TakeYouToTasker

Wait.. you think you're winning? You are dead wrong on the First Amendment. All you had to do is show me the provision in the Constitution which empowers the government to prosecute thought crimes, and the authorization to restrict speech. That should have been easy to do if such things existed. The Constitution was written in plain language. What you demonstrated... all you've demonstrated... was either a lack of understanding about what freedom is, or an open contempt for freedom with a preference for telling individuals how they must think at the barrel of a gun. The first is forgivable, but the second? The second is far more dangerous, by magnitudes, than a few hundred racists saying racist things.

People "should be locked up for [having] radical views". You've lost. Stop digging.

The fact that the government is violating people's rights does not somehow magic into existence the authorization of a just authority to prosecute thought crimes. Because that's what you're advocating for. A activist government prosecuting people for thinking the "wrong" way. There is not, nor has there ever been, a Constitutional justification for that. Further, it's morally bankrupt and dangerous.

You don't need freedom of speech to protect the polite, the benign, the politically correct, the non-inflammatory, or the uncontroversial. Our Founding Fathers were flame throwers seeking to overthrow a world order that dominated human history and the globe. The Founders were meticulous in including in the Constitution everything the government was permitted to do. They even went so far as to include a non-exhaustive lists of things the government for expressly forbidden to do at the very end. You'll note that no where in the Constitution does it authorize the state to prosecute thought crimes, while is does have a prohibition on restricting speech. The Freedom of Speech is sacrosanct, and hate speech most certainly is protected. Even speech you happen to find particularly egregious.

When you look to start a race war, don't be surprised when the other side begins to raise an army.

Terrorists? Really?

So the left is going with a short skirt defense? /golfclap

The Republican Party is not monolithic. It is a cobbling of roughly a dozen fractious groups, each with their own belief structures. It's a party that calls itself home to Ron Paul, Paul Wolfowitz, Susan Collins, John McCain, Pat Buchanan, etc.

That's exactly the limit correct, .08 or above?

Google is not out of the woods on this at all. I have also heard it opined by several lawyers from a large corporate firm that Damore may have a very strong case against major media outlets who have defamed him.

Oh, I don't know. I don't think Tom and Exiled are all that scary.

I always get a good chuckle any time I hear/read a liberal making an impassioned argument about the merits of a true market monopoly.

Well, at least I can thank the organization for earning my vote of no confidence right at the very beginning. They've saved me about 4 hours a week through January, and countless dollars I otherwise might have given them. !@#$ing !@#$s.

Someone hand me a baby. I need to punch it.

Wait... what? Darby too? WTF is going on?!?!?!?

You have got to be freaking kidding me.

I'll give you the only reason you need: The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect the lives, property, laws, and culture of the individuals who form it. All the comforts you enjoy today, relative to the rest of the world, are because of this. The world is not a nice place. It is a dangerous place comprised of billions of bad actors and opportunists (WARNING: Trumpism) and some, I assume, are good people. But you don't need to worry about the good people. You need to worry about the bad actors. The US is safe, relative to much of the rest of the world, because these bad actors have such a damn difficult time doing us harm. Think about it: in 2001, we suffered the worst domestic attack on our nation in 60 years (Pearl Harbor). The attack managed to knock down 3 buildings, and damage one other building. In response we conquered an entire nation, imposed on it a new form of government, and set our selves up to occupy it militarily for decades. We did this in about a month and one half. Think about that for a second. Disregard your position on the case for going to war with Iraq, and examine the abstract: a nation decides it has to go to war. How many lives are saved by our ability to make war as we did? There was no beach head at Normandy. There was no meat grinder. The daily lives of the citizens of our country didn't change one bit while we conquered one of the largest militaries in the world in less than two months. That's why it's important.

What role do you think our financial institutions play in our economy? What role do you think they should play? What role do you think industry regulation plays in creating barriers to market entry? What impacts do you think barriers to market entry have on creating pseudo-monopolies? What do you think happens to an economy when it's financial sector fails? What impacts do you think perverse incentives ushered by legislation have on financial markets? What is the responsibility of consumers?

!@#$ me. Can people please stop quoting that idiot? No one needs another discussion about the 25th Amendment.

Don't you dare go breaking my fragile heart Nathan Peterman!

What a catch.

The guys he is playing against are better than the guys he played against in college, and hungrier because now they're playing to win a job instead of being the best on their team. And he's been the best of those guys. Show's growth and the potential to succeed at this level. It's OK to get excited about that.

LoTom of the Bill People.

LoTom hangs on!

Nearly got Powell killed.