most maps?

I mean, not that I would mind the implication, but Canada (particularly Canada under Harper, who has this warped vision of the future of an aggressive, diet-USA Canada) isn't exactly a Nordic Model paradise.

...in no specific order:

- agree w/ zaq on Canada...only painted with the broad brush to save space (and i still wasn't brief like i strive for)...i do quite a bit a business in Canada and besides having seemingly every first monday and friday off each month, y'all are hardly the people's paradise.

- agree w/ parker on most (though i am a little more pro-TWAT [The War Against Terror]....and shouldn't we all be pro-twat?), too. i certainly didn't mean to hold the republican party up as a paragon of individual freedom and liberty (except, of course, for the great Ronnie Ray-Gun!); i was trying to refute the notion that somehow the GOP stopped obammy from creating the people's paradise right here right now...this isn't their bag.

- i was not trying to exclusively use the word socialism to describe these last 4 years; socialism is but one aspect as i think i pointed out. for future reference, i might sometimes (mis?)use it as an umbrella term for what is going on. and what is going on is counter-revolution, and the revolution that obammy, the dems, and many republicans are countering is the American Revolution. not good, for those of us who thought the American Revolution was kind of a good thing.

are we good now?

Least Canada's debt is still in the millions.

Come on, guys. Send some fucking lists. I can't believe I came home and the fourth round was barely half over. Probably my fault for the time limits, but still. If you aren't going to be around, send a list. If you don't give a shit who gets drafted for you, PM that instead of making us wait 8 hours for you to not show up.

I had completely forgotten how ANA got my 4th. I clicked on the link for the trade (Doug Wilson's move for Kent Huskins ) and it says:

5. The transfer by San Jose of its fourth-round draft pick in 2011 (or Buffalo's 2nd round draft pick in 2009) is conditioned on both Moen or Huskins playing at least one (1) game (regular season or playoffs) for San Jose during the 2008-09 season.

... the "both Moen or Huskins" is confusing as hell, but I think they meant both Moen and Huskins. Huskins didn't end up playing for the Sharks that season, so as far as I can tell the condition was not met and the pick remained San Jose's.

Wikipedia's draft summary and the NHL's draft order shows than San Jose owned the pick and traded it to Winnipeg at the draft. So it should still be mine, no?

*4th line grinder chat over*

GUSTAV! Pleasant surprise that my 4th round pick is a 72/71 forward with good ceilings. So what he's smaller then a half the length of Chara's stick?

Tampa Bay GM wrote:GUSTAV! Pleasant surprise that my 4th round pick is a 72/71 forward with good ceilings. So what he's smaller then a half the length of Chara's stick?

He won't get to 71 DF though.

Auto-pick my 6th and 7th round! Thanks Adam.

Parker wrote:

Tampa Bay GM wrote:GUSTAV! Pleasant surprise that my 4th round pick is a 72/71 forward with good ceilings. So what he's smaller then a half the length of Chara's stick?

He won't get to 71 DF though.

72 POT/71 CON obv

SharksGM wrote:The Sharks select defenseman Zachary Yuen from Tri-City of the WHL.

Tampa Bay GM wrote:72 POT/71 CON obv

My bad. Sorry man.

CapsGM wrote:fuuuuuuuuuuu

Hey, I was thinking hard about taking Killian 2 picks ahead of you in the 3rd so it evens out. Killian's almost certain to boost while Yuen, well... he's a gamble

If it makes you feel better, I wanted Oke and a certain Oilers GM stole him first. Otherwise I would have had all 3 of the players I wanted to pick up this late in the draft.

SharksGM wrote:

CapsGM wrote:fuuuuuuuuuuu

Hey, I was thinking hard about taking Killian 2 picks ahead of you in the 3rd so it evens out. Killian's almost certain to boost while Yuen, well... he's a gamble

If it makes you feel better, I wanted Oke and a certain Oilers GM stole him first. Otherwise I would have had all 3 of the players I wanted to pick up this late in the draft.

Meh, I'm okay with Welinski now. Yuen is definitely a gamble, he could either become a poor man's Mike Green or a rich man's Aki Berg. But he does look like my cousin, and I was thinking of monopolizing the Asians in the league.

Six hour time limit for the duration. Please send lists.

Since Zaq has two picks and there's the auto, he'll have til 7:39 pm EST to make both picks.

Zaq, if you read this, the top CSB is Daniel Catenacci. He'd go to OTT unless you take him with your first pick.