TakeYouToTasker

This is a position which, when taken to it's logical ends, contends that there is no right or wrong, and that any one individual's perception is in fact reality. It allows that anarchists smashing windows and assaulting people in Berkley are well within their rights, and that ISIS members beheading infidels and tossing homosexuals off buildings are justified. It gives moral license to the atrocities committed by Mao, Hitler, Lenin, and Mussolini. It puts Kim Jung Un on equal footing with Mother Theresa. Backwards. Broken. Tired.

Not all cultures are equally valuable. Some are better, some are worse. Moral relativism is a tired, backwards philosophy.

Which of your father's sins should we hang upon your shoulders?

I used to consume a ton of their product. As they've become more political, I've consumed far less. I only watch Bills games now. I find it very patronizing, and repellent. It's the same thing that drove me away from ESPN. "Shut up and sing."

Implementing a libertarian or conservative reform of a socialist or liberal entitlement does not make it a libertarian or conservative entitlement. It makes it a somewhat less offensive socialist or liberal entitlement. However libertarians and conservatives are likely oppose to it's existence either way. All this really boils down to is a plea that conservatives and libertarians accept the notion of a nanny state, and allow socialists and liberals to dictate policy, and then relegate themselves to following the socials and liberals around with a mop cleaning up after them while leaving the shells of their failed programs in place.

Nixon was no conservative, but it wouldn't matter if he was, as all you're doing here is making an appeal to (presumed) authority in all three cases. It doesn't matter a whit what Nixon, nor Friedman, nor Paine thought on the issue. Each man, while right on issues to varying degrees, was still human, and perfectly capable of being wrong. If you want to argue in favor of a particular policy, argue on the merits of the policy; don't point out lists of people you presume to be favorable to your opponent whom you say agree with you. That's a logical fallacy.

Any society which decides to permanently subsidize individuals who can't find work will suddenly find themselves with a tremendous amount of individuals who can't find work.

There has been no evidence provided that the Russians were involved. This is a narrative. You'd think that were this the case, evidence would be presented. It hasn't been. This was a leak from a DNC staffer who was promptly assasinated.

She's not a flip flopper, she's an unprincipeled hack, and a immoral liar.

She doesn't own it.

Most. Predictable. Thing. Ever.

What the Patriots have done over the last 17 years has been nothing short of incredible, and is unlikely to ever be repeated. The salary cap era makes what they've been able to accomplish near impossible. I doubt we'll ever see another true dynasty in our lifetimes.

Be advised that what you did in your prior post is illegal, and may have impacts on the board and it's owner. I'd advise you to remove it.

This is a terribly immoral argument that first asserts that these kids belong to these public schools; and then seeks to deny the best and brightest, with the parents most devoted to their education, whom are the most likely to take best advantage of tax dollars spent on education, the best possible avenue out of failing schools breaking a cycle of poverty. If you want to fix failing schools, do it. It's laudable. But it's also a 100 year project, and you've tied yourself to denying opportunities to poor kids in the meanwhile, and that's reprehensible.

Pumping stocks on message boards can be illegal.

LOL, you say this and accuse me of not knowing how insurance works? Two words, dipshit: "Risk Pools"

duckdog is a privy digger. gatorman is a privy.

You are an absolutely despicable person.

There is no wage gap. Again, go post this tripe in the UFO thread on OTW. When women make the same career decisions as men, the pay is equal. However, on aggregate, women tend to make very different sorts of career decisions: - They disproportionally choose majors which lead to lower paying positions (IE. social sciences as opposed to STEM fields) - They do not take higher paying physical blue collar jobs such as construction. - They work fewer hours, and on average work no overtime paid or unpaid. (average work week is under 40 hours) - They take more days off during their working years. - They leave the work force for extended periods, often times years, to tend to family needs which erodes their skills.

This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen here.

WSJ is my first read every morning. Regular reading: NPR, BBC, Reuters, The Economist, The Hill, The WaPo, local news.

Actually, you haven't taken on anyone. Plenty of strong points to choose from in this thread. You haven't addressed any.

Watching the left eat itself is truly a spectator sport.

The idea of the individual mandate did, in fact, come from the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to the implementation of Hillary Care in the 90's. However, you'll note that once Hillary Care was rejected, no one sought to implement it. It was a tool designed for use in debate only, and was never advanced by any serious policy maker at the Federal level. Years later, Mitt Romney, then Governor of uber liberal Massachusetts lent support to the idea on a state level, as a state's rights issue, as this was something Romney's constituents wanted, as the US Constitution doesn't speak to as a Federal power. Again, no conservative ever made any move whatsoever to implement anything like this at the Federal level, largely because they knew it would fail tremendously, and they believed it to be unConstitutional. The ACA is wholly owned by progressive Democrats, who voted on completely partisan lines, through a budget process on a Bill written in the Senate, because they couldn't get traction for a Bill as outlined by the legal process. The dissent against the Bill was a bi-partisan effort, however.

Own your words.