Frozen Four Championship Game Attendees Exposed to Deadly Toxin at Amsoil Arena

[brookyone]

Ah...we've smoothly shifted into anti Obama drive.

[gotice]

actually, i don't recall this referring to any one president, other than mention of Clinton, Nixon, and Obama briefly....which aspect of the discussion led you to believe this was an anit-obama rant?

[brookyone]

Once again, you have your finger on the pulse of the real issue that is eroding our freedoms. We no longer live in a cocoon, where what we do has little to no affect on other countries and vise verse. When we stand quiet and complacent to what the government does,"on behalf of us", without our consent or ignoring the will of the people; they begin the road to servitude by the people to the power of the government. We were founded on the people's right to govern themselves with very little government intrusion. We now are a country that governed by a few; who state they know what is best for us all. Bailing out companies and giving handouts to certain companies, instead of letting the consequences naturally occur, has led us down a path of debt, that we may never see an end to. When the government runs for over a 1000 days without even writing a budget; how do we expect them to know what they have to spend. Enough is enough

This aspect.

actually, i don't recall this referring to any one president, other than mention of Clinton, Nixon, and Obama briefly....which aspect of the discussion led you to believe this was an anit-obama rant?

Gimme a break...extra subtle.

Take your agenda to the cafe please.

[gotice]

So by mentioning that the GOVERNMENT hasn't passed a budget in over 1000 days, you jump to the assumption that this is an anti-Obama thread....really, cause I was under the impression that it took both houses of congress, as well as the president, to pass a budget...my bad....you are extra sensitive about what is written. Studying how government works, history of laws written to "save" us from ourselves, and understanding that everything the government does, is not for the betterment of it's people, would go a long way to understanding what is being discussed.

This aspect.


Gimme a break...extra subtle.

Take your agenda to the cafe please.

[brookyone]

So by mentioning that the GOVERNMENT hasn't passed a budget in over 1000 days, you jump to the assumption that this is an anti-Obama thread....really, cause I was under the impression that it took both houses of congress, as well as the president, to pass a budget...my bad....you are extra sensitive about what is written. Studying how government works, history of laws written to "save" us from ourselves, and understanding that everything the government does, is not for the betterment of it's people, would go a long way to understanding what is being discussed.

I didn't assume this was an anti Obama thread. I didn't consider the thread to have an anti Obama theme until your post with it's abrupt segue to said theme. You're not fooling anyone with your subtle as a sledgehammer personal political philosophy. None of this belongs in this forum. This isn't the place for it. My opinion is the same for the entire thread. Again, take it to the cafe please.

[Blackbeard]

Ah...we've smoothly shifted into anti Obama drive.

Sorry to see that you've somehow arrived at that conclusion.

I remember thinking to myself when he and Hilary were duking it out as they rounded the clubhouse turn that I pitied the one who would be the eventual winner, if that person were to go on to "win" the whitehouse, because neither had a clue about the real mess they were walking into. I was also of the firm conviction that the real winner would be the loser for the Democratic nomination, even though it wouldn't seem like it to them at the time, since they would have the luxury of being able to go to school on the "winner" whose chance of promoting real change, if they moved on tho the whitehouse, was slim to none when the shock of the realization of the real mess that they were walking into began to dawn on them. Let the grey hair begin.

That having been said I also do believe that Obama missed a glorious opportunity four years ago for any number of reasons that I don't need to recount for you, not the least of which, though, was the gigantic tide of emotion that was carrying him along because the people, generally speaking, were believing. That is of gigantic benefit if you plan to launch big ships. It became clear to me very early on that regardless of his high level of intelligence he was in way over his head. The history books won't treat him well.

But it's all irrelevant since I also think it wouldn't have mattered if MCain had won. Romney?, Santorum? Please! Generally speaking, but not that generally, thinking that any of the usual human offerings from either party really have the required knowledge of the real issues and have the guts to face election failure for telling the electorate the truth is like trying to convince yourself
that the cheerios on the left side of your bowl are going to taste any differently than the ones on the right side of your bowl. They're all different shades of plain vanilla. They're all so closely aligned on their respective sides of center ice that the dandruff on one guy's shoulder isn't necessarily his. You can't tell them apart without a program. You're bright enough to know that.
All one has to do is pay attention.

But this is why people usually deserve the government they get. This reminds me of the often quoted definition of "insanity"..." doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time".

So, anti-Obama? More like anti most of them and anti BS and anti thick headed, uninformed and gullible electorate.

And lest anyone should think that they are so special that only they have a thick headed, uninformed and gullible electorate, think again. Back in the early 80's one Kim Campbell (I just typed Martin instead of Campbell and had to correct it,...and that poster thought that I had to be reminded that this was a hockey forum!) became the first female Prime Minister of Canada. Her tenure was short, approximately six months as best as I can recall, because she had committed the biggest political faux pas possible. In the middle of the serious recession of the early 80's she stood up and told the country that there were going to be hard times for a while, that they weren't going to dissappear overnight. In other words, she had the balls to stand up and tell the country the truth. I watched her give that speech and remember thinking, "good for you", but unfortunately, "arrividerci".

The thick headed, uninformed and gullible Canadian electorate had gotten their way...like Jack Nicholson's character said, "You, can't handle the truth".

The trouble with most of the players is that they are just political animals so voting for one is like voting for another...their heads are all screwed on with the same rusty bolts. They all read from the same tired old playbook...with the fans always going home after the game substantially less than satisfied.

However, you do have someone who doesn't fall into that cheerio bowl and get mingled imperceptibly with all the others...someone who really understands enough of the more serious issues and someone who has been telling the truth for years. And equally importantly, he's not a political animal and he oozes integrity. As a matter of fact, I don't think that he really wants to be President as much as he just wants your country to be back on track, for everyone's benefit. His name is Ron Paul and I wish we had a thousand of him in our country.

Like Conrad Hilton's mother advised him when he was young, "if you want to launch big ships you have to go where the water is deep". If your people really and truly want change to get things back on track, to stop the devastation, instead of just paying lip service to it, they have to think outside the tired old political box and just think about what they would have to do to correct things if they as an individual were in a similar situation in their own personal lives...the realities start becoming clear very quickly.

These are the types of things of which Ron Paul speaks. Forget the counterproductive political labels...what does the person actually think and believe.

And if your collective electorate is not prepared to go where the water is deep (at least in relation to their normally held political views which just keeps getting them endlessly more of the same from cradle to grave) then hold on to that kitchen faucet a lot tighter because the ride is about to get a lot rougher.

[gotice]

The theme of this particular thread is about the far reaching of government into our personal lifes, so I am on target with my discussion when I refer to the GOVERNMENT spending the people's money without even having a working budget. Again, as far as I know the GOVERNMENT is comprised of members from both political parties, correct? So again, I ask why you choose to decide that:
1) I am bashing Obama with these comments
2) Why a discussion about the government does not belong in a thread about the over reaching of the government.

You tend to try and overreach yourself with many threads....as you are here.

I didn't assume this was an anti Obama thread. I didn't consider the thread to have an anti Obama theme until your post with it's abrupt segue to said theme. You're not fooling anyone with your subtle as a sledgehammer personal political philosophy. None of this belongs in this forum. This isn't the place for it. My opinion is the same for the entire thread. Again, take it to the cafe please.

[Blackbeard]

James Madison
Author Profession: President
Nationality: American
Born: March 16, 1751
Died: June 28, 1836

Lest anyone were to believe such concern was solely of recent origins or without precedent.

Exactly, excellent quote. That is precisely what I meant in an earlier post when I said that "you've been put to sleep in stages".

[Cali]

The theme of this particular thread is about the far reaching of government into our personal lifes, so I am on target with my discussion when I refer to the GOVERNMENT spending the people's money without even having a working budget. Again, as far as I know the GOVERNMENT is comprised of members from both political parties, correct? So again, I ask why you choose to decide that:
1) I am bashing Obama with these comments
2) Why a discussion about the government does not belong in a thread about the over reaching of the government.

You tend to try and overreach yourself with many threads....as you are here.

The thread doesn't belong on this forum. This is the women's college hockey forum. Any path taken to get where we now are was done with a political agenda in mind. I am with Brooky and take it to the cafe. You will probably find a bigger audience with more like minded posters.

Cali

[brookyone]

Sorry to see that you've somehow arrived at that conclusion.

I remember thinking to myself when he and Hilary were duking it out as they rounded the clubhouse turn that I pitied the one who would be the eventual winner, if that person were to go on to "win" the whitehouse, because neither had a clue about the real mess they were walking into. I was also of the firm conviction that the real winner would be the loser for the Democratic nomination, even though it wouldn't seem like it to them at the time, since they would have the luxury of being able to go to school on the "winner" whose chance of promoting real change, if they moved on tho the whitehouse, was slim to none when the shock of the realization of the real mess that they were walking into began to dawn on them. Let the grey hair begin.

That having been said I also do believe that Obama missed a glorious opportunity four years ago for any number of reasons that I don't need to recount for you, not the least of which, though, was the gigantic tide of emotion that was carrying him along because the people, generally speaking, were believing. That is of gigantic benefit if you plan to launch big ships. It became clear to me very early on that regardless of his high level of intelligence he was in way over his head. The history books won't treat him well.

But it's all irrelevant since I also think it wouldn't have mattered if MCain had won. Romney?, Santorum? Please! Generally speaking, but not that generally, thinking that any of the usual human offerings from either party really have the required knowledge of the real issues and have the guts to face election failure for telling the electorate the truth is like trying to convince yourself
that the cheerios on the left side of your bowl are going to taste any differently than the ones on the right side of your bowl. They're all different shades of plain vanilla. They're all so closely aligned on their respective sides of center ice that the dandruff on one guy's shoulder isn't necessarily his. You can't tell them apart without a program. You're bright enough to know that.
All one has to do is pay attention.

But this is why people usually deserve the government they get. This reminds me of the often quoted definition of "insanity"..." doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time".

So, anti-Obama? More like anti most of them and anti BS and anti thick headed, uninformed and gullible electorate.

And lest anyone should think that they are so special that only they have a thick headed, uninformed and gullible electorate, think again. Back in the early 80's one Kim Campbell (I just typed Martin instead of Campbell and had to correct it,...and that poster thought that I had to be reminded that this was a hockey forum!) became the first female Prime Minister of Canada. Her tenure was short, approximately six months as best as I can recall, because she had committed the biggest political faux pas possible. In the middle of the serious recession of the early 80's she stood up and told the country that there were going to be hard times for a while, that they weren't going to dissappear overnight. In other words, she had the balls to stand up and tell the country the truth. I watched her give that speech and remember thinking, "good for you", but unfortunately, "arrividerci".

The thick headed, uninformed and gullible Canadian electorate had gotten their way...like Jack Nicholson's character said, "You, can't handle the truth".

The trouble with most of the players is that they are just political animals so voting for one is like voting for another...their heads are all screwed on with the same rusty bolts. They all read from the same tired old playbook...with the fans always going home after the game substantially less than satisfied.

However, you do have someone who doesn't fall into that cheerio bowl and get mingled imperceptibly with all the others...someone who really understands enough of the more serious issues and someone who has been telling the truth for years. And equally importantly, he's not a political animal and he oozes integrity. As a matter of fact, I don't think that he really wants to be President as much as he just wants your country to be back on track, for everyone's benefit. His name is Ron Paul and I wish we had a thousand of him in our country.

Like Conrad Hilton's mother advised him when he was young, "if you want to launch big ships you have to go where the water is deep". If your people really and truly want change to get things back on track, to stop the devastation, instead of just paying lip service to it, they have to think outside the tired old political box and just think about what they would have to do to correct things if they as an individual were in a similar situation in their own personal lives...the realities start becoming clear very quickly.

These are the types of things of which Ron Paul speaks. Forget the counterproductive political labels...what does the person actually think and believe.

And if your collective electorate is not prepared to go where the water is deep (at least in relation to their normally held political views which just keeps getting them endlessly more of the same from cradle to grave) then hold on to that kitchen faucet a lot tighter because the ride is about to get a lot rougher.

I never believed you had an anti Obama agenda or posted anything to indicate that point of view. I don't believe the same is true for gotice, who hijacked the misplaced thread to beat us over the head with her own political views. Your thread never belonged in this forum in my opinion.

I like Ron Paul. He doesn't have a chance unfortunately.

[gotice]

Alas, we do agree on two points; Ron Paul has very good ideas and is consistent in his message. He, unfortunately, will not get elected. Sorry again, that you feel that I am hijacking the message; because I am not. I am simply stating that our government is continuing to take our money and without a concrete plan, is spending our money as quick as water flows from a cup with no bottom. How you imply that this is hijacking, seriously is beyond me. The careless spending began under the Bush administration, with the first financial bail out and Obama has simply continued a failed strategy. I have repeatedly stated that this was the GOVERNMENT, not a specific president. So put your tarot cards away and stop trying to read into stuff. If you don't like this particular thread than move along. It isn't like you are going to come here, read the first post, and then assume that perhaps the topic will change to the discussion of hockey.

I never believed you had an anti Obama agenda or posted anything to indicate that point of view. I don't believe the same is true for gotice, who hijacked the misplaced thread to beat us over the head with her own political views. Your thread never belonged in this forum in my opinion.

I like Ron Paul. He doesn't have a chance unfortunately.

[brookyone]

Alas, we do agree on two points; Ron Paul has very good ideas and is consistent in his message. He, unfortunately, will not get elected. Sorry again, that you feel that I am hijacking the message; because I am not. I am simply stating that our government is continuing to take our money and without a concrete plan, is spending our money as quick as water flows from a cup with no bottom. How you imply that this is hijacking, seriously is beyond me. The careless spending began under the Bush administration, with the first financial bail out and Obama has simply continued a failed strategy. I have repeatedly stated that this was the GOVERNMENT, not a specific president. So put your tarot cards away and stop trying to read into stuff. If you don't like this particular thread than move along. It isn't like you are going to come here, read the first post, and then assume that perhaps the topic will change to the discussion of hockey.

I think I'm being "bullied" for my opposing point of view. I'll continue to hope the discussion gets back to the appropriate topic per forum designation. Not looking good according to my tarot cards.

[gotice]

Again, I salute you for your ability to hit the proverbial head of the nail, with a logical discussion, other wise known as the hammer. I agree again 100%. We get so caught up in which party a certain politician represents, that the collective whole of available voters, blindly vote for who their party dictates is best able to resolve the issues. Yet, if you look closely, it is obvious, that they are all cut from the same cloth and seem to be saying the same thing, only different words. You are correct, that Ron Paul is the only one who is brave enough to tell us the truth; unfortunately we as a whole, can't handle the truth and would rather be lulled by the sweet and vocal declarations that our politicians spew freely during every speech, campaign promises, advertisement,and action.

We tend to like the pretty packaging and accept the lump of coal that is within the box, as something special. We concern ourselves more with the religious beliefs, education, and extra curricular practices of our leaders, and never analyze the actions or words that they are speaking or how hollow the thoughts for improving our situation really are.

Sorry to see that you've somehow arrived at that conclusion.

I remember thinking to myself when he and Hilary were duking it out as they rounded the clubhouse turn that I pitied the one who would be the eventual winner, if that person were to go on to "win" the whitehouse, because neither had a clue about the real mess they were walking into. I was also of the firm conviction that the real winner would be the loser for the Democratic nomination, even though it wouldn't seem like it to them at the time, since they would have the luxury of being able to go to school on the "winner" whose chance of promoting real change, if they moved on tho the whitehouse, was slim to none when the shock of the realization of the real mess that they were walking into began to dawn on them. Let the grey hair begin.

That having been said I also do believe that Obama missed a glorious opportunity four years ago for any number of reasons that I don't need to recount for you, not the least of which, though, was the gigantic tide of emotion that was carrying him along because the people, generally speaking, were believing. That is of gigantic benefit if you plan to launch big ships. It became clear to me very early on that regardless of his high level of intelligence he was in way over his head. The history books won't treat him well.

But it's all irrelevant since I also think it wouldn't have mattered if MCain had won. Romney?, Santorum? Please! Generally speaking, but not that generally, thinking that any of the usual human offerings from either party really have the required knowledge of the real issues and have the guts to face election failure for telling the electorate the truth is like trying to convince yourself
that the cheerios on the left side of your bowl are going to taste any differently than the ones on the right side of your bowl. They're all different shades of plain vanilla. They're all so closely aligned on their respective sides of center ice that the dandruff on one guy's shoulder isn't necessarily his. You can't tell them apart without a program. You're bright enough to know that.
All one has to do is pay attention.

But this is why people usually deserve the government they get. This reminds me of the often quoted definition of "insanity"..." doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time".

So, anti-Obama? More like anti most of them and anti BS and anti thick headed, uninformed and gullible electorate.

And lest anyone should think that they are so special that only they have a thick headed, uninformed and gullible electorate, think again. Back in the early 80's one Kim Campbell (I just typed Martin instead of Campbell and had to correct it,...and that poster thought that I had to be reminded that this was a hockey forum!) became the first female Prime Minister of Canada. Her tenure was short, approximately six months as best as I can recall, because she had committed the biggest political faux pas possible. In the middle of the serious recession of the early 80's she stood up and told the country that there were going to be hard times for a while, that they weren't going to dissappear overnight. In other words, she had the balls to stand up and tell the country the truth. I watched her give that speech and remember thinking, "good for you", but unfortunately, "arrividerci".

The thick headed, uninformed and gullible Canadian electorate had gotten their way...like Jack Nicholson's character said, "You, can't handle the truth".

The trouble with most of the players is that they are just political animals so voting for one is like voting for another...their heads are all screwed on with the same rusty bolts. They all read from the same tired old playbook...with the fans always going home after the game substantially less than satisfied.

However, you do have someone who doesn't fall into that cheerio bowl and get mingled imperceptibly with all the others...someone who really understands enough of the more serious issues and someone who has been telling the truth for years. And equally importantly, he's not a political animal and he oozes integrity. As a matter of fact, I don't think that he really wants to be President as much as he just wants your country to be back on track, for everyone's benefit. His name is Ron Paul and I wish we had a thousand of him in our country.

Like Conrad Hilton's mother advised him when he was young, "if you want to launch big ships you have to go where the water is deep". If your people really and truly want change to get things back on track, to stop the devastation, instead of just paying lip service to it, they have to think outside the tired old political box and just think about what they would have to do to correct things if they as an individual were in a similar situation in their own personal lives...the realities start becoming clear very quickly.

These are the types of things of which Ron Paul speaks. Forget the counterproductive political labels...what does the person actually think and believe.

And if your collective electorate is not prepared to go where the water is deep (at least in relation to their normally held political views which just keeps getting them endlessly more of the same from cradle to grave) then hold on to that kitchen faucet a lot tighter because the ride is about to get a lot rougher.

[gotice]

You have every right to an opposing point of view, but to state that a post is a direct anti-Obama rant,when it clearly is not, is something completely different. The discussion was about and still is about the nanny state that we have been lulled into over the years.

Do you think that strip searching grandma has kept you any safer on your last flight? Do you think that the attendees at the NCAA Championship, really needed to be reminded of terrorist threats during the hockey game? With the amount of News that is reported daily on terrorist attacks and thwarted attacks, do you think anyone is oblivious to the fact that there are people out there that would love nothing better than to kill any westerner, simply because they are considered the infidel because we believe different than them. In all honesty, do you need a scoreboard announcement to tell you be watchful of someone who looks suspicious, are you that unaware. From reading several of your posts throughout the years, I hardly doubt you need these constant reminders, nor do most Americans. As I stated in my very first post in this thread; to constantly remind of us these threats with notices like the one on that scoreboard, only serves to numb us from the actual threats. Similar to those blasted color coded warnings. Terror threat is at orange and has been stuck at orange for the last 12 years, it ain't changing, so save the notice when the situation either becomes red, or green. Stop telling people where ever they are on a daily basis, that there is a terrorist threat, we get it already.

Only an individual who has resided in a region, without exposure to the outside world at all, would need to be informed that we have a threat...guess what, those people aren't going to show up at the hockey game, so no need to post that **** thing in the first place. We are not stupid, the government just assumes we are, because we have become lemmings

I think I'm being "bullied" for my opposing point of view. I'll continue to hope the discussion gets back to the appropriate topic per forum designation. Not looking good according to my tarot cards.

[brookyone]

You have every right to an opposing point of view, but to state that a post is a direct anti-Obama rant,when it clearly is not, is something completely different. The discussion was about and still is about the nanny state that we have been lulled into over the years.

Do you think that strip searching grandma has kept you any safer on your last flight? Do you think that the attendees at the NCAA Championship, really needed to be reminded of terrorist threats during the hockey game? With the amount of News that is reported daily on terrorist attacks and thwarted attacks, do you think anyone is oblivious to the fact that there are people out there that would love nothing better than to kill any westerner, simply because they are considered the infidel because we believe different than them. In all honesty, do you need a scoreboard announcement to tell you be watchful of someone who looks suspicious, are you that unaware. From reading several of your posts throughout the years, I hardly doubt you need these constant reminders, nor do most Americans. As I stated in my very first post in this thread; to constantly remind of us these threats with notices like the one on that scoreboard, only serves to numb us from the actual threats. Similar to those blasted color coded warnings. Terror threat is at orange and has been stuck at orange for the last 12 years, it ain't changing, so save the notice when the situation either becomes red, or green. Stop telling people where ever they are on a daily basis, that there is a terrorist threat, we get it already.

Only an individual who has resided in a region, without exposure to the outside world at all, would need to be informed that we have a threat...guess what, those people aren't going to show up at the hockey game, so no need to post that **** thing in the first place. We are not stupid, the government just assumes we are, because we have become lemmings

Can someone burn the **** soapbox please.

[gotice]

so typical of brooky.....only he/she can pontificate ...

Can someone burn the **** soapbox please.

[brookyone]

so typical of brooky.....only he/she can pontificate ...

You want more, I don't think I need you to decide for me what I should tolerate being broadcast on a scoreboard. I don't think I need you to decide for me the inherent value and importance of anything shown on the scoreboard. Strange...someone championing freedom but wants to decide for all what is allowed to be shown and seen on a scoreboard. That was the actual thread topic right? I find material at the typical white supremacist and KKK rally objectionable. I practice my freedom to not attend. You have the same freedom per material you may find objectionable at sporting events. Your "assumption" that no one could possibly benefit from such material and that we're all basically just dumb downed by it is pretentious as hell frankly. I guess all because the particular message is troublesome and invasive to you, then you or someone who shares your indisputably correct interpretations of my freedom decide whether the message is of any use, or value to me? I think I understand now.

[Skate79]

Strange...someone championing freedom but wants to decide for all what is allowed to be shown and seen on a scoreboard. That was the actual thread topic right?

This says it all. Can we finally put this to bed? Last time I checked, this was a hockey forum, not a political arena. I don't care if the message was delivered at a women's hockey game. This discussion has become entirely too political and way off the forum's intent. If you don't like either the message or what it stands for, then take action and focus your energy on creating a meaningful dialogue between parties that can actually do something to effect change. Otherwise, drop the bully pulpit and get back to writing about hockey.

[Cali]

This says it all. Can we finally put this to bed? Last time I checked, this was a hockey forum, not a political arena. I don't care if the message was delivered at a women's hockey game. This discussion has become entirely too political and way off the forum's intent. If you don't like either the message or what it stands for, then take action and focus your energy on creating a meaningful dialogue between parties that can actually do something to effect change. Otherwise, drop the bully pulpit and get back to writing about hockey.

Hear, Hear!!

[Blackbeard]

Your thread never belonged in this forum in my opinion. I like Ron Paul. He doesn't have a chance unfortunately.

I respect your right to have your opinion, we just disagree on that topic.

As for Ron Paul, I agree with your assessment of his chances but therein lies the problem, doesn't it?

I forgot to mention a while back, that that line of yours was a beauty, "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean nobody's out to get me". Couldn't stop laughing. Good sense of humour.

Reminds me of this one which is relative to much of the discourse in this thread, at least from my point of view...

"Is there any other point to which you wish to draw my attention?"

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That, was the curious incident."