TakeYouToTasker

So... I was pretending like there was no game today, and wasn't watching or listening. My friend just texted me, and I didn't believe him, so I checked the score... What the ***** is happening right now?

You aren't answering the question, you're pontificating. I'll present you with three facts, and then ask the question again: 1) Employment is nothing more than a contract based on a mutual agreement to associate. 2) The employee doesn't own the job. The employer owns the job. 3) You should be free to leave your employment agreement for any reason. Why shouldn't the other party, who actually has the equity stake in the job, not be permitted the same leverage as the first party to the contract?

I'm a person who responded to a post you made in a public forum. Again, employment is nothing more than a contract based on a mutual agreement to associate. You should be free to leave your employment agreement for any reason, why shouldn't the other party?

Again, illegal. And she'll be being scrutinized.

Why? It's not your job. It's the employers job, which he has agreed to allow you to do for an agreed upon sum. I'm pretty sure that that you should be able to choose to leave your employment for any reason (even discrimination). Why should the other party to your contract not be permitted to enter into it on the same grounds as you?

They can't give her a loan on favorable terms because she has a job in Congress. Full stop.

Not on favorable terms that they wouldn't otherwise qualify for if not for her position in Congress. Do you think there are legitimate lenders out there who give out loans to broke, unemployed 29 year old bartenders who need money because they failed to plan to need a place to live?

When I was in my early 20's I had a friend I've since lost touch with whom I would best describe as a theoretic anarcho-libertarian. He was an incredibly bright guy, and one of a fairly diverse group of about 15 philosophic minded individuals we held discussions with over dinner once every few weeks to discuss ideas, and what we were reading at the time. He made the case one night that the assassination of members of the political class was, sometimes in times of obvious rights violations crisis, a legitimate form of checks and balances. I haven't thought of him, or that conversation, in years.

The Founders intended for what Jefferson called a "natural aristocracy" comprised of the best, brightest, and most successful to answer a temporary calling to service. They most certainly weren't intending for underachieving 29 year old bartenders whom have been educated beyond their capacity to learn, and without the financial means or forethought to plan for a three month span without income, to take up seats in Congress. Which would be illegal.

I hope it uses a sack full of MDP's hammers.

The hilarious part is that she's going to likely be remarkably indictable at the end of this several month period. She's going to have to accept money or lodging from donors of some sort, and that's illegal; so would be tapping into any kind of campaign funding.

Are you kidding me? Mediocre sitcom writers are a dime a dozen. (I kid, I kid.)

Do you think the NFL is showing something that didn't happen when they do slow motion instant replays to determine if a receiver's feet land in bounds? The White House demonstrated what happened, the video is not "doctored", and Jim Acosta's actions are exactly as bad as they appear. Or do you think it's appropriate to be physically aggressive with people working in a professional environment? If someone did what Acosta did in my workplace, they'd be walked out of the building.

The situation was created solely by Jim Acosta, who has apparently managed through his gross unprofessionalism, to normalize the complete disrespecting of the Office of President and the disregard of White House decorum to the point that you're assigning some sort of blame to the people he was acting out against, including physical aggression. Jim Acosta handled it poorly. Everyone else reacted in a beyond measured and controlled way. The White House should have pulled his hard pass months ago. That they waited until a point that it actually involved him being physically aggressive towards White House staff demonstrates an unfathomable amount of restraint by the President. They didn't "doctor the video" anymore than slow motion instant replays in sports do when they slow down the footage to determine if a receivers feet landed in bounds. And no, they didn't "add frames" they used a different framing system. The video isn't doctored. It demonstrates clearly and exactly what happened. You're being led around by people who are telling you not to believe your lying eyes, because your lying eyes would betray who they are. They're doing it right to your face because they think you're stupid, and you're proving them right.

You're OK with what Jim Acosta did, think it's appropriate to lay your hands on other people as part of the decorum of a White House Press Briefing with The President of the United States; or you're denying that he did that? I'm just trying to figure out which kind of stupid you are, the ignorant kind or the vile kind.

The penalty for what she's doing should be the noose.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand how faith works, but that's OK. I'll pray for your enlightenment. And in their memory I'll likely donate to a fund which will be established to benefit their survivors in some way. What I won't do is make a short sighted and emotional plea for the suspension of the greatest gift God gave us, human freedom. Freedom has a blood cost, and not only on the battlefield. Innocents also die, and while it's unfortunate, the insistence that man should not be free has a much higher cost.

Powerful argument there, mocking people of faith praying for the grief stricken; buttressed by a complete lack of understanding of our Founding history. I am convinced. Oh, wait, no I'm not. Ignorant emotional screeds which mock people's faith are poor arguments.

... I really shouldn't be stunned, given who we're talking about, but by God if he didn't just drive up the bar by a good quarter mile. I think he just made a staggeringly powerful argument for the moral justification of the state being used for eugenics and forced sterilization. I am humbled.

It's a shame that an intern was instructed to take the microphone instead of a Secret Service Agent. I would have loved to have seen what ensued if Acosta attempted to push one of them away.

More specifically, it's establishing that prosecutorial discretion which adheres to the law as written can't be used to counter prosecutorial discretion which circumvents the law as written. It's a direct declaration that the United States is a perpetual dictatorship under the rule of President For Life Obama.

No, it wasn't assault. What it was, however, was a very visual escalation in the rise of Jim Acosta's openly hostile incivility, which happened to be physical in nature; it was absolutely outside the realm of acceptable decorum addressing the President of the United States in the White House. He should not be given back his credentials, ever.

I'm guessing Brett and the Supremes start belting out a different tune fairly quickly.

Criminal ongoings...

Gah...