TakeYouToTasker

Counseling? Really? For what purpose?

I think they should probably drop out of school, since no one is going to give them a job now.

That's tragic. Prayers for Tony and her family.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination, there is absolutely no way that he doesn't run as an independent.

Can you please explain how you believe capital formation works?

Water: wet

Again, will never be indicted.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/04/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-money/

He's not completely wrong, he's simply making an argument in favor of government corruption and influence peddling, only seeking to spread out who can purchase it.

Given your posting history, demonstrating a lack or proper grammar and spelling, and your often stated "lack of caring about it" it is absolutely unreasonable for you take a stand that readers should have know you meant "republican" rather than "Republican".

List limits on other types of speech, and then explain those limits, and how they would relate in this situation, since you invoked them. As to the rest, again, political speech is the most important type of speech in a free society. Government limiting political speech is antithetical to a free society with any claim to a republican foundation. This is a reasonable argument, but you've approached it the wrong way. Your argument is that government corruption and influence is a commodity that can be bought, so we should level the playing field making sure all people and special interests can equally purchase the corruption and influence. The proper position, as it is the only way to solve the problem, is to limit what government is permitted to do. If there is no corruption and influence to purchase, no one will be able to buy it.

It's a protection on political speech, which is the most important type of free speech there is in a free country. Again: A television add is a type of speech, just as newspaper print is, as is holding a sign over your head on the State House lawn. The fact that each medium has different associated costs does not make any one of them less valid as protected speech than the others. Nor does the inability of some, many, or even most members of our society to afford using some of those mediums invalidate them.

It's not "buying the government", it's using speech to make your position more well and widely heard.

You mean that you'd like to advance the fascist agenda of limiting free speech, as the spending of money on elections is nothing more than the exercise of free speech; and given that it's political speech, there is no more important kind of speech. The truth is that there are different mediums for speech, and those mediums have different costs associated with them. I've made this point here before, but it bears repeating: A television add is a type of speech, just as newspaper print is, as is holding a sign over your head on the State House lawn. The fact that each medium has different associated costs does not make any one of them less valid as protected speech than the others. Nor does the inability of some, many, or even most members of our society to afford using some of those mediums invalidate them.

No, just a liar and a fool. I'm far too indifferent to cast judgment on you as "bad".

Hate requires caring enough to have an emotional reaction. I couldn't possibly bring myself to care less one way or the other about gatorman. I simply observe that he's a liar and a fool.

At a minimum it's the most intentionally obtuse thing I can remember reading here. Though to be fair, I really don't go out of my way to commit stupid to memory, so there certainly may be other more egregious instances.

A largely unproven, albeit exciting, young quarterback with some large holes in his game that need to be improved upon before anointing him anything other than the 2016 starting quarterback.

So you cared enough to post it, because you wanted to share it, and cared enough to argue about it for several pages, but not enough to make sure what you shared was in any way accurate?

Please demonstrate that the US military would have had to remain in Iraq forever. Perhaps you believe that Middle Easterners are inherently inferior to Europeans and Asians whose nations we were not required to remain in forever?

Taylor being named to the Pro Bowl does not retroactively change the quality of his season, or improve upon his positive or negatives. He's exactly the same guy he was before this.

Still taking the stance that we don't need to be in any rush to pay Tyrod Taylor like a franchise quarterback because a) he's under contract next season, and the Bills reserve the right to tag him in future seasons, and b) because he has yet to demonstrate that he deserves to be paid that way?

Hate gives way to prosperity, which western economies built on democracy creates over time. Regardless, the powder kegs was going to explode, spilling over in to America. When this happened, America would have been thrust, head first, into the regions conflicts anyhow, only under much more strategically vulnerable conditions. By setting up occupational shop in a transforming Iraq, America would have it's foothold. Either way, America would not have had to remain there forever. Over time, given economic change, the region would likely have stabilized.

What's your point? And, why/how does that make it a good idea, or even workable or desirable in a country as large and as non-homogenous as America? Also, can you please respond to my reply to you about the invasion of Iraq?

That has to be the most intentionally obtuse thing I've ever read here. First of all, not all crimes are equally violent in their commission, which greatly changes the appropriateness of law enforcement using lethal force. Someone violently resisting arrest, someone actively shooting at law enforcement or civilians, or someone currently in the act of committing a violent crime in most cases would justify the use of lethal force by responding officers. Someone peacefully resisting arrest, or committing a non-violent crime do not justify the use of lethal force. To wit: Michael Brown had just finished wrestling with a police officer for his weapon when he was fatally shot. That is not unreasonable. Laquan McDonald, however, was not menacing officers or civilians when he was fatally shot, and that shooting was unjustified; hence the shooting officer being tried for murder. In regards to the Oregon shooting, we don't yet know what happened, and I'm not willing to speculate. However if Mr. Finicum was not menacing officers with a weapon, was in in the act of committing a violent crime, and was instead compliant; then his shooting is completely abhorrent and unjustified. As I said earlier, your only purpose here was to pipe up and justify the shooting of a conservative protester, because you don't value their lives. You can't hide from that.