SkinssRvA

I remember way back when in early January when Chelsea were linked with teixiera. Was excited for a move but then heard he wanted 30mil. Now I am hearing they want 50mil? For a 26 yo undersized brazilian playing in the middle of the pitch...I'd say that's a bit pricey. Of course his natural position may be 10, but still excessive. I would say you dodged a bullet, you have an AM in Coutinho who is probably better. Speaking of Brazilians, Ramires signed for some Chinese team for roughly 28mil. Tough to see him go, his goal against Barca in 2012 CL semis was fantastic!

The blues win a big one. To me the card for Per was deserved. Koscielney should have given a pen away, to boot. Holding my breath til the very end. Must say if it's 11 v 11 it's probably a different outcome. Unfortunately for Arsenal they lost 3 men in our two contests. Also with regard to Chelsea support I'm seeing a fair amount of vitriol. Just want to point out but not all are destructive jackasses!

TERRY. GET IN!!!! Save a point

Woeful defense by chelsea. All season, hard to watch. Costa off with injury to make matters worse.

Chels appears toothless in the first half, as usual. Pedro may be the worst player on the pitch, what a waste of cash.

Not sure LC has the guns to carry on this way the rest of the year. Spurs possibly stay up, but anything can happen! I think LC for sure is out of top 4 by year's end.

Looking for liverpool to take some points here. Anything to keep the table muddled giving CFC opportunities to rise!

Rumors abound Alex Teixeira to Chelsea for 30 m. http://www.90min.com/posts/2862363-alex-teixeira-reportedly-offered-contract-by-chelsea-ahead-of-possible-move?a_aid=35507 Not sure why we are going after another brazilian AM when we already have plenty of those. The glaring weakness for CFC this year has been lack of rigidity. Can't play in the prem with a bunch of nancies in midfield...

Come on Chelsea! Costa! Cracking form Or perhaps an own goal...

When human beings are the subject and their thoughts are not constant and predictable, it's hard to continue trends. Saying we can always cut drunk driving rates by 50% isn't something I think is feasible. Everyone wants to cut drunk driving rates. ideally we want 0. Humans, however, tend to behave in a way which cannot always be predicted. meaning for both murder, and to an even more extreme extent drunk driving, people will always do it. I think that's the constant we have. So if we agree that no matter what we do, no matter what regulations we put in place, there will always be a level of drunk driving (or gun violence for that matter), we have to do two things: 1. Define what a controlled environment is 2. Implement steps to get there Both are up for debate, although I think 1 is closer to compromise than 2. There are certainly other variables like cost, priority, etc. but I think we have drunk driving relatively under control. There is also no political debate surrounding it because even if it isn't under control, the president will always find ways to implement steps to lower what we deem acceptable.

Only problem is Abramovich only opened his wallet to the likes of Falcoa, Pedro, and Djiboulfhdjfisdfuiurjki Lots of work for us...there was a time I thought we were in danger of relegation. Things seem to have settled down now.. You boys need to get your juice going this half. Hate to see an exit to exeter

I'm all for logical discussions. You don't seem to be into it. You don't agree with me, that's fine. I have yet to see any arguments, facts, studies, opinions from you, other than the fact that you think I am anti-american/anti-muslim/a racist? I think I got them all down. Like I said, I am a centric-republican who is forced farther to the right because of hard left people like you. No compromise, no debate, just sarcasm and deflection.

I heard guardiola isn't set on City...but that's most likely smoke and mirrors for more money from City. Good for City, spend more cash. For my money, I'm thinking Diego Simeone from atletico is on his way. I understand he can't speak english very well though which may cause problems. Also, don't rule out a third spell for Jose

Your sarcasm is not as impressive as you think it is, I assure you.

Don't appreciate it. That's all.

Always liked Klopp. But then again I always liked Mourinho too so what do I know. Chelsea got too negative under Mourinho and I was sad to see him go, but understand the need. Klopp has had a side that has been absolutely decimated by injuries. If I were Klopp, at the top of my list would be Striker and Keeper. Mingolet for me is not a technical keeper. Benteke although not terribly poor, was not worth the change to get him and doesn't fit Klopp's system. You have some technical ability in midfield and I especially rate Coutinho.

There's got to be a level of acceptability for every risk. You can't say 0 is what we want, and that's what we will get. Even if the most strict laws were in place (i.e. death penalty for drunk drivers), people would still do it and there would still be deaths.

Haha, I see! Might I add that I follow a team in all major top leagues, so I can still enjoy my Saturday's/Sunday's. I just love having something to do before 1pm on Sunday's too...makes for a very eventful day during the fall

There's no agenda to have, man. It's not a political issue because no one agrees with it. Things like abortion and gun control are divided issues. Centralized gov't vs. decentralized. I think everyone in this thread, regardless of political affiliation, doesn't want people driving drunk. Every President is willing to fight that battle.

Again I'm not talking per capita. I am talking per violent crime. Most people are not murderers, so I think it's a safer bet to look at homicides in general and relate them to gun violence. If you don't agree then I think we will have to agree-to-disagree. your study is also accounting for suicide rates, and states only Louisiana as a state with less suicides than homicides related to guns. Edit: when adjusting for homicides only, and comparing to total homicides, Alaskan Gun homicides account for about the same as the other states...around 62%. Some are higher, some are much lower.

Everyone is against Drunk Driving. There's no pro-lobby groups for riding around drunk all the time. Obama is especially emotional (see, tears) and insistent on Gun Control at the moment because he fears for his party. It is a rallying cry. He's essentially building up a huge strawman argument, with no basis or facts, that says "if you are republican you are pro mass shootings." He wants people to believe that his party's good intentions are far more important than actual results when it comes to gun legislation. Just because he exclaims something doesn't make it a fact, and just because he keeps repeating it doesn't mean we are stupid for questioning it. Edit: @SkinsGoldPants already said what I was going to say about MADD. Well said.

Actually, if you look at the top 10 states with the most restrictive gun laws, you will see that they all are very high in gun related violence. The metric I use, which is what I alluded to in the last post, was the gun related murders to total murders. The reason we need to look at murders and not population, is because for the most part not everyone is a murderer or plotting for murder. It makes most sense to compare those who do the act with the weapon that we are talking about here. It's also no surprise that Hawaii is the only one that's below 50%. Every other state listed has large cities within their state with high rates of violence/crime/murder. When you look outside of numbers it's pretty easy to deduce why Hawaii might be the lowest, regardless of gun law. http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/1/Pennsylvania-10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

Of course not. There are reasonable solutions and efforts moving forward, but imposing your (not actually YOUR, more Obama's/hard left) antiquated views on big gov't regulating certain aspects of free-trade when they are proven not to work is just not the right approach. I consider myself right-center, but I find myself slipping more and more into the far right simply because im finding less liberals who can be centric. I bet if you look very closely and hard you can find an answer to this question without having to ask it.

That's where I was looking as well. I suppose it wasn't clear so I misspoke, I was actually talking about gun murders as they relate to total murders. But your point is fair, and also leads me to another conclusion entirely. It doesn't make much difference at the end of the day what your gun laws are, the ratio of gun murders to population for our two largest states is essentially the same.

Need you be reminded of the countless healthcare organizations that support and keep obamacare afloat, simply because it makes them money? Or no, you don't want to hear about that? I know this isn't a healthcare debate, so I will stay out of the countless reasons why obamacare is a hack-show. Anyway, California has some of the most strict gun control laws anywhere in the world, not just the US. You can sell at gun shows, but it still abides the law by requiring accordance with all of the same regulations in-store. And yet, California has the most gun related murders in the United States. Granted, California is our most populous state, but even states like Texas and Florida which have far more lenient state gun laws show a lesser rate of murder as it pertains to guns. Not only that, but less people own guns (% wise) in California, and it still is abundant. You tell me the real source of gun violence, please.