TakeYouToTasker

The NFL should work out a deal with Netflix to stream the games commercial free as part of an add-on package. I would pay good money for that.

So strange that it took him until game six to get into the end zone. Also these split screen, in game commercials are awful.

That's a really weird substitution. Why bring Groy on now?

What a catch!

OH MY GOD!!!!!! They put Dawkins in at LG, a position I don't think he's ever played and he makes a PHENOMENAL block to spring the run.

To our London contingent: Is there, that you are aware of, a Bills backer bar in or around London? I've done a terrible thing and have worked to create a Bills fan across the pond and now he's looking for a pub to watch the games in with fellow fans.

What a play by Poyer.

That ball to O'Leary is a throw I've never seen Taylor make before.

"It's OK to kill people when you really disagree with them."

Harry Turtledove would sue your pants off.

Which is fine, but they'll be left trying to explain how women "taking control as sexually powerful" and offering their bodies as they see fit is a moral positive; while men doing the same thing is seen as criminal.

For me, the left really needs to make a decision here. Either sex is transactional, which means (outside of actual rape) Harvey Weinstein did absolutely nothing wrong insisting on sex as payment for his favor; or sex is not transactional, and as such the liberal stance on sex has been wrong and immoral from the beginning. They can't have it both ways.

The violation of his parole stems from not being forthcoming with the FBI when being questioned about his role in the production of the movie, and from using a pseudonym in it's production. Let's not pretend this was standard federal protocol.

People don't seem to understand that they actually put a US citizen in jail in concert with their lies. That's horrific.

"Tax giveaway" is just about the most disingenuous and prejudicial language possible. It's language which presumes that the money actually belongs to the Federal government rather than the individual tax-payer who earned it, and casts the individuals paying more than 70% of all tax receipts as villains even though they pay the freight for the rest of the country who have done nothing to earn their Federal largess.

Poor Ayn Randers must be distraught.

Your feelings about whatever Trump's motives are, are colored by your biases, are subjective, and don't matter. The fact that doing anything other than what he did would have been unConsitituional is 100% objective. This is the only thing that matters.

The fact remains that it was ruled unConstitutional. Should Presidents be empowered to act unConstitutionally?

Can anyone here upset with President Trump over this please articulate why it would have been OK for his Administration to take unConstitutional action here? What other unConstitutional actions, expressly ruled on by SCOTUS, would it be OK for the Trump Administration to take? Further, what negative consequences could occur in an environment where President Trump, or any other President, were made free to act unConstitutionally?

He raped her nostrils?

This is one of the problems inherent to working outside of Constitutional powers to achieve legislative goals. It is nearly impossible to conduct business, or live a full life, under an inconsistent system of pseudo-law where major parts of our economy are dictated by fiat on the whims of whomever holds the Presidency.

So... You're saying it's not anal herpes then? Because I was sure it was anal herpes.

Anal herpes?

It does archive, but for real debate it's not practical. Too many users causing too much to scroll off, hard to use for anything much more than the in-house equivalent of a twitter fight.