TakeYouToTasker

That's hillarious. Well done.

If he stick strong, not sticks, but sticks strong to the roster it's going to offer up a new popular local flavor.

They don't "want more war". There is far more money to be made in peace. We've had this discussion before. The issue is that government is now, and has always been, an organized destructive force. One of the few things is it very good at is making war, and it has few other tools, because at it's core, all government really is, is a monopoly on force. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Go home, Gil Brandt. You're drunk.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7556

Strange. Today when I came to work I didn't think that cancelling my SI subscription would even cross my mind, but here it is, now my top priority.

It was the only one you chose to share, so clearly it's the one the stuck out to you. They sit in the film room together. I think of it more as motivational.

That was your takeaway?

Why do you believe Piketty's analysis?

It's the better of the two options for actual conservatives and libertarians. I can't bring myself to vote for her, but her presidency will strengthen and grow the conservative movement in the US, where as Trump would crush it flat.

My pants just got tight.

I'm more than content to sit back and give you a stern "I told you so" on this one. And no, your definition of libertarianism is supremely lacking. Words have meaning, and you don't get to go around co-opting them to make you feel better about this particular bout of poor decision making.

What inevitable conclusion? That Trump is going to win the GOP nomination? Of course he is. Only a blind fool would think otherwise. He's going to win because Cruz is completely unpalatable to the establishment, and those currently in charge of the Party know that they likely won't be in charge of their party in four years, so they are trying desperately to keep the GOP from fracturing in there here and now, future be damned, because that's someone else's problem. You aren't out in front here. In fact, if you're just now coming around, you're closer to last. No, he isn't. Trump is about promoting a brand. He's a huckster, and when he's not pimping failed businesses, sometimes fraudulently, he has, historically, very vocally promoted a liberal ideology: single payer health care, a graduated income tax, increased corporate taxes, high tariffs for the purpose of propping up unions, gross abuse of eminent domain which abuses property rights, criminalizing free speech by "opening up those libel laws" ... the list goes on and on. Trump, because he's a self-important idiot who can't shut his damn mouth, has told us exactly who he is. Libertarianism is a moral philosophy which holds individual liberty as the highest standard of value. It is the antithesis of damaging property rights, restricting free speech, protectionism, promotion of group rights (unionization) to the detriment of individual rights (free association), confiscatory taxes on individuals and business which punish innovation, drive and success. That is what I am concerned with. You, not so much. Stop calling yourself a libertarian. The only measurable difference between the two is Hilary's criminal background. Policy wise, other than an empty promise of a wall, they are almost completely in lock step. The key point being, however, that if Hillary wins, we get to hang the inevitable economic downturn on liberals. If Trump wins, liberals get to hang it on Trump, all while not being wrong that his proposed economic plan will actually make things worse. No, that's the short sighted thinking of a fool who somehow seems to believe that America exists as an island unto it self, and is somehow immune from both cause and effect and in inevitable outcomes of globalism. It's the short sighted foolishness of someone who believes giving the world the finger is more meritorious than principled moral action. Go on, tell me more about how you know more about what I'm basing my positions on than I do. Jack ass.

My argument has never been that 95% of the black community is against Trump, it's irrelevant to my position. My position is that Trump is poisonous, and will destroy small government ideals in the United States permanently.

First, if you want to tie me to Lindsey Graham, you had better source your work. Second, any TEA Party individuals who support Trump don't reflect the TEA Party at it's inception. They're what it became once Sarah Palin co-opted it. Libertarians, by and large, want nothing to do with Trump. Finally, who knew that all this time, while you've professed to be guided by libertarian/classically liberal moral philosophy what you were actually secretly clamoring for was a thin-skinned, hard left leaning, anti-Constitutional, proto-fascist. Odd, that.

Read what I wrote rather than what you're trying to read in to what I wrote.

You're on the record disparaging the importance of financial advisors, yet here you are, asking for important financial advice, on an anonymous Internet forum.

That's an assessment that's beyond terrible. I don't want Trump because he's going to set destroy the concept of small government forever in this country. He's a small minded, leftist, proto-fascist whose presence in government will cast a long dark shadow over conservatism, undoing all gains made in state and local office, and in congress because in this age of sound-bites, short attention spans, 24 hour news cycles, and an ignorant electorate his massive unfavorables will paint all Republicans, be they old guard, libertarian, TEA Party, etc. as being like him. Conservatism will be dead in this country, and you'll wake up living in a domestic Europe.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/us/new-york-albany-bus-attack/index.html?eref=rss_us

If you stop and think about it, there is no way teams roll the safety towards an unproven, 6th round rookie, one-dimensional speedster, and take their chances with Sammy Watkins. What they do is play the rookie extremely physically, force him to beat hard jams, and prove he can even get off the line of scrimmage. And if he can, they give him a cushion, and force him to read the defensive coverage well enough to break off his combination routes and make back shoulder catches. If the rookie beats you, so be it; but you force him to rather than letting Sammy run wild.

I don't know how anyone gives Dallas better than an "F" at this point when it's only on paper. Sure, Elliot could be the next Adrian Peterson, and Smith the next Urlacher; but as it stands today they spent the 4th overall pick on a halfback and an early second rounder on a guy who may never play again. If I were a Cowboys fan I'd be furious. As it stands, their only saving grace is that they weren't able to trade back into the first round to make a third massive mistake on Paxton Lynch despite their best efforts.

Can he kill a guy and then become one of the greatest linebackers in the history of football? Probably not.

With the huge and growing differences between the pro and college games, a 3 day crash course in shell cover schemes might not be a bad idea at all. It will also be a very strong indicator of who really wants to get better when it comes to preparation.

What the hell does that even mean?

That would mean that Rex Ryan would have to spend more time breaking down film and game planning, and less time drinking beer. Not gonna happen.