nfreeman

If Iggy is as limited as he was in game 6, then I think game 7 is a toss up. LeBron's last 2 games have been all-timers.

This is pretty obnoxious.

But the Sabres have something like $23MM in cap space, innit? It seems like the Rangers retaining $2.5MM for the next 2 years wouldn't be necessary to make the deal work -- esp because the Rangers would only trade Nash to create cap space.

But don't the Sabres have enough room to absorb the full $7.8MM for 2 years? Especially in the highly unlikely event that they don't get Stamkos?

Why? Not trying to argue, just curious -- I know there is a school of thought that supports this, but I haven't seen a good explanation of why they would do so.

And childish, and useless. "You don't agree with me because you're not smart enough to understand my opinion." Give me a freaking break already.

Interesting -- but it also occurs to me that Jaime could end up getting killed by Cersei's wildfire -- which would be a pretty GoT-kinda development.

I would be shocked if GMTM brought in Vanek. He's the antithesis of GMTM's kinda guy. I would also be shocked if GMTM traded Reino, who was GMTM's first big move as a Sabre and who had a really good rookie year. I can definitely see GMTM trading #8, with sweeteners as needed, for a ready-to-go top-pairing LHD.

C'mon. No one wants to see people killed in terror attacks, regardless of how it makes political opponents look.

I'm not interested in having something strapped on (heh) either. I run with an ipod nano and just hold it in my hand. It's really small. It takes a while to find earbuds that fit and stay in. I've found the kind with rubber tips work better than than hard plastic kind. Right on. As long as the path has been shoveled and the footing is stable , I'll run even if the temperature is in the 20s. A cold-weather run is really a pleasure. Outstanding. You'll be at 5 miles without stopping in a couple of weeks -- and you'll sleep like a baby.

The use of a straw man is by definition dishonest. Here is what the president said: Your primary straw man has revolved around the repeated assertion that those criticizing the president's refusal to name the enemy do so because they think he doesn't know who the enemy is. All of these are straw men. No one is asserting that the president doesn't know that Islamists are committing terror attacks, or that naming the enemy would make it less committed, or would bring in more allies, or would make it go away. And yet you and he (among many others) continue to throw up these arguments, which are neither here nor there and don't have anything to do with the real issue -- which is, as Claude describes above, that his prosecution of this war, and his actions as c-in-c to protect the country, have failed us terribly, and that his insistence on using euphemisms is symptomatic of the mindset that has given us this failure.

First, thank you for this reasoned and respectful post. In response: 1 - Yes -- of course there are good and bad arguments, and everyone is free to consider a given position as good or bad. I do think though that if you're going to engage in this discussion, and respond to certain positions, it's incumbent on you to address those positions specifically and on their merits -- not just say those positions are emotion-driven, not logical and generally put forward by those who don't know what they're talking about. As for the merits of "name the enemy" argument -- your most recent post (quoted above), does indeed address the merits, although it took a fair amount of back-and-forth before you did so. However, like the president and K-9, you've put forth straw men (although yours aren't as dishonest and sarcastic as theirs are) and haven't addressed the core reasons that many people are so troubled by the president's refusal to name the enemy. It isn't because the president uttering certain words would cause the bad guys magically to disappear or surrender -- no one has said this, no one thinks it, and it's a dishonest and obnoxious straw man to throw up there (which you haven't done, but the president and others here have). As I've said previously, it's because (i) this refusal is indicative of the president's worldview on Islamism, the threat it poses, both here and abroad, and the necessary policy responses and (ii) the president's job is, in addition to developing and implementing the right policies, to build public support for those policies. In both the San Bernadino and Orlando cases, there were people close to the killers with legitimate concerns about terrorism who didn't say anything due to fears of being called racist or Islamophobic. Those decisions are driven by a mindset that the president has helped to create -- by refusing to name the enemy, by promoting a theory of moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam and by patently ridiculous moves like hiring a person who glorified 9/11 to advise the homeland security department on Muslim views. I'll also point out that while the person you cited as disagreeing with the "name the enemy" position certainly sounds like a knowledgeable and serious person, there are plenty of knowledgeable and serious persons with significant professional experience in the field who are on the other side of the argument. 2 - I don't know what I'm supposed to say on this one. I suppose you can either believe my statements on this or not. As I've said before, I'm not a registered member of either party. I voted for Clinton and for Gore. I think the Democrats are completely out to lunch on the key issues of the day, so I usually vote Republican -- but I certainly would've voted for Bloomberg this year if he had run as either a Democrat or an independent. 3 - I think we've covered this already. Suffice it to say I think if you disagree with an opinion and want to respond, the better approach is to break down the post and the reasons for your disagreement -- not just dismiss the opinion as being the product of emotion and ignorance. 4 - I have indeed crossed the line in the past and am trying to avoid doing so. Regarding the examples you mentioned -- I am pretty sure I referred to Bernie himself (not his supporters) as a space cadet. As for my comment about his supporters not knowing how the world works -- I think if you go back and read the post in which I said that, you'll see that it was stated in a half-joking manner.

Interesting. You may well be right. Perhaps they'll have races for fun during training camp and we'll find out then.

Good post. I would just add that he's probably the fastest skater on the team and an exciting player. I'm rooting for him.

Not deleted -- it was merged into this one. I would suggest using this one here until the season starts, but NBD either way.

Here's your offseason general NHL thread, ladies and gents. Use it wisely.

Liger -- as I mentioned above, regulating the internet like a utility means that pretty much everything about the internet is subject to regulation -- not just pricing for bandwidth/content.

Although that may be a central point to net neutrality from a consumer perspective, I believe the key from a commercial perspective (and what the initial wave of government regulation will cover) is a prohibition on "trunk" providers from charging Netflix more than they charge SabreSpace to bring that content onto the internet. More importantly, as I mentioned above, if net neutrality were limited to the factor you mentioned (or for that matter to the factor I mentioned), it would be much less problematic than what is actually happening, which is bringing the internet into a public utility regulatory framework -- which will result in regulation of many different factors, which will hinder technological advances, which will ultimately be worse for everyone.

OK, now that the Cup has been awarded and Chicago has made a big trade, I think the offseason hot stove has officially arrived, so I'm going to unpin this thread. IMHO it's been terrific, though, so everyone should feel free to continue posting photos.

Yes indeedly. Well, leaving aside the questions of whether "net neutrality" has in fact been in place all along, and, if it has, the degree to which it has facilitated the development of the internet, bringing the internet under the utility regulatory framework will allow (and inevitably result in) regulation of the internet in many areas beyond net neutrality.

"Awesome" and "great" are questionable adjectives here. Has the internet not developed in a pretty GD amazing way without being regulated as a utility?

I totally agree that all new administrations install their own people, and that there is nothing nefarious about doing so, and that if the author was one of the "purged" employees, he easily could be motivated by sour grapes. However, I think his point about the Obama approach -- i.e. that they were essentially sticking their heads in the sand about the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism -- has to be considered given his proximity to the scene.

This is pretty good: http://observer.com/2016/06/the-road-to-orlando/ (The author is a former US Navy officer and NSA analyst.)

I think it's likely that Okposo gets a big contract from someone, and I'd be happy to add him, but not on a 7-year deal. He'll turn 29 at the end of next season.

This is top 5 in this thread, maybe top 3.