TakeYouToTasker

The cooler heads aren't involved in the conversation. The new law is an extension of policy aimed at "a more equitable distribution of property along racial lines", which will lead to "prosperity as the expert black farmers seize the land of the incompetent white farmers, raising up the sustenance of the people." This is how genocides start, the most notably similar in Zimbabwe.

I don't know that it's as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. A job offer cannot be extended by the team. And again, you can't ignore the fact that players are demanding an official NFL social advocacy platform for their beliefs. Teams have a right to know what those beliefs are.

This thread seems like a good place for this: SA Parliament votes to seize the land of white farmers without compensation. Spearheaded by Julius Malema, who leads SA's Economic Freedom Party, using language like: "go after the white man" and "we must cut the throat of whiteness". This is exactly what happened in Zimbabwe in the period leading to the genocide there. I use this particular example because it is happening in a Western nation, today.

It all becomes very relevant when part of what the players are demanding from teams is a platform for social advocacy. If your goal is to use your job as a platform to push your belief system, your employer has every right to know what you'll be wanting to use their brand to sell.

What he is doing is practicing brilliant politics. He's taken a hostile and antagonistic media, and an opposition party that is in outright rebellion, and is making them dance to his tune, latching them on to whatever story he deems desirable, and flash-changing narratives so fast that the media can't keep up, generating such over the top reactions that middle America is completely tuning them out. It's been incredible to watch.

A "public advocate" whose job it is to appear before a secret court to defend a person who is not being aware of the charges against him, or that his rights are being violated, is nothing more than an additional rubber stamp in a process doomed to the worst sorts of corruption. The whole notion of a secret court is an anathema to a free people, and must be done away with. What is fair game?

Because he's a crusading neo-Marxist, now reading directly from his critical X theory text book; and is so consumed by delusions of grandeur that he thinks he's winning, even though he's literally become unhinged to the point that he's calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist, and is asserting that national culture and identities aren't important (while at the same time stressing their importance for "aggrieved peoples"), and are actually a net negative if they are rooted in European heritage. It's real reason he's interested in guns. As much as gun rights activists see guns as a tool necessary to preserving our freedoms, Grant sees the dead bodies of children as tools necessary to his agenda of removing those freedoms. He just told us of his contempt for our Euro-centric American values, law, culture and heritage; and he told us earlier of his views of our Constitution as problematic towards the ends of his preferred philosophies which consist of an activist socialist government eager to use a monopoly on force to bend people towards how he wants them to live based on the whims of the majority, unrestrained by strict enumerated powers. Grant doesn't believe in the concept of rights. He believes in the absolute power of the state to compel individuals to undertake specific actions to the exclusion of all others. Grant is a slave maker and a would be tin-pot dictator, if only he had been born to power.

No, higher business tax rates do not encourage higher rates of economic investment. Strong underlying fundamentals and a consistent, business friendly environment encourage high rates of economic investment. High corporate tax rates encourage the off-shoring of assets and prevent them from moving into the domestic economy. And again, taxes, to a business, are nothing more than a line item business expense. As with all other production costs, they are factored into pricing, and passed along to the consumer. As to the SALT deductions, states advocating higher taxes and more spending should feel free to do so, but should not expect federal deductions for doing so. If you want these things, pay for them in addition to the things you're asking the federal government to pay for. Red states with lower state burdens should not be subsidizing your state spending. If this slaps high tax advocates with a bit of reality in regards to the costs of what they advocate for, all the better.

Businesses don't pay taxes. Businesses look at taxes as nothing more than a budgetary line item, and pass their tax burden along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

This is incredibly dumb. Anyone citing "data" which "pinpoints" a nebulous figure somewhere in between $219b and $695b is a useless knob. Anyone citing a direct knowledge gap that wide as evidentiary should be summarily fired. $219b is closer to negative $100b than it is to $695b, and to make matters worse, doesn't even consider factoring in opportunity cost.

For the record, this post, right here, is the reason I engaged LA Grant. Those sorts of arguments and people need to be exposed for the ugliness that they are.

I'm seeing this more and more frequently. I think it must have something to do with a cultural shift towards all opinions having merit based on "my truth", thusly creating a right to be taken seriously, and therefor requiring a central minister of truth to adjudicate.

Nunberg sounded like a desperate man, being leveraged by someone, who had no where left to turn.

Not even a chance. Soccer is a religion over there. England is less likely to pull out of the World Cup than Travis Henry is to just pull out.

18,000 sealed indictments in the last two months alone. Eighteen thousand...

I think what he's saying is that all Christians and Evangelicals (Evangelicals are Christians, so he's already betraying his ignorance here) have abandoned their principals by offering their political support to a candidate who doesn't consistently embody Christian values in his own life. It's a stupid point to make, which essentially says that Christians shouldn't vote in their own self interest, and should essentially stay home and be dictated to unless John the Baptist tumbles down from Heaven and runs for higher office.

If it's not a good steak, the way to do it is not to have steak.

Was this not born out by the fact that they had the FISA application rejected three times before the addition of the Dossier to the application?

Let's play for a minute: I am open to the possibility that DR is off base (though I do find the evidence he has been presenting to be compelling, and I'm not at all sure why you find it so hard to believe that these same players would attempt to rig a federal election given the common knowledge that they rigged their own primary). I've been curious what the leftists will do once the indictments start rolling out if he is right. That sea level change would be Earth shattering for people holding your political leanings. The Democratic Party would be decimated. Probably disbanded, as the brand would be irretrievably damaged. The big government advocates would have lost their argument for around another 100 years. How would you advocate for it? "Government just big enough to undermine free and fair elections?" Never mind the implication for gun control efforts. Those would all be completely dead on arrival, and the messengers shot. (figuratively, of course) You can't make a gun control argument against the need to defend yourself against a tyrannical government in the wake of a palace coup.

What would have to happen here, in the United States, for our government to have a President for Life? Other nations have/have had such leadership. What sorts of events usually occurred in those nations prior to someone holding that title? Do you think it is possible for those sorts of events to happen in the United States? Why or why not?

Stop being part of the problem with political discourse in this country. I asked you a question in good faith.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Can you provide detail? I'm also confident that Tom asked a question, and did not articulate a position.

Look at it in terms of European political dynamics. The European "right" is very similar to the Alt-Right here. The Alt-Right is not right leaning. Look at their policy positions.

Not really. It's about the proper role of the state vs the individual.