nfreeman

Well, I finally saw the movie "Draft Day" and against my better judgment, the shot of the field house and then the stadium got me pretty psyched. Then of course the inclusion of Russ Brandon, decision-maker at the top of the organization, brought me back to earth.

Good stuff yse and welcome!

Now that is some high-quality life advice. Well done sir.

...which perhaps indicates questionable veracity of the allegations. I've said this before, but I think we need to wait until the facts are in before making any determinations -- not just those that are legally justifiable in a criminal court, but determinations as to Kane's character. FWIW, whenever I've seen extended interviews with Kane, I've come away with positive impressions. I recognize, of course, that YMMV.

Glad you liked it! I really wasn't baiting you, nor do I think that poll is especially meaningful. I was just surprised, both at Trump being in the lead and by the margin.

LA Times: Trump 47.0%, HRC 40.4%. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-daybreak-poll-methodology-20160714-snap-story.html Holy mackerel. Also -- this is outstanding:

Just so we're clear -- this is because of the incident last year, in which no charges of any kind were brought and no specific allegations were made (let alone proven), plus the incident this year, in which we have unproven, unattributed and unresponded-to allegations that the police have decided are non-criminal in nature?

Fair point. I was referring to the description of events that was linked upthread -- I believe that's been the only public comment by any of the accusers, but I could be wrong.

The answer almost certainly arises not out of race but out of different facts in the 2 situations. Speaking of facts -- we still have no idea what they are. All we have are unproven allegations from an unnamed woman who was in a bar at 3:00 AM. Well, whether he made "mistakes" depends on what actually happened, which we don't know, innit?

I'm finally getting around to watching "People vs OJ Siimpson" and it is outstanding.

There was a reasonably positive discussion of the Bills on "Ballers" this week.

There is indeed plenty of jumping to conclusions going on around here, primarily from those in the "see no evil, fear no evil" crowd. Here's what we know: The killer was an 18-year-old Muslim male with Iranian citizenship. He reportedly shouted "allahu akbar" as he was firing. He targeted an archetypal Western civilization target in a McDonald's. 12 hours after the shooting, a member of one of the most politically correct governments on the planet said that as of the present time there is no known connection with Isis. That's what we know.

Do you think the world is safer now than it was 8 years ago?

And do you care to articulate your views or would you prefer to stick with shouting down the other side?

How so? Do you want to have conversation about the important issues of the day, or do you want to just insult those who disagree with you? Do you think your post about Trump pumping his fist after the latest police shooting was more disgraceful or less disgraceful than my post?

Another bloodthirsty Muslim mass murder attack today, and in a city and country with strict gun control. Perhaps it's not a gun control issue. Perhaps it's got abso-friggin-lutely nothing to do with gun control, and the bozo in the white house and his apologists are simply latching onto gun control in order to change the subject away from his historically terrible failure to address militant Islam. If you can't stand Trump, I totally get it. If most of your personal beliefs are more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans, I get that too. But no one should pretend that Obama and Hillary have not made the world a much more dangerous place than they found it, and no one should delude himself into thinking it won't continue to get worse if Hillary wins.

And, since it's been such a long time since the last one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html A teenage Afghan refugee shouted 'Allahu Akbar' before hacking at passengers during an axe rampage on a train in Germany - in scenes likened to a 'slaughterhouse'.

It's also worth noting that the Japanese were hardly a nation of innocent victims. They had a fierce and brutal warrior culture going back centuries and were good Asian analogues of the Germans. Many historians have argued that without getting nuked they would, in addition to bleeding the Allies for years without surrendering, have geared back up for more war promptly after any armistice, just like the Germans did after WWI. For anyone who's interested, there is a book called "The Rape of Nanking" that details the way the Japanese brutalized the Chinese (it's not an enjoyable read by any stretch, but at least it's not too long).

Ugh. Maybe you should in fact move to DC. Just try not to breathe the air during the months of May through September.

I know you were kidding, but in all seriousness I'm glad that DeLuca is here and making his points, which he clearly feels strongly about, in an honest and sincere fashion. He's not calling anyone here an idiot or an evil person for disagreeing with him. He's troubled by what he sees as a real problem with this country, now and historically, and he's articulating it. Now, I disagree with much of what he says -- and this doesn't even include his thoughts on Derek Roy vs Danny Briere -- but Whiskey is right that we're all benefited by good discourse.

I too thought Randall's post was great and am glad he's here.

Both of these are also fair questions. I would respond that defeating ISIS/al Qaeda/etc. militarily would immediately benefit the West by making it clear to the general Muslim population (both in ME and in the immigrant Muslim communities in Europe) that militant Islam is the weak horse and Western civilization is the strong horse. Islamic fundamentalism would immediately lose its appeal to a huge percentage of those who are currently inclined towards joining, supporting or sympathizing with it (which is a depressingly large number of people). Another immediate benefit would be halting the waves of hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees (understandably) fleeing war zones. Over time -- and it will take generations -- I think hearts and minds would change, and attitudes towards minorities, women, homosexuals, etc. would evolve, because I think the "Arab Spring" would resume. With the US (and, hopefully, plenty of European support) on the scene to keep the peace and promote indigenous democratic movements, these societies would undergo their own enlightenments. I don't think there's another way. Brutal dictatorships do not allow for peace among nations, nor for enlightened thinking within their own nations. And we can't force our values on them. They have to figure out their values for themselves. How do you know this? Because we're a bunch of racists? And how do you know we're a bunch of racists? Because we never would've bombed Germany?

OK -- time to take it down a notch.

You have got to be kidding me.

The draft question is fair, although not dispositive IMHO. I would respond that while I would not favor a draft at this time, if the war arrives at a point where manpower needs require a draft, then it should apply across the board. As for the concept of "contributing a fair share of life and limb" -- I don't think having a professional armed force means that there is currently an unfair sharing of life and limb. The system we currently have is fair in that no one is required to enlist, and those who do are given benefits and opportunities to compensate for the risk to their lives and limbs (which risks, it should be remembered, are at historic lows). As for the moral equivalence point -- yes, there are indeed Christians (and non-Christians) here who would jail and/or kill homosexuals. But they are so few in number as to be irrelevant. There are probably a greater number who believe Tom Cruise was sent by L. Ron Hubbard's space gods to rule over us. Contrast this with the hundreds of millions who feel this way in the Muslim world -- and, more importantly, with those who actually commit these acts in the Muslim world (where homosexuality in many nations is a crime punishable by death, and where that sentence is implemented regularly). There's nothing wrong with being put off by in-your-face bible-thumpers. But I cannot disagree more strongly with drawing the type of moral equivalence that informs your thinking (and that of many others here).