FireChan

How does a team from 9-7 to 7-9 if they lose a game?

That's not a definition. Talking out of both sides of your mouth is not a good look.

They lost dude. Is Dwight Howard better than Jordan because he dragged that Magic team?

Define "terrorism." Nice appeal to emotion by the way. You are a sneaky one. This is like throwing a logic bomb in an AI. I'm eager to see what's next.

I don't know yet. I haven't decided. Novel concept, huh?

And you're voting Hillary. As you always would.

Is that why Hillary is your nominee? Holy smokes birddog, look in a god damn mirror.

Every mass shooting isn't terrorism.

Well that's a horrific point, but not entirely unexpected out of you.

Is Hillary a common White House entity?

Now you've lost me.

If you're struggling to follow, just let me know next time.

Okay, good. I took that a little more biting than it was intended probably.

For the record, I never labeled you anything. And yes. "They are just trying to make us better, smarter, faster and stronger in one of the best countries in the world." It's the same weak-ass justification, no offense.

Someone's upset I criticized their show a little bit? Sansa came to realize Ramsay is evil.......after walking around with Jon Snow for a while. Not during the whole rape, murder, torture phase.

By painting with this broad of a stroke, everything is a good idea.

Fair enough. I can sorta see how that would introduce an unstable element. You'd think it'd be easily rectified with a "don't tell anybody so Ramsay doesn't find out," but hey.

Her whole justification to Jon to get him to fight was, direct quote, "We have to save our brother!" Huh? Didn't she warn Jon about letting Ramsay goad him into screwing up right before the battle? It sounds like she knew that could happen. Sansa knows he's coming though. No one else does. I just don't see how that makes sense at all. I'm honestly not being difficult for the sake of it. They were on the eve of battle. How does Sansa whispering "help may arrive tomorrow," get to Ramsay Bolton? Unless Jon sits right down and writes him a letter, it just doesn't happen. So the protract siege possibility is moot. Sansa didn't say anything because it drives tension. Just like "hiding" her letter. Will the Vale get there? Who did Sansa write to!?? Is there any hope for Jon's army?!?! Pure storytelling device that doesn't hold up to logic. I personally think that's stretching. She fled to him (and those around him) to escape Ramsay. She's clearly not afraid someone around her is going to send her back to him. She doesn't "trust" Davos because he worked for Stannis (a man who died trying to kill Ramsay, logic again) for a bit, but Brienne worked for Renly, Cat, Jaime, and wields a Lannister Valyrian sword and she's her main mate? Littlefinger sold her to Boltons, and she trusted him to come back and help her?

Can you get anymore !@#$ed than an all out suicide charge that ends with your entire army surrounded? If Jon is gonna slip info to Ramsay, you're screwed either way, probably. I think she didn't say anything because the parallels to "Look to my coming, at the first light of the fifth day," would already be quite clear to the general audience.

Even worse. She risked all their lives to "prove herself" while sitting on the sidelines. She got pissed that Jon Snow didn't consult her about what to do, then when asked what to do, said "I don't know." Brutal look.

If she can't trust Jon Snow to tell him an army is coming to help him, why even bother helping him? If I can't trust you to return my $20 Greggy, I'm not gonna secretly mail it to you when the loan sharks are banging down your door to break your knees. Different timelines. Personally, I think Sansa is pure evil now. She forced Jon Snow to fight to "save Rickon" and their home from monsters, then abandoned those two for her "plan." It's time for the Queen in the North and she's gonna take some heads.

IIRC Sansa called them both her "uncles," in the show. So Sansa didn't care if Rickon lived or died, okay. What about Jon? What if Jon was this really big coward who ordered a retreat thinking they were all gonna die? What if he took an arrow to the neck and the army broke thinking they had no hope? "Hey Jon, there's a big army of cavalry coming, so you draw Ramsay's army out and then we'll come over the hill and smash them," is just as easy and actually makes logical sense, no?

Edmure is Sansa's uncle. The Blackfish is her great uncle. Edmure made the deal to live like a hostage with his kid by giving up the castle.

I'm really confused with Sansa's direction. Did she want Jon and Rickon to die? Why not tell them about the Vale knights? If she's not playing Jon to get Winterfell back for herself, what she did doesn't make sense.

1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate. There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments. I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association. But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential. Sins of the father. 30-40 year old Republicans need to still be associated with Goldwater? 2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.). But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway. So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist. A brilliant idea that can't be executed is a ****ty idea. It was all rainbows and unicorns to anyone paying attention. I'd rather try something that has a chance of working rather than force an easily predictable abortion through Congress. You're giving credit for intentions again. 3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it. They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened. The Bush administration was much more compromising than Obama's. Let me ask what changed? There's been divisive rhetoric spewed from the WH since that man has been in office. More than any Presidency I can remember. When you say there's no right or wrong answer, I say you're wrong. Passing the ACA was not the right answer. Obama gets credit for trying to good and having the "balls" (sidenote, hilarious that the arguably second most feeble President of all time is praised for balls). Should the Repubs have gotten on board with that, if they thought it would suck and make things worse? Where's the credit for their intentions? I don't disagree that obstructionism for obstructing's sake is dumb. But the executive is the one who is supposed to facilitate reaching across the aisle, and Obama has burned too many bridges, spouted too much nonsense, and gone past the point of no return. Congress made the decision to make him a lame duck not without reason. 4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game. I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere. Ah, that makes much more sense. I thought you decided to place your vote elsewhere because some supporters were racist or something. I don't get that logic personally.