Life

Yes but the NFL didn't come out and say that it completely fucked up the call and that they were sorry even before the game ended.

I'm mad. What a bullshit call. Fuck you Richard Sherman. 2 illegal hits and both on the last plays of each half.

Show me and I'll be happy to call out what I find abhorrent. No hypocrisy needed. Remember, every example needs to be backed by the idea of violence or silencing opposition from the right.

Political correctness is the Law Society of British Columbia that tried to shut down a law school because it is Christian based and believes in traditional values. On what grounds? That the Law Society would be perceived as endorsing LBGTQ hate and should care about diversity. Case was overturned at the appeal level but will almost certainly appear before the Supreme Court of Canada. Political correctness is drowning out Jordan Peterson when he objects to Bill C-16 and attempting to associate him with being a Nazi since he rightfully argues that Bill C-16 is an attack on free speech. That culminated with the claim by Nicholas Matte (another University of Toronto professor who teaches transgender studies) who claimed on camera that not using someone's preferred pronoun can be considered violence or hate speech against said person. Political correctness is when a Canadian police officer who was forced to apologize to the entire Aboriginal community after a tweet he made that was not racist in any way but was perceived as such regarding the death of Annie Pootoogook. The article is from The Globe And Mail dated yesterday. I'm going to assume that if the officer did not make the apology, he would have been fired. The Regressive Left is the ideology that pushes ideas like this. It is authoritarian in nature (think like us or we will attempt to destroy you) and uses guilt for not caring about another person's victimhood as a weapon. Black Lives Matter is a great example because it has now become an excuse to riot and destroy cities. HuffPo is another one regarding feminism. Trump is the antithesis of all of this. This entire ideology hates everything about him because he just proves them right and is somehow popular. And I hate the ideology that feels that it has a right to controlling my brain or suffering the consequences. You've heard Cykes-domo say it himself. I should be in jail for insulting people or at least have my life ruined. I know that Trump isn't fighting this directly because he might not get it. But I do. And Hillary does. Why do you think she called Trump supporters (who were supporting a man who was airing their grievances) "deplorables"? Because the regressive left actually thinks that we (and this means anyone who doesn't agree with them) are and loved Hillary for "calling us out for the terrible human beings that we are". And she's playing to that. We are the misogynists because we argue that the wage gap doesn't exist. We are the racists because we argue that the police aren't targeting blacks specifically because the numbers don't support the claims. We are the homophobes. We are the bigots. We are the evil boogieman who seeks to destroy their utopian world by simply voicing an opinion. Therefore, we must be silenced by all means necessary. Violence and prison are not out of the question. That is political correctness and the regressive left.

For the 50th time, I am not supporting Trump because I like him. You seem to not get this.I am supporting him because he is fighting against what I hate. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

He pointed out more lies by the WP but whatever. Going back to my point about Clinton, I have served in a military force and I can say this with confidence. Even as a rank and file soldier with no access to classified material whatsoever, we would have easily gone to jail for negligence. For example, night vision goggles. If you sign out night vision goggles from the armory and someone else loses them (not even you, someone else who you know is using them), you go to jail. You're going to make me believe that negligence and carelessness with classified materials is just a "mistake"? Fine, I've got a bridge in LA to sell you then.

No actual link to said deposition so that I can see myself. It's hidden at the very least under a lot of rhetoric. It's been difficult for me to take the WP seriously after stuff like this. http://www.dailywire.com/news/8666/hillaryshealth-left-wing-washington-post-fact-john-nolte God bless the Daily Wire. At least their shit is back up with evidence. Question. Do we also let people go for involuntary manslaughter?

More like the first investigation but this one would mean that Huma Abedin also lied under oath.

I don't know, was Trump caught lying under oath?

OK. The computer (or phone) you are using right now was only made by clearing out a space of land of all animal life, probably killing a bunch of animals. Maybe a species went extinct, who knows.Anyway, the waste from the factory probably harmed animals even more. And by buying and using their product, you're encouraging that practice. If you want to live by your principles, then get rid of anything that could have harmed an animal's life since it was done for your comfort and using it means that you condone it. That includes your house. Otherwise, you're just trying to get attention. My problem here is that you are calling for my death because 1) I have killed animals before and 2) I enjoy sport hunting and would do it more if I could.

This is a silly comparison and you know it.Human life is infinitely more important than animal life. We can create a society based on knowledge and technology. Name me an animal that does the same.

I'm not defending Trump's character but remember, he is innocent until proven guilty ina a court of law with due process.Technically, Hillary is also innocent until proven guilty but I think there's enough evidence available to prove guilt.

Quick point to make. Erdogan is very popular in Turkey. I asked a Turk about it the other day and he said that the people really like him, even if he is a dictator.

I think it is much bigger than what was on Wikileaks, hence Comey's announcement. If it wasn't, why risk his career?

Agreed on the Harry Reid point.Disagree on the context. When people lose jobs over corruption, that is huge. It is disingenous to think otherwise.

Donna Brazile has been fired from CNN (bless your soul, John Podesta). Even MSNBC is sitting on camera and saying "well, what now?".The fallout is huge and it's only going to get bigger if you ask me. Phoenix, my one guess would be an attempt to repeal NAFTA. Whether or not that's a good thing is another matter entirely and not one I know enough about.

So you think that James Comey is committing perjury in front of the American people just to attempt to tank the campaign (which may or may not work).He wouldn't have HAD to. He wasn't in fear of losing his job because he concluded the investigation over with no request to prosecute. In fact, it would have been more beneficial to just sit on his hands until after the election. This is Comey's career that we are talking about. You don't publically blow up your career as head of the FBI on a grudge. Can we stop pretending that James Comey was a good person until Thursday? Also, if those emails do contain classified information, are you telling me that he should give them over to the public? Funny, I didn't see this kind of fervour surrounding Wikileaks. But that's because the Russians did it... we think. Also Raven, 650,000 is not my number. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957&ved=0ahUKEwitqLrYgIbQAhXGCsAKHY8iBOcQFgg5MAk&usg=AFQjCNFKM3P9drb0Ykbeu-Ug5P0DQ4P1NQ Wall Street Journal is also wrong?

This is the only point that I'm really going to answer because this is the root of why we disagree. ​I don't think that making life fair is freedom. I don't believe in the true equality that you are searching for. And I don't think so because you are looking for an equality of outcome. You are saying that caring for others before myself is freedom. I disagree. ​Literally, the government should only arm a police and military and fund a legal system. There is no selective anarchy because of the legal system. That is the point of a republic. Privatizing the military or police force allows for the creating of an army in which to rebel against the government.

Ok. Regarding Atlas Shrugged, the reason I said "pretty much that" is that it articulates my opinion a lot better than I can do myself. I have no problem trying but I don't feel that I have a more clear way of articulating my position on the matter than what Ayn Rand did. If you get down to the root of it, a hospital is not a necessity. A doctor could work out of his own house if he so wished. Hospitals simply allow more people to get medical care at the same time. Rather than everyone line up to see one doctor, a hospital can accommodate more people at one time. The question is if people have a right to health care and if a doctor is morally obligated to help patients for less money than he could charge. That's the argument regarding privatization vs. public at its core. I don't think that the right to health care exists. I think that it's a privilege. Same goes for businesses, entitlements... It is not the role of government to make life fair for everyone. They are there simply to make sure that everyone's individual freedoms are being protected.

All taxes are enforced at gun point but ask me to voluntarily agree that they are for the better good. The Hank Rearden trial in Atlas Shrugged explains this perfectly. What qualifies those things is that they ensure my freedom. A military force keeps me safe from other powers. A strong police force is able to protect me from crime. A legal system allows the law to be applied fairly to everyone who is convicted. And the government's role is to oversee these institutions but is answerable to the public. The classical view of a republic. Everything else is simply meddling for a federal government at the very least.

EDIT: Doublepost. My bad.

Have you ever been shot or stabbed? Is this based on opinion only or medical data? I'm relatively certain that medical data would contradict you and you're going to have to prove that handheld weapons cause less damage than firearms.When I was in the army, we were taught the exact opposite. I'd rather face a firearm than a handheld weapon due to the ramifications of the injury.

First point was clearly a joke. I'll summarize the "taxes are theft" argument easily. Read Atlas Shrugged. Realize the need for publically funded military, police force, court system and government to keep those three branches working. Don't tax for anything else. I just realized something about the FBI's decision to reopen the case. Put aside my bias for a second, I think this theory has some credence. Comey just tanked his career. He had to know that he would tank his career by doing this. It's not in his personal gain to tank his career unless it was one of the two options. 1. That he had a personal axe to grind against Hillary and that his original decision not to press charges was calculated. To me, this theory sounds not that credible because this grudge would have to be very deep and personal. 2. That he found something actually significant on Hillary on the device of Huma Abedon when investigating Anthony Weiner. To me, the second theory makes a lot more sense. We know that Weiner is under investigation for sending nude pictures to 15 year olds. And his connection is the fact that his now-estranged wife is Hillary's top aide and some 650,000 emails pertaining to the original Clinton investigation were found on a personal device in Abedon's home. Abedon lied under oath. She claimed that every single device had been turned over. And not only that, but the Clinton campaign (and Trump's) has been talking about only 30,000 emails. This is over 20x that number. You don't just pull out a number like that out of thin air. This might just be really significant in the future of the US. EDIT: If you want what I really think, I think it's a child-sex trafficking ring of some sort at the forefront. I could be completely off base with this and I have no evidence to back this up but this is my gut call without any evidence. I base it off of conjecture.

ONLY 33%?! THAT'S NOT A FAIR SHARE! THE CLINTONS SHOULD PAY 80% AS PER WHAT PIKETTY SAYS! Honestly, I think it's fine that he's exploited the loopholes because I don't think that government should play a hand in the economy in the first place.

Here's a question. Do you prefer someone who is upfront about the fact that he's going to exploit those rules or someone who is going to pretend like she hates them... and still takes advantage of said loopholes?