The Lock

The problem with this is that trading him after him having a poor playoff performance at that cap hit... is it really much different than trading Mikheyev in terms of how other teams are going to look at it? Not only that, but I kind of look at Pettersson almost like Joe Thornton, who did struggle a bit when he was in Boston, only to prove to actually be important in the playoffs later on. A Pettersson trade could easily be similar to Boston trading Thornton to San Jose or... dare I say it.... the next Cam Neely trade. Remember. Pettersson's still only 25 years old.

Dude. Cope much? You need to ask yourself if you are just coming up with excuses in the end. Perhaps they didn't do what you wanted. Perhaps Lindholm hasn't done what you wanted. However, denying he hasn't been doing what we got him to do at this point (ie. help us in the playoffs) is just silly at best. This whole long term/short term idea when it comes to this, it really doesn't matter when the entire point of the trade was about this year. It's very clear we're not going to resign everyone, likely not Lindholm, but that wasn't the point of the trade. Look at teams like Tampa Bay and how they acquire short term players. Same with Vegas. Same with almost any team looking to win the actual cup. You want a good team to win the cup? Then you can't just stay stagnant because you're paranoid of the long term. And I can understand if you're not used to this. We haven't had a management team actually be like this for a long time... if ever.

Well this comment's not aging well. lol

Why did this make me associate her with Dick Cheney?

Based on what? If anything, the left is more about being progressive and creating rights for groups that wouldn't otherwise have those right. If anything, the left would just have a less hard of a time granting those rights. They're far from being communist or anything of the like if that's what you're implying. Even if that's not what you're implying, that's literally what it would take for rights to be taken away. And then to think the left here would be cheering that on. Again, based on what? I don't see anyone here cheering on taking away rights on the left... because, again, it's the opposite things the sides are trying to work towards. Honestly, your post couldn't be more wrong. It's playing make believe that both sides are exactly the same when they clearly are not. There are some similarities, but more in the way they're attack each other (and even then there's differences). They're very different in terms of policies. Even the MAGA republicans and normal republicans are different and that's just with 1 of the parties. Perhaps, if anything, this says how little you know about the left if this is truly how you feel. Or perhaps your post was meant to anger leftists in pigeonholing them into something they're not.

Anyway, I've said my piece and I'm not in the right headspace for debate at the moment. But I'm very neutral on the NWC stuff. I do think we can use tougher punishments but I fail to see how we need to do it through a constitution override.

Well, if you mock the other side while not providing evidence, then yes. You're not going to convince anyone. It's hard being engraved in 1 side, and this is with both left and right. Keep in mind that your statement is exactly what the other side thinks of you.

So then why didn't you respond to the person you were mocking, stating PP was talking about bail rather than being on trial? If he's wrong, then respectfully show how he's wrong? State why it's alright for the NWC to happen. Instead, you lose any hope of convincing the person by mocking them.

So let me try and understand what you're saying. I'm legitimately trying to figure this out... So are you saying that. if you do 1 crime, get tried and found guilty, then serve your time, you can now be immediately labelled as a repeat offender if you're deemed as committed a crime again you can just be thrown in jail? Would this even be the case if you were falsely accused the 2nd time?

Think about it. Just use your brain. Detaining a person without trial means they didn't do it or they don't have enough evidence. Imagine if someone detained you right now. How would you feel? Constitutional?

It does get a little tiring when so much misinformation gets spread from people who are clearly stuck in an echo chamber and unable to think for themselves.

You missed my edit. I want to see where these were proven in a court of law so I can make my own decision.

He didn't say "every court ruling". We're talking about a prime minister here, not Bob from down the street. Also, could you link where he was found guilty? I'd rather be able to read it myself and come to my own conclusions.

Gotta love Murica...

The problem with NATO radar jamming over EU territory is it could make the missile alter course and actually be dropped down in EU territory. It would be a dangerous tactic on NATO's part and probably not in the best interest of anyone.