TakeYouToTasker

Josh Allen is like if you put Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger, and Steve Young in a blender and didn't go to jail for gruesomely murdering three people.

C'mon. Enough with the pre-snap penalties guys.

I can't think of a good reason not to.

Great play by Milano.

Oh for cripes sake.

I'm sitting here pining away for Marcus Easley.

Good grief, our special teams are LOL inducing bad.

LOL

It's far to early to say this with any real conviction, but the Bills 2018 draft class may be the best in franchise history.

Josh Allen is a freak.

Huge stand.

Lorax!!!

If he got to play a full season without Kelvin Benjamin and Charles Clay his completion percentage would be 209.17 %. #facts

It's so nice to have a QB who can do that. Dude just flicked his wrist and flung it 50 yards, and the understanding that he had a free play to do what he did was heady as *****. Josh Allen is a freak.

How does such a law get passed? You've already argued that it couldn't be. Also, such an executive order would be unConstitutional, and immediately struck down by the courts. It's also the act of a dictator ruling by fiat. Can you think of any reasons why that might not be a good idea?

One thing I'll say for Clay is that he's consistent. You know exactly what's going to happen when the ball is thrown to him.

He was out of bounds.

From your lips to God's ears apparently. How is that not a 15 yarder for a late hit out of bounds?

Josh Allen is a freak.

I could say the exact same thing about your argument.

Campaign finance violations are a civil offense punishable by fines, not a criminal offense; much in the same way speeding or jay walking are not criminal violations. Further it's not even clear that the President even committed such a violation. The case is shaky, at best. Finally, such violations are common. The prior Administration was assessed a fine for one.

Joe, you're literally saying that there are types of contracts individuals can enter in to which forfeit their rights. Corporations are comprised of people. They money they earn is earned by people. The reality is that you don't like the fact that people with more money can have an outsized political impact if they choose to spend their money on candidates or messaging, so you seek to restrict their freedom of speech. Again, the solution is to restrict the governments ability to sell influence, so there is nothing to buy.

so you believe individual human beings surrender their natural rights when they enter into private contracts?

First, campaign finance reform is nothing more than a euphemism for the government suppressing political speech, which is incredibly dangerous, and the end of a truly free society. Different mediums of speech carry different price tags, and they always will (taking out a newspaper add, a TV add, running a web based add initiative all have expenses to them and are all political speech). Just because everyone can't afford to do something doesn't mean we should prohibit that thing. Second, congress in comprised of rent seeking lawyers who aren't experts in much of anything, but are tasked with crafting complex industry specific law. Experts representing industries and groups are required if we want law which makes sense. That's what lobbyists are. The correct solution, Joe, is to limit what the government can give away. When you prohibit influence peddling, the dollars sent as rent payments dry up, and the rest is protected.

It would be helpful for you to understand a few things: 1) The Alt-Right is actually comprised, largely, of disaffected blue collar former Democrats who left their party when the Democratic platform stopped being representative of them. They embrace the identity politics of the left, and apply it to themselves. They are pro-union/pro-labor, pro-universal healthcare, pro progressive taxation, etc. 2) Libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, social conservatives, the religious right, classical liberals, etc. are not synonymous with the Alt-Right, and have nearly nothing in common with their belief systems; which is the reason the Alt-Right came to exist: those other prior listed groupings of political and philosophical thought don't represent them. 3) I don't think you understand what "reasoned debate" is. I've yet to see you make a coherent logical argument on this sub-forum, which isn't to say that I wouldn't like to see it, it's just that you haven't done it yet. You haven't bothered to actually understand the positions of those you disagree with, which is the first step of reasoned debate; but rather you have erected strawmen to do battle with at every turn. I know this to be true because you actually think you're "arguing" with people who identify with the Alt-Right, and your stated views on Christians. You're a man who could stand to be several multitudes more introspective.