nfreeman

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.

Neo -- that was a great post.

Well, you've asked the same question multiple times, and I've answered it multiple times. I'm done. I haven't spoken with my friend on the terminology issue. He's a lifelong Democrat and pretty much in the tank for Obama though (and published a long article to that effect last fall, although he subsequently criticized Obama's approach to Syria), so I doubt he's of the same opinion that I am on that point.

Well, your items #1 and #2 above are really counting angels on the head of a pin. You accused me of not being an independent based on my views in this thread, to which I responded that there are plenty of independents who feel the way I do. And I objected to your patronizing attitude towards those who disagree with you on this point, at which point you threw up a straw man about intelligence. After more back-and-forth, I still don't see a coherent response to either of those points, so I'll move on to #3 -- which, regrettably, is just a reprise of the patronizing attitude towards those who disagree with you. As for #3 -- I've read a great deal about terrorism and the ME, and am friends with a fairly senior professional in the field -- enough that I feel qualified to opine on it in conversation and on this board. You are of course free to disagree with my (generous) assessment of my own abilities in this matter, as I am free to feel the same way about others here -- but "you don't know what you're talking about" and "you're just regurgitating left-wing/right-wing talking points" and "no, YOU are" doesn't really make for interesting conversation.

Who feels this way? All 60-odd million people who are going to vote for Trump? They're all motivated by bigotry? If not all of them, what percentage of them are bigots? And what is the basis for your number? There are plenty of bigots, nut cases and generally objectionable people on both sides. The Orlando mass murderer was a registered Democrat, as it happens, as are virtually all of his CAIR enablers -- but no one is accusing all liberals/progressives/democrats of being bloodthirsty Muslim lunatics -- just the ones that really are.

For the record, the constitution protects US citizens, not those seeking to immigrate here.

Do you think only Republicans are dissatisfied with the president's approach to the ME? Leaving aside independents, all 3 of his secretaries of defense have publicly criticized him on this (which is extraordinary). And while you may not have used the word intelligence (and for the record neither did I), you essentially said that those criticizing the president for not using certain words are reacting emotionally and don't know what they are talking about -- reminiscent of the president's "bitter clingers" view of the great unwashed in the flyover states.

Perhaps some of us simply think the president is incompetent and has consistently made terrible decisions in this crucial matter of national security, and we care about the words he uses because they are indicative of a wrongheaded mindset and because we think the right words are needed to build public support for the correct approach to the war. And perhaps you might consider avoiding the liberal habit of assuming that those who disagree with you are mouth-breathing neanderthals. I expect better from you.

Do you appreciate the difference between reasonable conversation and pointless pedantry? Do you appreciate the difference between reality and fantasy? In reality, Muslims are slaughtering people all over the world by the thousands in barbaric fashion in the name of Islam, with the emotional, financial and logistical support of millions of other Muslims. In reality, almost every Muslim nation in the world is a brutal dictatorship (with the most notable exception, Turkey, quickly sliding back that way from a brief democratic respite). In reality, homophobia, misogynism and anti-semitism are shockingly widespread among Muslims worldwide. Again: this does not mean that all, or even most, Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Everyone should be judged individually. But we should not pretend that world Islam is not beset with major pathologies that endanger everyone.

OK, but if people (not just you) are going to put forth poverty as the reason for the pathologies riddling world Islam, someone should explain why plenty of the killers are from comfortable, middle-class backgrounds. I said it and I stand by it. These are bloodthirsty acts of mass murder that are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and that are urged on, sanctified and celebrated by literally millions of other Muslims. Does that mean all Muslims are bloodthirsty killers? No, of course not. I believe the vast majority of US Muslims want to live normal, peaceful American lives. But the US is unique in that respect, and the percentage of Muslims worldwide who support or justify these acts is staggering, and depressing.

Neither the San Bernadino killers nor the Orlando killer were poor.

Although I agree with the first part of this, the 2nd part is out of line.