TakeYouToTasker

Steve Grogan and Jeff Hostetler.

I've seen several moral arguments in favor of helping the under priviledged; though I've yet to see a single moral argument in favor of confiscating 52% of a portion of someone's earning.

It doesn't work that way. You've expressed support for a proposed tax code. Justify confiscating 52% (at the federal level only) of someone's earnings.

I'm still waiting for a moral justification for confiscating 52% of anyone's earnings over 10m.

There is no candidate listed whom I could cast a ballot for in the hope that they might win.

Why is the government entitled to more than 50% of evr dollar earned over 10m?

Not true. Mick also apparently played David Bowie's skin flute.

We use cut up chunks of hotdogs, and cut slits in them that we slide the meds into, then we get Sir all fired up to have "a treat". He swallows the small hotdog bits whole in his excitement.

The purpose of a flat tax, regardless of rate, is to give everyone a stake in the size and scope of government. People care what gets spent where when it hits them in the pocket.

My personal rate of return last year was 37.4% as an aggregate, net taxes. As always, my positions and strategies are proprietary. That said, if you can't make gains in down markets, given the myriad of products available to consumers today, you shouldn't be invested.

I'd say anyone with a net income-tax liability of less than 15%.

Where is the option for the Ghost of Sid Luckman?

Are you really all that comfortable having Tom sit around just watching your niece?

I had always assumed it was magical rainbows. Is that not right?

I've considered doing something similar where I only open on Fridays from 3-7, and serve nothing but takeout fish and chip, New England, Manhattan, and Rhode Island chowder, and clam cakes.

They're nativists. And somewhere between 1/3-2/5 of his support comes from Democrats.

I give him a solid D as a President, but will give him a C+ as a King.

I am absolutely !@#$ing speechless... How can you possibly justify taking hard line stances either for or against anything, if you haven't actually studied the material yourself? How?!? Your entire intellectual philosophy is nothing more than a mismatched tapestry of others peoples opinions, to which you grant total authority, based on how you feel about how other people feel about their work. That is astounding...

Please demonstrate David Olusoga's expertise in the field of Abraham Lincoln, and American slavery.

That's exactly what an Appeal to Authority is.

Appeal to Authority

Lucy Ricardo Larry Fine Christopher Lloyd Carroll O'Connor Bill Cosby Honorable mentions for: Andy Kaufman, Robin Williams, Steve Carell, and Johnny Carson.

Larry Fine. How is there no mention of Larry Fine?

Ah, you're going to moralize. And you're going to do so without any convictions, suspensions, or positive tests. And then you're going to whitewash and sanitize the entire history of the game, and pretend that the Hall of Fame is not packed with cheaters, psychopaths, and wife beaters. Gambling, and "shaving" were rampant in the game prior to Curt Flood winning his law suit. Players earning were usually built around a series of escalator clauses, and they used to help each other reach those escalator clauses by hanging pitches intentionally, and allowing the opposing players to reach base and score runs. Games were often throw to allow a pitcher to get a much needed win. Gambling was so rampant within the game that even the World Series was very publicly thrown (an event which you obviously know about). That gambling never went away, either. Troops of young ultracompetitive millionaires traveling the country gamble on everything. They absolutely do bet on baseball. They're ust much smarter about it standing in the shadow of Rose, and baseball doesn't look to hard unless something is egregious. Most players in the early 1900's, right as the game was coming out of the dead ball era took a "muscle tonic" that was actually horse testosterone. The "steroid era" actually started in the mid 60's, which was when they were introduced into locker rooms; the difference being that guys didn't weight train back then, so they didn't see the same sorts of results. However they absolutely took substances that are banned in today: tons of stimulants, which they took "to improve their performance on the field". By most reports, the players of the 1990's and aughts overwhelmingly used PEDs. There are already, by direct admission from Hall of Famers, PED users in the Hall. So you want to moralize, and make it about something other than baseball. I don't. I insist that the Hall of Fame be about baseball as it always has. A Hall of Fame without Clemens and without Bonds isn't a Hall of Fame, and if they are the benchmark for exclusion, then no one else deserves to be in either.

See, that's your criterion. That's your view point of what the ballot should be used for. I happen to believe that the game of baseball and the Hall of Fame as an institution are bigger and more important than Ken Griffey Jr. As long as the best hitter and best pitcher of the last 50 years are not in the Hall of Fame, then no one else should be inducted either; because no one on the ballot were better than them. If they are the baseline for exclusion, then no one else is qualified. Clemens and Bonds would be the only two names on my ballot.