TakeYouToTasker

Great coverage.

This could be an exciting game.

Easier said than done.

The strength of out D last week was in getting off the field on third and long. If we can't do that today it's going to be a long game.

Kyle!!!

Could be a big day for Kyle Williams.

Let's go Bills!!!

What do brussel sprouts and anal sex have in common? If you're forced to have either as a kid you probably won't enjoy them as an adult.

Back to the topic at hand, however, it's as wrong now as it was when it happened to Schilling. It shouldn't be illegal, but it should be recognized as a ****ty thing to do. It's the moral equivalent of racism.

Your claim here is that your autocorrect changed "agreeance", which isn't even a word (you're looking for agreement), to "aggreanacsa" which can't even be confused with a word; and you're disowning your introduction of "things people in your age group do" in your failed attempt at being clever?

I'm sure you can think, but I'm beginning to question how well. If that's a spelling error, or a typo, why not go fix it so you're effectively communicating. Or do you come from an age group that's lazy and blames everyone else for your own errors? edit: there you go. Now that that's behind us, do you have anything else to contribute?

Correct. I distinctly remember the bunch of us down here saying over and over again, "Darn that black, Kenyan, Muslim Obama! If only a Christian, American, of European descent had advanced the exact same policy objectives I could get right behind them!"

This post is intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

So you don't even have cursory understanding of the arguments you're making?

Libertariansm, or classical liberalism, was the guiding philosophy of the Founders of the United States. It's principals are the reason freedom and self governance exists at all in the world today, including economic freedom, which has created the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. I'd say that's a ringing historical endorsement. The reasons libertarian states don't exist today is not because they wouldn't work, but because the global political class derives 100% of their power from reliance on the state. But hey, again, how are you not completely ashamed to show your face around here after our last exchange?

Not to mention the home state of the founder of the Liberty Caucus, Ron Paul, which now comprises some 20% of the Republican House, and former Governor Rick Perry who now heads up the Department of Energy. He was the Governor of the state. Or would you like to continue with your "No true Scotsman" fallacy? And Ted Cruz isn't a national political figure? Perhaps you'd be better off sticking to Canadian politics. It's hard to imagine a worse argument than "The Republican leaning state with the most electors (38) doesn't take a leadership role in the direction of the Republican Party."

Well, you're entitled to bad opinions. Although you don't seem to think someone who wants to criminalize having bad opinions is radical, so there's that.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't know what it means:

Ignorance on full display. Which is why we're growing, and holding you hostage along the way. Libertarians represent about 20% of the current Republican Congress, up from one or two fringe members over the last 12 years. That's massive growth.

An assertion which ignores the rapid growth of libertarianism in and outside of government over the last 12 years. They've grown so much that they've moved to Republican Party to a place where they are unable to legislate or govern, because they can't move without getting the libertarians on board, and they can't get the libertarians on board without a libertarian agenda. Further, stagnation of this sort doesn't hurt the libertarians politically with their base, because they're doing what their base wants of them. The people who elect libertarians don't want them to play nice with big government players in either party. They aren't even interested in "this far no further" politics. They demand libertarian reforms within government, and celebrate the failure to advance any agenda outside of that scope. And again, they're growing rapidly.

You're confusing Old Guard Republicans with the current build of the Party; and while you've adequately described Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, you've managed to either ignore, or conflate with them, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and members of the Liberty Caucus which is making your observations useless.

The GOP is a very fragmented coalition of various belief structures with, at best, a few overlapping ideals. They are not a monolith, and with the rise of various small government movements, are ideologically opposed to most of what is being proposed by the current administration. As an example, libertarians can never support the implementation of any new forms of government run healthcare. They also stand it stark opposition to conservatives who seek to use the power of government to advance their own moral agendas. It's not that they don't have spine or direction; it's that you are expecting them to work together, when the reality is that they only stand together because of our broken two party system, which without they would have very little in common.

Like I said, feel free to make the argument that this is a trait of Taylor's. I don't think it's a particularly convincing one, but hey, if that's the hill you want to die on, more power to you.