Magox

You believe that?

Out of the three Bedoya in my view is the most replaceable. Wood's speed and constant runs puts a lot of pressure on defenses and considering Argentina's defense isn't all that fast it could have been pretty valuable seeing him out there opening things up for Dempsey. I'm guessing they will move Gyasi Zardes up front considering his speed is close to Wood's. I also think we will see Pulisic probably come off the bench in the second half unless we somehow have the lead in the second half. I think we will probably see Fabian Johnson move to one of the outside midfield spots with Besler once again stepping in on the backline to replace him. Zusi I think will move into Zardes midfield spot and either Nagbe or Beckerman stepping in for Jones. I think Klinsman will be tempted to put Nagbe in there but will ultimately go with the safer choice in Beckerman. By the way here is a good read by Bedoya. I do think he's underrated, he does a lot of things that don't show up in the stats but he's good at keeping possession and an excellent defender from the wings who has a tremendous workrate which cannot be understated.

So what's the over and under on Trump's loss? On the electoral college map I'm going with 350.

Aside from the fact that he had former classmates, ex wife and other people close to him who made claims that he was gay and that he frequented gay clubs on more than a dozen occasions and used gay dating apps, not much else.

Because he's gay?

Do you hold the Bible in a similar regard that you do the constitution?

Since "God" really never said one way or another and the bible and other religious published doctrines was written by fallible and imperfect human beings who took it upon themselves to speak on behalf of God, I guess you could say he never changed his mind. If there is a God, which I happen to believe there is in one form or another, he in my view would not punish homosexuality simply for being homosexuals but he would judge them on their own merits and the content of their character. I guess we have a similar view on this. Just read this now

I suppose we aren't watching the same news. Most of the news networks and politicians I see are treating this as a hate crime and blame the NRA. I admit, I rarely watch FOX news so I'm sure they have the narrative to what you speak of, but virtually everywhere else I've seen aren't following your script.

It may have been lazy but not a "childishly empty dismissal of any argument". There are lots of moving parts and no one here can reasonably definitively say one way or another. Also, just because it appears he didn't have coordination with any sleeper cells overseas does not mean that it's not the sort of "terrorism" as defined by Greg (although it is his definition so I suppose he could define it any way he'd like). The M.O of many Jihadists nowadays is to be inspired online or from what they see on social media/tv. They become inspired, radicalized and then they plan out and attempt to execute their plan of terror. What we do know is that 1) He pledged allegiance to ISIS. 2)That he had gone to the middle east a couple times within the last few years. 3)That he had been questioned by the FBI and temporarily put on the terror watch list because he had allegedly spoke about terrorism 4) That ISIS has called on Muslims to attack western targets during the month of Ramadan. 5) He had connections with an American Terrorist who died in Syria 6) Sympathized with the Tsaernaev brothers 7) Said he wanted to exact revenge because of the bombings in Syria. Does this definitely prove that he was radicalized and took action because of his possible Anti western leanings? No, but it certainly could be. There is no one here that can reasonably make the definitive claim one way or another at this point.

Unless we are arguing semantics, it appears to be a case of terrorism.

FireChan is a purist. I asked the question to see at what point would he draw the line, knowing he would take it beyond the edge of of extreme absurdity. Clearly private citizens shouldn't have the ability to possess nuclear weapons. Right? Right????? Are we seriously going to debate this?

That's how they roll. Nuclear armaments as well?

Artillery such as Howitzers, bazookas, Heavy mortars, anti-tank guns and rocket artillery to name a few, should they be legal for private citizens as well?

Just replace the word "Gay" with "illegal immigrants" and this could have been you. Serious question, define "arms".

Doubtful, the sort of thing that Nixon was impeached for would still stand today. It doesn't get too much more politically salacious than having your guys break into DNC headquarters for information, then go to great lengths in covering it up and then deciding to obstruct and not turn over the tapes. Not to mention all the other **** they dug up on him during that time period.

The dude has made a fortune off the misfortune of others. I just find the irony to be rich.

No, I'm not interested in comparing the two because they both don't represent the values that I share. There really isn't much difference in the magnitude of sucktitude between the two. Is this really a difficult concept for you to grasp? And I get it, you have no desire to talk about Trump, because it's a losing venture but you'd rather deflect and parrot the same old drawn out Hillary bull **** day after day after day. Yes, she sucks. Yes, she's untrustworthy. Yes, she's a hypocrite. Yes, she's dishonest. Yes, WE GET IT!!! And the fact that you believe that people should come to a politics board and blindly support their team pretty much speaks to your mentality. That's fine, that's how you roll, I don't. I come here to discuss politics, issues and criticize things that I dislike politically because it's a politics board. Contrary to your narrow beliefs this is not a "Time to choose political sides" board. Maybe it is for many people but not for me.

At this stage of the game, I'm beginning to pay attention again purely for entertainment purposes. In regards to voting, I know with 99.99% certainty that I will not be voting for either Hillary or Trump. I assume I will research Gary Johnson and see if he is a palatable alternative.

Get it through your thick skull, I'm not interested in comparing the two. I'm not interested in choosing teams. I'm not interested in picking the lesser of two evils. I'm not interested in repeating the same damn thing over and over and over every !@#$ing day. I'm not interested in engaging in the mental gymnastics that the sheeple have to do in order to justify their support of their preferred candidate.

You're an idiot

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.