Nightwing

If Dallas didn't have long-standing rivalries with teams in a totally different conference, I might agree. Then again, I'm pretty sure that Detroit probably plays more 2-3 hour away games than Dallas does, simply because they are one of two EST teams and there are only 5 CST teams in the conference. Frankly, I have no clue why Dallas and Minnesota aren't in the same conference. It seems to me that there's an instant-rivalry not being exploited in the "Old Franchise/New Franchise" thing. Then again, I just don't care anything for Minnesota so I just feel nothing towards them.

EASTERN CONFERENCE (1) Montréal Canadiens vs. (8) Boston Bruins - Montréal in 5 games. Sorry max, but I can only give one game to the Bruins. The Habs are just rolling right now, and Boston isn't the team to stop them. (2) Pittsburgh Penguins vs. (7) Ottawa Senators - Pittsburgh in 5 games. Ottawa is just way too much of a mess, and the Penguins are playing well right now. (3) Washington Capitals vs. (6) Philadelphia Flyers - Washington in 6 games. Washington is playing great, and Ovechkin is going to get out of the first round. (4) New Jersey Devils vs. (5) New York Rangers - New York in 7 games. This matchup has all the markings of a drag-out series. WESTERN CONFERENCE (1) Detroit Red Wings vs. (8) Nashville Predators - Detroit in 5 games. Preds are decent, but Detroit is a much better team than they were last year. They'll get through to the next round. (2) San Jose Sharks vs. (7) Calgary Flames - Calgary in 6 games. My big upset. San Jose seems like a team that is destined to look great, but never be great. Calgary could pull an upset here. (3) Minnesota Wild vs. (6) Colorado Avalanche - Colorado in 7. Dunno why, but Colorado feels like it could go somewhere. The Wild are like the St. Louis Blues of old: They'll get to the playoffs, but they don't feel like are going anywhere after that. (4) Anaheim Ducks vs. (5) Dallas Stars - Anaheim in 6 games. Dallas is tanking right now, but with the Ducks anemic offense they'll take two games at the very least. I'll dream and take a Detroit/Montréal final.

As much as I'd love for Chicago to be in the same division (Since the rivalry between the two cities is great), I hate being in a division where basically only home games are at EST. But I've finally accepted the fact that the large part of Southern teams need to be killed (Carolina and Washington being the only exceptions now). In all honesty, if they weren't stuck playing 4 other (essentially) expansion teams most of the time, the Caps would probably be a bit more popular. And find another name, but something honoring physical players (it doesn't just need to be defensemen) who play clean is something necessary. I mean, it's fun to have Nick win the Norris all the time, but Phaneuf deserves some sort of award for his great play. It seems like there are a dozen awards geared towards everyone but defensemen. On-topic: I'm sad that the Wings didn't get seeded with the Canucks, who we'd readily roll over. But the Predators aren't too bad as long as they can survive the 3rd Period flurry that they seem to put up. It's better than getting stuck with the Blackhawks, who would still worry me even though we've beaten them a few times recently. But I feel pretty good about this playoff run. I just hope the Sharks get eliminated in the first round to shut Barry Melrose up already. I can only handle so many verbal blowjobs, and he's been doing this for like two years now.

Naw. They all have (important) trophies as well. Keep the Conference names, but change the division names to honor some legendary "Original Six" Players: Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens for the Richard Division (Obvious. And yes, he has a trophy, but he deserves a division, too.) Gordie Howe of the Detroit Red Wings for the Howe Division (Obvious) Bobby Orr of the Boston Bruins for the Orr Division (Obvious) Bobby Hull of the Chicago Blackhawks for the Hull Division (Obvious) Leonard “Red” Kelly of the Toronto Maple Leafs for the Kelly Division (Popular, excellent player, won a few Cups and held GOVERNMENT OFFICE during his time in Toronto.) Frank Boucher of the New York Rangers for the Boucher Division (Won the Lady Byng so many times they just GAVE him the damned trophy and bought a new one, helped lead the Rangers to two Stanley Cups and won one behind the bench for them, and he's really the only legendary Ranger player that played on the team during his prime. Plus, three cups.) - Team Movement: Florida moves to Winnipeg and they revert back to the Jets. Nashville moves to Portland and becomes the Portland Predators. Tampa moves to Las Vegas and becomes the Las Vegas Lightning. Atlanta moves to Hamilton and becomes the Hamilton Thrashers. - Conference Switches: Detroit and Columbus move over to Prince of Wales Conference. Campbell Conference Howe Division: Chicago Blackhawks, St. Louis Blues, Dallas Stars, Minnesota Wild, Winnipeg Jets Boucher Division:Colorado Avalanche, Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames, Portland Predators, Vancouver Canucks Hull Division: Anaheim Ducks, San Jose Sharks, Los Angeles Kings, Phoenix Coyotes, Las Vegas Lightning Prince of Wales Conference Orr Division:Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers, Washington Capitals, Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets Kelly Division: Boston Bruins, Montreal Canadiens, New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, New York Islanders Richard Division: Detroit Red Wings, Toronto Maple Leafs, Hamilton Thrashers, Ottawa Senators, Buffalo Sabres Give outstanding players of recent memory like Lemieux and Gretzky trophies in their honor. I'm sure they can make up a few things for them ("General Lifetime Achievement in advancing the NHL in a meaningful way"). Add in a few more to honor Defensemen (Paul Coffey Offensive Defensemen Award for one, Scott Stevens Achievement for physical players, with qualifiers of no fines, no suspensions, and less than 125 PIM). Go to Ken Holland's plan of 84 Games.

I think it was less bashing of the writers than bashing of the actual Union leadership itself. They seem to think that it was stupid to call a strike in when they lacked a good chance of changing things, and that it was leadership's fault for tricking them into striking at the wrong time. Overall, I liked the episode. The Internet Battle Royale was hilarious, especially the Dramatic Prairie Dog.

This is the logic I follow. It shouldn't matter whether or not Global Warning is occurring actively. We should always be striving to be more eco-friendly, if only for the fact that resources are finite and life is better with a healthier environment. Screw arguing about whether it is or isn't happening; does it really hurt us to make more fuel-efficient cars and cut down on our emissions?

I don't care who is a Skrull, I just love the idea of it as a mind-fuck strategy: You know that if the Skrulls wanted to get a ship in without being detected, they could do it. And you know they have members on both teams. Drawing the two "Big-Name" groups to the middle of absolute nowhere, spring their plan, cut off their only line of communication (Tony), and then completely fuck with their minds by revealing this huge group of... themselves coming out saying they finally made it out of the Skrull empire... I mean, bravo. That's quality planning there. Also, anyone notice the "He loves you" lines that the Skrulls kept repeating? Gotta wonder how that works into the invasion reasoning.

Leinil Yu's artwork normally annoys the shit out of me, but not as much this time. Plotwise, I'm very interested, and I love the 70/80's characters throwback. It's a great ploy by the Skrulls, and this time it really feels like an honest-to-God invasion: They've covered all their bases and actually seem like they could be successful. Overall, I have a lot more faith in this crossover than most of Marvel's recent big crossovers (House of M was bad, Civil War was uneven, and World War Hulk was horrifyingly crappy), and I really don't mean that as a backhanded compliment.

I've sort of been catching up on schoolwork since I had my hospital stay, but this thread has gotten a helluva lot weirder in the last few days.

Back from the hospital and feeling good! Wiki does a decent enough job of summarizing, though, for the most part it comes down to Overall, the biggest problem has probably been the ridiculously slow forward progress and the lack of interest in characters in general. Trickerster and Piper were great, Mary Marvel had promise, and Jason Todd has proven to be more and more interesting. But for the most part, they chose characters (Karate Kid and Triplicate Girl stand out) that weren't interesting at all and the plots (which tied together in the end) just didn't move at all for the longest time. In particular, the "Challengers of the Multiverse" storyline stands out as one that moved WAY too slow. They sort of recovered a for about a month with really good stuff, but then they went back to a lot of crap no one could care less about. Oh well. Also, a few things: Blue Beetle pretty much came of age this week. Excellent ending to a long-term arc, showing Blue become a real hero and tying up a bunch of loose ends (Even ones that came before the series, like the words "Khaji Da!"). The fact that GI Robot is back into continuity (especially with how he is set up) is going to make it way too hard to wait for the next issue of Checkmate. That's the one thing I love about DC: Its ability to bring back old, old characters in new and interesting ways. And Shadowpact needs more exposure. I wasn't exactly hot on the earlier part of the run (The "Rules of Engagement" thing was basically teased at the end of every issue and was kind of lame), but they've really got some interesting things going, especially with the 'semi-rotating' roster.

I was going to respond to SuperJerk's response to my response, but the absolute stupidity of Marvin right now is preventing me from accessing my higher brain functions.

Figuring out Black Adam's word in his mini-series was so beyond brilliant. I loved it so much, because it was so perfectly in character for Billy Batson. Hopefully this means that Black Adam's story isn't done yet.

I always thought Hush was a bit overrated. I liked it the first part, if only he handled the Bats vs. Supes fight excellently (Though Batfans often cite it as showing Batman could defeat Superman, they usually miss out on the fact that Batman notes "He could have ended this battle by flying into space and just pressing him into the cement. He's trying to fight the control..."), when That, and Loeb has no fucking clue on how to write the Joker. It makes Dini's version that much better. On topic: I really love Ultimate Spider-Man, but that might come from the fact that it's really coherent and Spider-Man as of late has been from uninspired to crap to "I refuse to read this on principle". It's a great book, and I recommend it. If you want to try out a book, try Ultimate FF (Which I think gets a lot of undue criticism), Ultimate Human (Warren Ellis' pseudo-science for the Win!), and Ultimate Iron Man (the best redone origin yet). Sideburnious: .

A lot of things, but I'm not sure what's true. Some things seem to point to Batman actually dying: Apparently there was talk at DC of actually killing him off as well as turning him into one of the New Gods of the Fifth World. Also, the fact that Morrison said that his "Final Crisis" would be done as an "All-Star Superman story" if it didn't get approved, which suggests that someone major is going down and, along with the tag-line, it seems that someone major is going to die. By process of elimination (We've already had a Flash death, Hawkman is a total red herring, Hal has already died, Wonder Woman is the only true top woman in DC, and Superman has already died once...), I think it's going to be Bats. Along with the fact that most of Morrison's run has been concerned with death and Batman, it seems to be appropriate. But (And I can't remember where I heard this) I've read that it might be a "It's a Wonderful Life" kind of deal showing a world after Batman dies. I hope to God that isn't it, as I hate when they tease someone's death and do a stupid cop-out. I don't think someone as creative as Morrison would do that, though. It's a weird position: DC would almost come off as a copy of Marvel when they did Cap's death, though I trust that DC will make Batman's a bit more epic and appropriate. Batman's death might even affect more people than Cap, at least, character-wise: Yes, Captain America has a much more public affect, but Batman dying has huge implications not only for the heroes, but for a lot of villains as well. His rogue's gallery is arguably the best of any comic-book character, along with a larger (and more important) supporting cast (Nightwing/Oracle/Red Robin/Robin/Batgirl vs. Falcon/Winter Soldier/Sharon Carter... uh...). I'd applaud them for it, but I'm sure that many people would decry the move as simply copying Marvel. Nothing is for sure, though. DC is a lot more closed-lipped about things than "Let's spoil Spidey's unmasking a month in advance" Marvel.

It's kind of interesting. I'm a guy who really likes a book with a large cast of characters (Salvation Run, Green Lantern Corps, Birds of Prey, Checkmate), so I'm digging it. I'm really looking forwards to find out the whole .

If only he had been for abortions, I suppose.

Nah, don't quiet down, this forum needs more diverse opinions. (Of course I am not sure if your quote above is sarcasm or not ) I don't really disagree that the economy is right up there, and might be the #1 issue right now, but I just feel there is a difference between primary election issues and general election issues, and if McCain starts up the "Democrats want to wave the white flag of defeat"-2004 style rhetoric, in the Presidential debates, then it is going to thrust the war back into the spotlight. No, it's not sarcasm, it's just this forum is ridiculously frustrating to get any real discussion on. There are so few conservatives (Or at least, ones that are willing to put more of a debate into things), I feel like all I can do is keep playing devil's advocate. I'm not nearly as big a supporter of McCain as I probably come off (Mostly because I seriously disagree with his social agenda, especially on education), but when you essentially have a few guys talking about Ron Paul and an idiot who supports Romney, what's to do? Going to your source's site, he's a bit... interesting. I might actually research a few of those claims, as I sort of explained a few of them (Mainly the Tax Cuts and Ethanol) to Marvin... but that'd probably take up more of my time than I care to do. And snuffbox: Outside of the war, you have someone who is going for massive increases in public programs, including moving towards true Universal Healthcare. I'll admit that the Republicans this year aren't much better (Simply because supporting the war costs a shit-ton). I mean, I'd think you'd be more on the side of privatizing health care and social security rather than expanding it. You have something against McCain's black baby or something, or are you just really playing the odds after years of disappointment with the Libbies?

Oh Christ. I even guarded myself in thinking that Iraq wouldn't be the big issue. But fine, I concede in the face of overwhelming evidence, Mike. You got me, and I'll quiet down. And I'm sorry, but you have no room to speak, snuff. How exactly does a shift from Ron Paul to Barack Obama reconcile with your beliefs?

That's true, but I don't think that's going to be the case. It's calming down, and if anything he'll take credit for that. Iraq won't be the big issue, and I think, of all the candidates on the Republican side, he probably looked the strongest. I mean, out of Republicans who didn't support the war, he took a third of the vote. This isn't the Achilles' Heel that it once was, and I don't think it will turn worse any time soon. This is going to be decided on the economy. That's a misnomer; it's not his only answer, and I don't think that's a truly unpopular issue (As we are getting another tax package from Congress again). Really, this is only an issue with people with people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place and nothing more. I think trade and where jobs are going is going to be a much, much more relevant issue than "tax cuts". On healthcare "free market solution" is his answer which means WHAT exactly? NAY Privatizing Social Security? NAY Just because he isn't Mitt Romney doesn't make him less wrong(well "wrong" meaning not on the side of the majority of the american public) on the bigger issues. Having a moderate view on immigration is going to hurt him just as much as it might help him. I am failing to see where John McCain 2008 is not conservative straight down the line on the more important issues and how in the least he looks like a figure that is going to unite rather then continue the big divide. Forget about what the guy might have said in 2000, the guy has changed his tune. I'm glad that you essentially backed off all your other points to simply talk about other things rather than answer me. But whatever. On your other things: Yes, Republicans have always been weak on Healthcare when it comes to the public. But this is the economy, stupid. At least, that's how you just put it before. And how much has Social Security really come up this season? Not much. People are more concerned with having a job so they can make it to social security, first. If you want to talk about issues, fine, but let's face facts: Economy is number one. Healthcare is up there, but Social Security? Grasping at straws. I'd probably argue Immigration/Border Security is more important. And McCain's immigration policy will easily gain him more votes, because the Republicans that are critical of him aren't the type to go over to Obama and it'll help him with the Latino votes that Obama has been having trouble securing. It's a moderate issue where he can actually win, and I'm not sure how you can try and paint it any other way. I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about when it comes to "This isn't 2000", as he's not that much different from 2000. The only real change is his wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts, and that's really about it. And I'm not sure you're view is "the majority of Americans": I understand you believe that you think most of the public is on your side, but your analysis of "the public is more liberal, but Conservatives keep power with a few key issues" just doesn't ring true. I think you're missing the fact that maybe America is about an even split when it comes down to it.

That's true, but I don't think that's going to be the case. It's calming down, and if anything he'll take credit for that. Iraq won't be the big issue, and I think, of all the candidates on the Republican side, he probably looked the strongest. I mean, out of Republicans who didn't support the war, he took a third of the vote. This isn't the Achilles' Heel that it once was, and I don't think it will turn worse any time soon. This is going to be decided on the economy. That's a misnomer; it's not his only answer, and I don't think that's a truly unpopular issue (As we are getting another tax package from Congress again). Really, this is only an issue with people with people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place and nothing more. I think trade and where jobs are going is going to be a much, much more relevant issue than "tax cuts".

These are fairly minor issues. Issues... but they aren't going to decide an election. I'm not sure I quite buy the "Obama Republican" yet, as it's going to become real clear during the general election where he stands on things. And this isn't even an argument with Hillary. Really, the Republicans who say they aren't going to vote for McCain are fooling themselves It's become less and less of an issue with the surge "working" and things seemingly moving a little better. Being the architect and main supporter of the surge, he comes out better. Plus, he's actually getting (If I remember correctly) about a third of the Republicans who don't like the war right now. Adding in the "No Torture, Close Gitmo" stance, and he's stronger than he looks. Iraq isn't the juggernaut issue it once was, especially with the surge vindicating He's always been able to separate himself well enough from the Republican Party despite being a fairly conservative guy. Remember, he's not an actual part of this administration, and he's had enough disagreements with Bush and is reviled by party voices like Limbaugh and Coulter that he can avoid "the next Bush" stigma. I think you are seriously underestimating the candidate here. He does have some advantages, even on Obama, as he actually has the record of working across the aisle, and not just with Liebermens. He's a massive draw with Independents, and I'd argue that with his stance on immigration, he's probably going to do better in the Latino vote than Obama will, as he's seriously struggled with it. With Hillary, I think he's a near-lock. This shouldn't even be a question, regardless of the situation with delegates right now; Hillary wins, the Republican base is will be more motivated than they've been since Reagan left, and McCain will beat her down with independent votes that she can't take and he can. Obama is definitely the harder subject. He has charisma, momentum, and pull with independents. Even then, though, I think it's far from an open-shut election you seem to imply it is. He has the momentum, but at some point he's going to need to speak to what he's actually about: even snuffbox has noted that a lot of the new people are jumping on his bandwagon without even knowing what he stands for. His "Most Liberal Guy in Congress" record might work against him when he's facing a candidate who is considered by most to be a true moderate. He has the advantage, but I don't think it's a lock by a long shot. I'm not quite convinced this fantastic primary turnout is going to translate into an incredible election day turnout.

I would seriously recommend Marvel to you right now, Jingus. Even as a DC fanboy, Marvel has a lot of absolutely fantastic series. I know what Swamp thing you are talking about, and he basically reinvented the character... But I dunno. Stylistically, Brubaker has made the Iron Fist feel like it's the 1930's, like you're reading the Shadow, but put so many layers of depth upon the mythos it's insane. Pick it up, in trade or on the stands, and you will NOT be disappointed. And Captain America is a fantastic book along with the "I'm as Underrated as Checkmate" Iron Man series which is absolutely fantastic. The new Mandarin is so awesome in concept it's hard to describe him right now, and the seriously troubled Tony dealing (realistically) with the problems of not only Steve Rogers, but Happy Hogan dying and his reaction so far is just fantastic. It's so damn taut, it's incredible. Sure, Spider-Man blows right now. But frankly, it's hard to keep a character consistent and interesting across three books. I personally stick with Ultimate Spider-Man and don't even glance at the current version (Who has turned into Ultimate Spider-Man anyways), but don't miss out on some brilliant stuff that is coming in above and below the radar. Oh, and respect the Avatar. I can't believe I suddenly like Greg Pak, but it's true.

Anything with the name "Brubaker" is probably going to be Marvel's best book, or at the very least in the running. It was a mistake for DC to let him go, especially with his fan-fucking-tastic run with Rucka on Gotham Central. That was such a brilliant book... But again, upon re-reading, I can't emphasize how well Pak is handling any character not named "Hulk" or "Cho" right now in Incredible Herc. He's actually made the guy pretty interesting, and Ares is easily the funniest badass ever. "NO!! BLOWS FROM AN UNSEEN ASSAILANT HAVE FELLED WONDER MAN!!" <---- Awesomeness.

What was wrong in Civil War was the ridiculous inconsistency between different books. Yes, there were stupid things (Clor), but JMK writing Tony Stark as a complete Neo-Facist in "Amazing Spider-Man" (Along with Reed being a complete tag-a-long. "Admiring Tony"? Wait, what? Isn't Reed OLDER and more famous? Shouldn't that be the other way around?) was worse than some of the stupider things in the main comic. Tony was portrayed quite well in his own comic (And even in the Frontline comic for a little while. His fight with Prodigy was the exact right note of "Discussion then enforcement"), but in most other comics people just got the complete wrong idea. People bitched about the ending of Infinite Crisis, but overall that story was definitely better as a whole than the Civil War mish-mash. But destroyed Stark's character? You have to start reading him right now, Jingus. He's being written incredibly well in his current run as Director of S.H.I.E.L.D., as well as The Order which occasionally uses him and his appearances in Captain America have shown a favorable view of Tony. Right now, he's probably one of the most interesting characters at Marvel.

I'm normally not really interested in Basketball, but hearing a lot of familiar names being moved around has resparked my interest. This is easily one of the most exciting trade seasons in any sport that I can remember.