Believe me when I say that it was not unprovoked. Drunk guys and girls in Phailure jerseys cursing loudly in front of families with little kids, etc... The guy who got stuff thrown at him was the first one to throw his bottle at someone near my row. Taking things into our own hands when security doesn't have the balls to kick these scumbags out, it's a way of crowd control and partly the reason we're seeing less and less of these dirtbags coming back. They're having some of the worst most embarassing experiences in their short years of hockey/alcoholism and the more we humiliate them after they step out of the line, the less likely they are to come back anytime soon. And the Devils winning consistently is a big help.
Our fanbase is not devoid of idiots, but no fanbase is, except Nashville apparently where there was a fight at a game this week for the first time ever, which is amazing to me.
Back to my point though, whenever there's alcohol involved, there's going to be idiocy. I was in sec 212 for the game on Tuesday against Carolina and I should have expected it since it was a college night game, but one Devils fan was incessantly raining down the dumbest insults I have ever heard on a Canes fan a couple rows down. I let it go for a while since the Canes fan was engaging him back and it hadn't gotten too obnoxious yet, but by the 3rd, all this guy was yelling at the Canes fan, who at this point had ignored this guy for the past hour, was things about his junk and liking dick. To make it worse, his white trash gf was egging him on. I finally told him to just stfu and let me watch the damn game. I mean there were little kids right in front of me and this guy was going all game.
Imo, the way heckling works at a sporting event, is that you keep the insults sports or geography related and no one should care so long as you're not screaming swear words constantly in front of kids. It's when people gotta start yelling about how the other guy is a pos or anyone mentions a female, that's when things go downhill fast.
Pure gimmick and I hate it. I miss the old (read-- traditional or real) NHL where teams might even play to a tie (G-d forbid). As for people who hate ties: while I understand everyone has an opinion, there was/is an array of options to minimize the number of ties that didn't reduce hockey games to a random series of artificial breakaways. Some of those are even mentioned earlier in the thread. For me, the easiest solution is the one already on mention here. Simply make a tie less lucrative by using a 3 PT. win system. By only giving 1 point for a tie it makes it far less attractive to play to the tie. There ya go. To help things along play 4 on 4. If the NHLPA won't do 10 minutes perhaps an midway point could be reached? It would sound silly, but who not play to say 8 minutes? What law says we have to play to divisibles of 5?
One last point is that I don't understand why more people aren't concerned that there is an entire segment of the game today that has zero bearing on the playoffs. What sport does this? Does football get rid of kickoffs for the post season? Does basketball do away with free throws? Yet my beloved hockey decides a large percentage of it's games using a system and a skillset that, come playoff time, is thrown away until the following season. Even if you hate ties you've got to admit that that is ridiculous.
No 8 mins, has to be increments of 5. That's sport rules man. It's in the handbook all of us men are given at birth, duh.
Honestly, I didn't mind the shootout at first, maybe because I was 15, but as time went on, it sucked. It sucks that a real sport was played and a real struggle occurred to try to win the game, but then it's decided in a 50-50 coin flip. It drives me insane. The Devils are great at shootouts as I think we delved into during our great run on them last year, but even so, they're a 50-50 coin flip on the whole and that's no way to end game.
****WARNING: SERIOUS BOREDOM AT WORK CREATED THIS****
I have a dream that one day Devils nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these goal's to be self-evident: that all Devils are created better."
I have a dream that one day even the state of Pennsyltucky, a state sweltering with the heat of Bryz's implosion, sweltering with the heat of Penguin dissapointment, will be transformed into an oasis of losers and never were's.
I have a dream that my twenty Devils will one day play in a league where they will not be judged by the ilk of their system but by the content of their play.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Newark, with its vicious Clarksons, with its GM having his lips dripping with the words of genius and old schoolification; one day right there in Newark, Kovy and Ovechkin will be able to join hands with the North Americans and Czechs as teammates and brothers.
Is this how your dream went? Because that's how I pretended it went and how I then transcribed my imagining of your dream, lol.
What a waste of time. That woman that wrote the article should be banned from being a journalist. She took the easy way with this one. Everybody knew a lockout was coming this year, long ago we all knew it. This guy paid, up-front, for his tix, knowing the season was likely to be shortened, if not cancelled. Stupid move on his part because the fine print covers it all. If he chose the monthly payment plan, he'd have spent nothing until now, but because he wanted to pay up-front, he wants to complain now. Well, too bad for you. This was just plain lazy journalism. I bet she couldn't find anyone who was really bamboozled, so hey, I bet I could write an attack on the Devils based on a situation out of their control.
I don't know if you saw ATLL, but I took specific pains not to say Romney was taken out of context, but you're the second person to say I said that. I'm somehow ridiculous, but you guys are comfortable ignoring direct statements and putting your own in their place.
Maybe that's how bias can't be seen by you guys, you refuse to comprehend anything that isn't fitting with what you know must be happening.
Ok. Maybe you didn't say specifically that he was taken out of context, but instead you just said the tape was incomplete and edited, because that's not the exact same thing as saying it was out of context.
I didn't say Romney was taken out of context, I said we can't know for sure without the full answer. Just as with you saying I was implying the Romney clip was edited together when I didn't, you need to stop assuming what I think
I do think Obama meant you didn't build all your business because of the help those other things provided. "that" can't be roads and bridges, that's a plural, that has to be referring to the singular business and, IMO, fits Obama's ideology that people who are successful don't fairly share or give credit to people who he feels created the environment for their success.
If we can reasonably assume what Romney said was true because it fits his MO then we can reasonably assume that Obama meant business because it fits his MO and the wording fits best.
You're officially in the bubble now man. Romney saying 47% of the country are unconvincable bums is being taken out of context and blown out of proportion, but Obama misspeaking in the "you didn't build that" quote, that's fine by you because it's representative of Obama. That's bullsh!t and you know it. Obama CLEARLY meant that to be the bridges and roads, not the business. Otherwise why the fvck did he even mention bridges and roads. You're so far up Fox's ass, you couldn't tell bias from last night's bologna in Hannity's stomach.
I have to admit all these 'please vote for' threads lately have me thinking about what happens the first time two NJDevs members have a different significant other they want to get votes for in the same contest.
Or worse yet, they, unbeknownst to them, have the SAME significant other that they try to get votes for, lol.
Then please run for president when you turn 35 and dismantle the military and see how that turns out.
The world is full of looney leaders who make even the most "extreme" of our candidates look tame. They do not have any concept of diplomacy and wish to destroy the united states as well as their other enemies.
What the left doesn't understand is that the world has and will always be filled with wackos and evil and not by understanding people who want to get together to sing Cumbya. It took the largest and deadliest war in world history to defeat evil manifested as hitler and nazi Germany. It took over fifty years and many proxy wars but we defeated the soviet union by basically outspending the soviet union to death ( though the liberals will give you varying reasons, I have had the fortune of interviewing several CIA and smaller political leaders during a college project about the cold war and they all say this was the reason why we won). Either way we won because of our military complex.
Please tell me where I said we should dismantle the military?
My point was that spending more than the next 25-26 countries combined, is unnecessary. We could just outspend everyone. We'd still be #1 in military spending, just not by some retardedly large amount of money. Just like our nuclear arsenal, I don't see the point in having enough to blow the world up 100X over. Isn't being able to blow it up once enough?
I'm not going to argue whether we won the Cold war via spending more money, but even if that is true, it's irrelevant now. We're not fighting a large organized sovereign state. We're fighting a small contingent of under-armed and under-funded guerilla fighters. I'm going to oversimplify here, but we don't need a hammer to win here, we need the precision of a knife. We do not need to spend the amount of money we do on the military/DHS to be safe, that's ridiculous. We could probably cut the military and DHS budget by 50% and be no less safe than we are now.
I know you're gonna bring up the cold war again, so I'll relate that way now. What was the point of overthrowing a fascist regime, only to adopt it's tactics to govern ourselves now?
I think it's the clear way to truly lowering costs. When you have a single payer, you have such leverage on costs of treatments because it's a take it or leave it situation. Either take $X for an x-ray or don't do it and you gotta assume that if it's still profitable, it will be done. I know Japan, in the case of x-rays said $X is what we'll pay and the industry responded by pushing manufacturers to create cheaper x-ray machines. I believe this was done by cutting out some of the more advanced and lesser used features on the machines, but that's, again, a trade off you have to make.
Wrong on all accounts. Prices are not going up because of evil pharmaceutical companies and evil insurers. You have high demand for an expensive and scarce service. Prices will most assuredly go up. There is also no way you can bring down administrative costs in any significant way if there is a third party paying. Let me put it this way, if I had to personally had to pay for your necessary medical care, I damn well want to know what your doctor visits were for, why you needed that operation, why it cost so much. That will require a lot of paper work whether that third party is me personally, an insurance company or Uncle Sam.
Rather, what will bring prices down are governmental price controls. What do you think cutting Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements to doctors is designed to do? And what happens when you put a price ceiling on something? You get less supply of that something.
I'd rather have a single payer system anyways. That being said, reimbursements for Medicare need to flattened so that you don't see abuses in the system of people being pushed towards treatments that have higher reimbursement rates. Again, here the argument is flatten the rate, broaden the base. Specialist are overpaid in our system, GPs are underpaid. Shift that so that specialists get less and GPs more and you will have more GPs and greater access. Less specialists could hurt, but usually a bit of a wait to see one isn't gonna kill you and if it is, the GP will let you know and I would hope that there could be a way to allow more needing patients skip in line. I'm over-simplifying, but you get the point.