bbb

Thanks. I kind of pay attention to the Capitals, because I listen to Tony Kornheiser every day. Not that he talks much about hockey, but he was saying how they were on such a roll, and then they go on this bye, and then all the momentum was gone..........Seems like they need to change this for sure.

Is this the first year of this?

Why do I need to learn make up?

What does it mean that this city was off limits? Nizhnekamsk is home to a petrochemical plant, and the city was off-limits to visitors. “My experience last year in Russia was something like you read about in books,” he said. “You don’t believe it’s true until you go over there and experience it for yourself firsthand. You tell people stories, and they’re just like, ‘Wow.’ “Until you experience life in Russia, you take for granted how good it is here. I’m not saying all of Russia, but certain parts of it are everything you hear about.”

35 - you're in your prime still!

Will they be coming to Buffalo, though? For some reason, Lunardi/ESPN bracketology had them as a 12 seed and going to Buffalo in the latest one, that Mark Gaughan then turned into an article in the Buffalo News. The other bracketologists did not have them in or going to Buffalo. He has them playing Wisc. I'd imagine a high seeded Wisc would be pissed if they had to play SU in Buffalo.

But, the problem would be that the people you're betting are the ones that thought the USA-USSR game was the gold medal game and will bet it was the Soviets - and they'll be right!

Did he die the day the US beat the Soviets?

In Buffalo, we got to watch it on Canadian TV live. It was dinner time by the end of the game, and we were jumping around the living room. I don't see how that was NOT a semi final game?? How can both of you say to instead of too?

Tim Graham's Power Take: NBA and NFL age limits are a discriminatory scheme NBA Commissioner Adam Silver this weekend reiterated his stance players should wait until they're 20 before they can play. The NBA union would like the age to be 18. Even that is too high. An age limit shouldn't exist at all. The NBA's entry standard remains 19 years old and one year removed from high school. The policy likely will remain when the new, seven-year collective bargaining agreement begins July 1. Advertisement In the NFL, rookies must wait three years beyond their high school graduation year. But hockey and baseball draft high schoolers. There's no age limit for golf, tennis or soccer. Those sports, comprising predominantly white athletes, are meritocracies. But the NBA and NFL have free-labor development systems to bolster. Age limits allow colleges to protect their lucrative March Madness and bowl-game broadcast deals, provide leagues with scouting, force players to become free agents that much later into their primes and idiot-proof the process for the weak executives. The NBA and NFL should stop colluding and let the athletes decide when they turn pro. New low - the NBA and NFL have age limits due to racial discrimination.

I remember hearing these stories about somebody being assigned to try to keep Dom sober as possible and out of trouble - and wonder how he could play so good being hungover all the time.

If they all looked like Sue Bird and that one who is the Spurs assistant coach maybe.

Somehow, I am Carl Paladino's mass email list (I think he took from a Bonnies list I'm on). This just came to my inbox: Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak outLawrence Solomon Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017 AP Photo/John McConnico, File Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago. Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated? Of course the whistleblowers can be believed, and not just because NOAA repeatedly stonewalled inquiries, even failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. No one paying attention can have any doubt that the governmental global warming enterprise has been a fraud. It’s been lies from the start, starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation. Among those astonished was the Danish delegation to the IPCC. It discovered at one of the IPCC’s early meetings a quarter-century ago that its scientists could not present their study, newly published in the prestigious journal Science, showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and solar activity. To their further astonishment, to squelch dissent the IPCC cabal set out to destroy the reputation of its chief author, falsely accusing him of fabricating data. Dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy soon learned that, if they refused to recant, they stood to lose their jobs, their funding, and their reputations. They also learned the corollary: to get hired, to get funded, to get promoted, they needed to produce the science the authorities wanted. Governments annually spent billions of dollars on climate change research, virtually all of it commissioned to prove that the science was settled — that man-made climate change represented an existential threat to the planet. None of the billions spent on research amounted to anything — none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized. The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven’t become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb. What did materialize was fraud after fraud. Climategate — the 2009 revelations of hacked emails showing scientists labouring to manipulate data and cover their tracks — was followed by Climategate 2.0 (a second damning batch of hacked emails), by Amazongate (the revelation that the IPCC’s claim of coming devastation in the Amazon was based on non-peer-reviewed research by WWF eco-activists), Glaciergate (here the IPCC relied on speculation in a popular magazine) and other scandals. The mega-fraud was the assertion that the science was settled, which the IPCC trumpeted with claims that 2,500 scientists from around the world endorsed its findings. Except those 2,500 — a number that was soon inflated to 3,000 and then 4,000 — didn’t endorse anything. They merely reviewed some of the studies heaved into the IPCC’s maw, many of them giving the research the thumbs down. Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted. In fact, major surveys show that scientists in the tens of thousands do not believe that global warming represents a threat. With the departure of president Obama and his administration, which had blocked independent investigations from being pursued, whistleblowers in greater numbers will now dare to come forward, knowing they will no longer be silenced. One of them is Dr. John Bates, a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA, who described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures. In a press release last week, U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith thanked “Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.” This week a second press release from the same committee indicated that NOAA will be brought to account. The blizzard of lies from NOAA and other corrupted agencies will soon be outed in excruciating detail. The greatest scientific fraud of the century will thus be laid bare, along with its craven and corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media. Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Uh, the title is "your favorite war movie." What makes you think you have to give 5? If you weren't an idiot, and just gave one, we wouldn't see the same ones over and over. But, your opinion is so much better because you change your favorite movie like you change your socks.

I miss the old days, when stoners with too much time on their hands were synching it up with The Wizard of Oz

It is. And, it was the smallest space possible. This is not The News' all time low.

It happens on every thread that ever asks for your favorite or the best - by the tenth post, it turns into a list of whatever was asked.

It sucks that imdb is getting rid of their message boards in a couple of days!

Jeez, all these movies and I haven't seen one. I've only even heard of a few.

Even it was, you've got to admit he delivers funny lines really good.

Because the transgenders don't want to go in anything, but the ones called girls, I believe.

Saving Private Ryan will always be my favorite movie, I'm quite sure. I saw Black Hawk Down finally - recently - and liked it for awhile, and then was like holy crap, it's just non stop shooting and action, once it starts. I need more than just that.

I found the article by Tim Graham, who I know used to talk about seeing Mack, I believe even after he graduated, all the time at Duff's or some other place by the UB campus: http://buffalonews.com/2016/09/03/khalil-mack-creates-separation-on-the-field-he-did-the-same-for-this-story/

But, do you know anything about him kind of severing ties last summer or so anyway?