TakeYouToTasker

I love the complete detachment of the left from the real world. The Russians did not "hack the election". In the very worst case scenario they hacked the DNC, which is a private corporation, and not a part of the government. But we don't even know that it was the Russians. It was just as likely that it was a DNC staffer who leaked the documents, as Julian Assange contends. And even if they did hack the DNC as the source of the Wikileaks document, all that was confirmedin those documents was how terrible a candidate Clinton was, and how corrupt the DNC was. The Democrats lost because Americans got to see how terrible their and their candidate were, and were so disgusted that they elected Donald freaking Trump instead. Again, let that sink in: the truth about Hillary and the Democrats at the National level was so bad, that Americans rejected them and her in favor of a sickly orange colored carnival barker. The problem for Democrats is not that the truth about them got out, it's that the truth is that the Democratic Party is a corrupt organization who care very little for the people they claim to champion, and that is unpalatable to the American public. Until Democrats can truly embrace that the problem they had wasn't a leak, but was rather the content of the leak, they will not lead again in America. Because different states have different interests, and the thing that brought them into, and justly keeps them in the Union is the fact that they will not have their unique interests trodden over by the larger states. That's the purpose of the Electoral College. To protect the individual interest of the many states. That's the purpose of a Republic.

Wow, he is absolutely slapping the **** out of the Obama Administration.

I truly hope the left carries on like this for the foreseeable future. It virtually guarantees their continued marginalization.

Live stream of the Inauguration

You don't see the irony in your post? Really?

Where are Bridgewater and Foles?

Sexual assault jokes about rape victims? Stay classy.

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating: Good decision making is an inter-generational legacy, which is passed down from parent to child, and again from parent to child throughout time. Not everyone starts with equal position, and many are burdened by the poor decisions their parents have made. That's why "breaking the cycle" is so important, and equally important is the reality that throwing more money into failing schools is not the key to breaking it. Breaking the cycle begins with a parent, recognizing their poor positioning, taking deep interest in their child's education. These parents deserve the opportunity, assuming a publicly funded school system, to have their children educated in the best schools they have access to. To achieve this goal, the only viable solution is to let the public funding follow the student, and to put them in a better learning environment with other interested students whose parents also place a high priority on the education of their children. The solution is not to throw money at the lowest common denominator. It's not cost effective, and the ROI's are atrocious. Further, forcing willing students with involved parents to remain stranded in failing schools actually harms the ability of that student to excel, and lessens their likelihood of them breaking the cycle. The resources are not getting to the students most likely to take advantage of them, and are being squandered. Visualize students as drinking glasses of all different sizes, and view their education dollars as liquid in a pitcher. The public education system pours the same amount of liquid into each glass, and debates the merits of pouring only the volume able to be contained by the smallest of the glasses into every glass, leaving the larger glasses capacity unfilled; vs. the merits of pouring into each glass the total volume of the largest glass, with the smaller glasses spilling everything they cannot hold onto the floor, wasting the resources. Neither is a reasonable approach. You waste the talents of the best and brightest by pouring the lesser amount, and you waste valuable public resources by pouring the greater. You have to spend your limited resources on those individuals most likely to take advantage of them, otherwise you are just wasting tax dollars. The dollar needs to follow the students to achieve the best outcomes. These circumstances do not just fall out of the sky. They exist because of choices that have been made over time. This does not mean that these circumstances do not lend themselves to further choice. The choices may be difficult, but the difficulty of a choice does not somehow confer onto teachers the right to their positions. The person you described has made choices to put themselves into their position, and must make more decisions to get themselves out. Every other endeavor in the world has these same sorts of pitfalls. Office politics is not unique to educators. Everyone has worked for a boss who they have felt treated them poorly or unfairly. Again, educators are not unique. Why do you feel they should be treated uniquely?

Professional leftist trolls posing as "Alt-Right" and actual Alt-Right trolls.

Ha! Fair point. But seriously, what kind of woman voluntarily stands around soaking in her own piss, blood and **** for hours on end? !@#$ing rancid.

The groups organizing the protest have advised the protesters to wear adult diapers. I'm not kidding.

Offensive PI should be 15 yards and loss of down.

Death to the People's Front of Judea!

At least one prominent pro-life women's organization has been disassociated by the march because of pressure from feminist groups. Women and their views only matter if they are the approved views, apparently.

Church meeting in a DL coach thread. Is there anywhere they won't surface?

This is also true.

In order for him to pardon her, she actually has to accept the pardon. By doing so, she will have essentially admitted to wrong doing requiring a pardon. I don't think she's interested in doing that, and would rather take her chances and cozy up to Trump if he'll allow it.

This.

In addition to that, there's Bill O'Brien's New England connection. It just makes sense.

Cleveland: Watson (rnd 1) San Fran: Trubisky (rnd 1) Jets: Cutler Bears: Kizer (rnd 1) Bills: Romo Bronos: Taylor Texans: Garrapalo

Why? Why would they do this to themselves?

Kromer...

You should be happy that the hit man you hired got the job done.

In anticipation of this I see an attractive female doctor with slender fingers.

I'm not sure that's relevant. My original point was that Richie Incognito, in my judgment, deserved to be a starter on the original team, and that this corrected a snub. My secondary point was that Tyrod Taylor did not deserve to be on the team last year, even as an alternate. The two are completely unrelated. My third point is that the poster who asked the question leading to the second point is attempting to imply something ugly that he's not man enough to throw his full voice at. If you want to make the case that the selection process is flawed, have at it. How does saying one player deserved to play in the Pro Bowl and the other did not amount to hypocrisy and inconsistency?