TakeYouToTasker

The NBA doesn't have nearly the same sort of PED issues that the NFL has which require those levels of off-season testing.

My sincere wish as someone who enjoys this community. If this were a gated community, the HOA would have forced you out almost immediately for taking huge steaming ***** all over your neighbors yards.

The Freedom of Speech protects American citizens from having the peaceful and reasonably orderly projection of their ideas and ideals restricted by the Government. That isn't under assault from corporations.

I have read up on the story. You don't have the right to assemble wherever the hell you want. When you assemble with the intention of obstructing other individuals, in areas you don't have the right to obstruct, you deal with the consequences. The Right to Assemble was written to protect future citizens who might seek to meet, as the First Continental Congress did. As to attacks on the Freedom of Speech, that's what folks like you are doing in regards to Citizens United, and what groups like Black Lives Matter pursue. Corporations are not assaulting your freedom of speech.

The NFL cares about the NFL. They don't want to be called before Congress, or have anti-trust laws enforced against them, so they enforce federal standards in regards to banned substances. Why is that so hard to understand?

When anyone on the left tells me that they are protesting peacefully, I approach them from a very skeptical place. It's a case of the boy crying wolf. I don't believe them.

Again, there is nothing Congress can do. Free Speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, reaffirmed by Citizen's United which correctly interpreted the Document. There is no law Congress can pass which will trump the High Law. For this to occur, the Constitution itself would have to be amended; and the amending of the Constitution would be a tacit admission that money is in fact speech, and the amenders are simply seeking to restrict a type of speech that they find politically disadvantageous.

God, I hope they decide to ban you.

Shane Falco

Medicare for all, but means testing to further soak people who actually responsibly planned? !@#$ you.

Absolutely not. I'll be voting for Hillary this year, as I always vote against Republicans because they marginalize me. Give me a libertarian, or I vote against you. I'm simply speaking politically.

That's exactly what they'll be doing: holding the party together, and playing the long game on Leftism while hoping Hillary will work with them the same way Bill did, rather than turning the brand over. It's Romney, with Ryan on his undercard.

The students attending UB who understand the impossibility of it likely aren't at the event, or have been expelled for their prior micro-agressions.

That's absolutely true; and I think it's reasonable to hope that a early first round pick who is now a 4th year veteran would be better than a rookie second round pick at the same position. Though I think it's very reasonable to make the argument that Darby had a better rookie season than did Gilmore, in order to make an apples to apples comparison.

In summary, the left in the UK is "t3h OUTRAGED!!11!1one!!11" about having their 18 year monopoly on policy interrupted by an opposing view point; and the Tories are bad and don't deserve representation, because reasons. They are also "t3h OUTRAGED!!11!1one!!11" because, how dare wealthy British citizens want to avoid confiscatory tax rates long imposed upon them by an ignorant majority; and if they do want to avoid them, how dare they use those funds to participate in their government in order to seek a more equitable tax burden for themselves in the future.

Romney is the only logical choice for a drafted candidate. If the GOP doesn't want outright open rebellion, and wants to actually remain a political party; when they go against the will of their base the had damn well better put forward someone whom has at least participated in the process and been nominated before.

Crickets, as always.

"Necessity is the mother of all invention." This administration has made labor costs prohibitive to expansion, so companies that can are reducing their labor force as automation shifts towards what individuals seeking employment would describe as the wrong side of the opportunity cost curve. And you think that's a good thing for workers?

Speech is protected in this country because the Founders deeply feared a government empowered to silence political speech, that's why it was bundled with the freedom to assemble. The Founders engaged in treasonous behavior, in the eyes of their English King, by doing both of those things; and the new Government was put in place with this in mind. It's also incredibly important to point out, for the second time now, that the Founders had no interest at all of giving the common man much say in how government was run. The common man is ignorant, under-educated, and prone to much worse decision making than those in what Jefferson called "the natural aristocracy of men with virtues and talents", whom he argued should always be in charge of the government. In fact, the Founders were all of this natural aristocracy. They were the wealthiest land owners on America, and were men of great vision. To these ends, when they dissolved the old government under The Articles, they did so without the support of the citizens of the several states. The new Government under the Constitution was put in place to pull power away from the common man in favor of their own personal financial interests. Under the Articles, the common citizens of the states refused to pay taxes for the debt incurred by the Revolution; and the Founders themselves would have been on the hook for the debt. The new government they put in place was intended to place permanent insulation between the common citizen (whom himself was narrowly defined in order to further insulate) and the men of means and talents whom they intended the government be run by. The franchise itself was restricted to property owning white males, and even that elite group wasn't permitted to vote for the Senate which was to be elected by whom the states put forward as their own best in their own legislatures. The Presidency was not permitted to be obtained by popular election, but rather by the powerful elite comprising the Electoral College, who are under no legal obligation what-so-ever to cast their ballot for any particular candidate. You may wish that money doesn't equal speech, but in any free society it most certainly does, as my ability to project my opinion extends only so far as my dollars will carry it; and that is fair and that is just, as we all live by that exact same rule. Any argument opposed is nothing more than an admission that you don't like the opinions that run counter to yours that may be supported by more monied interests, and therefor you wish to steal their freedom in order to silence them.

Yes you can. You drive the prices down the same way you do in every other industry. By letting the consumer price shop.

Yes, but that was the argument that they advanced, which is what all of this is predicated on. That only relates to Congress. This is the Executive equivalence. Apologies if that was what you were getting at.

Because the vast majority of IRA dollars come from the rollover of qualified work place plans.

Executive overreach.

Yes it has. I made the argument, and you begrudgingly agreed with me. Also, it's not that the hundred dollars is equal to the million dollars; it's rather that each dollar holds equal value in regards to what means of speech it seeks to purchase.

If by help workers you mean crush businesses, eliminate jobs, and make it impossible to enjoy a middle class retirement, then yes.