Sabel79

There is like a 90% probability we'll be having a Reichstag fire (or, more presciently, a Chechen separatist apartment bombing) in the very near future. It's all we're missing.

I think Huckleberry's thinking of Evander Kane, whose father was a boxer and trained him as a kid. Emery was just nuts, and had boxers on his mask.

To the first paragraph: that was certainly the reason he gave. Even assuming that's the truth, he's pretty much admitting he, as the Director of the FBI, had no control over his subordinates in the NY field office who, and there is no other fair interpretation of their conduct, were absolutely hell-bent on taking her campaign down. Things started leaking. He had a choice, either put his foot down or do what he did. Either response would be seen as political, but I kind of doubt that he had a hard time choosing which way to go. To the second: You're probably right, but that's not really the important question. How many were dissuaded from voting altogether? Or voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson for the Lulz? The whole mess was, is and will be an ongoing disgrace, one that won't be repaired for generations, if at all.

Now or never, kid.

Oohh. Danny Rose just went full-Spurs on that goal. You never go full-Spurs if you want to actually win anything...

I do think it is entirely due to this, after the first few yellow cards for diving issued after a VAR review, the message was clear. As I understand it, VAR can be used to review any situation n where an obvious error happened or an event the ref didn't see. So an obvious dive given as a foul can be looked at again and dealt with.

She also, as I recall, once had her license to practice suspended because she failed to pay dues. Dillegence. And yes, Bork was literally the worst case scenario. They learned lessons and dressed the same package up in comforting neutral colors later on.

The decline in awful diving, Neymar aside, has been noticeable. I like it.

They're evidently hiring the Napoli Manager Sarri. Chelsea is a mess right now, Hazard likely walks, the owner has had his assets frozen and no money is forthcoming, the new stadium is now no longer happening. Good.

Hmmmmmm. I could be out to lunch but I remember thinking they needed to add a ton of money at the end of last season to hit the floor perhaps they had a bunch of RFA's I dunno. They have indeed well hit the floor. Of course, almost $11 million of that is now Hossa and Bolland...

Cap floor here we (almost) come!!!! Seriously, that's enough, Arizona.

Flynn went on to better things... (low bar, I know). I had forgotten about the very existence of Phil Varone.... woof.

Welp. Quite happy to be wrong about this one. They’re going home... ?

This is gonna be a fun 20 minutes, then a dire 30 minutes, then penalties...

Eleven is right, it will snuff the life out of us all...

To be fair, Russia also thinks we're a joke. Trump is very useful to Putin. He's already gotten him to round on NATO, now we're "Assad is really a nice guy" away from a full-card Putin has his hand up Trump's a** bingo. It's clear, and has been from before day one, that Trump is so compromised by how entirely leveraged he is, most of that debt being held in Russia and China since American banks stopped lending to him two bankruptcies ago, that this was inevitable. But hey, emails.

@LTS so what you’re saying is... you’re not a libertarian and, in fact, are a socially permissive small-government fiscal conservative? ? In all seriousness, I agree with you on capital’s deleterious effect on government. I can’t process the idea that less (as opposed to better, which might include a leaner org, but well-reasoned regulation is paramount) government would somehow make capital better behaved. If anything, it’s going to be much quicker and cheaper for them to rig the markets in their own favor. As far as my removal of the duty of a “libertarian government” (still an oxymoron as far as I’m concerned) to serve the people... are you sure you’re not putting it there? Since the preferred form of government of the Libertarian is, frankly, almost (I’ll give you that much) none, how can this be the case?

Speaking of Murray Rothbard... "Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society." Which is downright progressive compared to: "[T]he parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." Both excerpts from his book, "The ethics of Liberty". Both offered in all earnestness. I Dunno about you, but I'll pass. I realize these are nothing more than hypothetical, but they are used to illustrate my visceral objection to the philosophy. It actively disavows personal morality based on an assumption, with no rationale based in fact behind it, that we'll all somehow keep each other in line while having no real reason besides immediate self-interest, to do so.

There would be a 9 on the front also, but you could very well be right too.

I would have to imagine that the total lack of photos from the front indicates a big ol' "C" on his shoulder. It's all too cute.

As confused as I am about the relocation of goalposts here, I'll simply say this, and it's probably where we agree that we don't agree. I get how nature works. The universe is a cruel, violent, and fundamentally unfair place. It wants us dead. The very life-giving oxygen we breathe is also slowly tearing us apart inside; ultimately it's the reason why we all must die (if we're lucky to not go earlier for any of the other myriad reasons we can be erased). I lament that not, but firmly believe that we as a society, from the very beginning, have understood this and sought to work together conquer it, at least in as much as we can. We have done so quite well at times and very badly at others. There is no perfect government, they are made by and of people. People are not perfect. We've agreed for thousands of years now that they are a necessity. Queue the endless loop of disagreements about what government does, how, and who pays for it; all of which can be debated with reasonable people on both sides. I don't think anything in the previous paragraph is controversial. I guess where you and I will be unable to find each other on the same map is that you seem to believe that the problem is government itself; if we were to unfetter people and the market to the greatest extent possible things would be better. I truly believe that the main function of government in a market economy is to keep capital's thumb off the scale (for capital is truly the most likely wrongdoer here, even Adam Smith pointed this out in The Wealth of Nations) and ensure it isn't engaging in behaviors that will negatively impact us all (pouring toxic waste into lakes, for instance; or price-fixing and market manipulation in more prosaic terms). I share none of your belief that the market will regulate itself. It's been tried repeatedly and collapses every time, after a few at the top make off with what remains. We've learned to hack the system too well to be compared to plants fighting for sunlight. To say that regulation = the end of competition is a bit much, since the end of competition is exactly what capital wants. Devour to survive, which sounds great in theory, but it doesn't end well for pretty much statistically everyone. It can certainly be tempting to wish for liberty at all times, but through a restriction of liberty (and this can be defined in such narrow terms as paying taxes or not driving above 70 MPH) is sometimes attained a greater good.

Oh, Steve. Honey... just no.

This England team reminds me of Germany in 2002. Not good at all, lucky in who they're getting to play. A better team than Sweden scores after opening them up down the middle repeatedly. We'll see if Croatia (barring any Russian meddling) can finally be the wall they hit.

The eel-slime slipperiness of Libertarian rhetoric wins again. Good day, sir.

Just finished Belgium-Brazil on delay. The right team one. And lest I tempt the ire of the Football Gods (and common decency), may I say a small prayer for a career ending injury for Neymar between now and the next World Cup. As long as he's big fishing in the small pond that is the French league and I don't ever have to see it it's fine... but oh dear lord the diving... it'd fitting if someone finally does a Shawcross on Ramsey for him...