Life

1% tax on trade to start with.USA could cripple Mexico with tarriffs and gain the money that way.

Meanwhile, Kaepernick's on Louder With Crowder tonight. Oooh boy, that's an interview that will be fun to watch.

Well, Crowder is gonna SCREWED. This is an excellent way for YouTube to clamp down on political videos that are contrary to YouTube's wants. Twitter did a similar thing and Facebook has also been slightly shady. For companies that are only as good as the trust that they sell, this is going to hurt them overall.

Which is an excellent point... except you forgot the bit where Garropollo is much better than Cassel and was drafted to take over Brady. If Cassel was on this version of the Pats, then they'd have cause to worry. The point I was making was that the Pats aren't going to be in trouble because of Garropollo. I want to get Choco's opinion on this (because he knows the Pats better than we do) but I remember him grumbling about the secondary and coverage all season long last year.

Now I really want to see next week's episode of Louder with Crowder. Crowder was saying that Facebook tried to screw him (after he paid them money to advertise), he legally sued them and won. I want to see if YouTube will pull down his stuff due to him being a hardcore Conservative.

Oh good. Couple of questions. 1) Do you agree that socialism is for figs? 2) Who wins in a Triple Threat match: Cecil the lion, Harambe or Trigglypuff? 3) Do you agree that #bloodtypepudding is an important social issue in our lives? 4) Why wasn't Anthony Weiner the main character in Sausage Party? 5) How bad of a QB is Colin Kaepernick really? That's all for now.

He didn't at the time.

So... he's like EJ Manuel but can actually play at college level. Ok.

Matt Cassel circa 2008 says hi.Choco, what's the secondary like? Weren't you bitching about it last season?

Saying that the AFC is flawed as hell is like saying that Usain Bolt is kinda fast. There isn't a single team in 16 that doesn't have a major problem... or if you're Cleveland, a major positive.

I'm going to expand on that one.Word of mouth absolutely destroys small businesses and I know it from first hand experience. In my current workplace, my boss (the owner) goes out of his way to provide extra service to customers to return. And we're still operating at a loss (the place is a small bar/kitchen that has been open for 2.5 months since a renovation). Imagine how bad it would be for the business if word got around about how the owner doesn't serve X person for a discriminatory reason. This place would shut down in a month. I've seen new businesses fold very quickly. For a small business to reasonably survive, it has to chase the dollar. No two ways around it.

Jordan Gay was released (dude was taking up a roster spot so buh-bye) and the Bills LB corps looks like a mess. I'm cautiously optimistic about this team like always.

Don't think I did so if you can find me proof, I'd appreciate it.In any regard, Israel's relationship with the USA has taken a downturn since we've had a full operation in Gaza sonce and Obama has been more hostile to us than any president ever. If he doesn't agree with Israel, fine. But don't pretend to be on our side whe you fund the other side's terrorist government.

Because it is a violation of the right to self-preservation if it is a mandatory buyback policy. Which means that men with guns show up to your house and use force to get you to surrender your right to self-defense.Please look at the dissenting opinions from District of Columbia v. Heller. In a legal fashion, there are only two tennable positions: the Second Ammendment as is or no guns at all. No gun control reforms, no magazine capacity arguments... either guns or no guns.

@ Raven: I jump down someone's throat when they repeat false information as fact. But let me say something quickly. - There is logic in my posts. You simply don't like the opinion so you dismiss it out of hand. Otherwise, explaining why gang crime is the main factor for why black communities suffer would have been rebutted. - I have not said that Trump is not racist or a bigot in general. Ever. If you want to accuse me of a strawman argument, that's probably the biggest one. What I said is that Trump is not racist against the black community if he dares to actually name the real problems and offer a solution. - My problem with Hillary isn't that she's a liar. It's that she's A) corrupt, B) commited perjury, C) will attempt to remove constitutional rights if she can and she'll still be PotUS. - As for why I care. Why shouldn't I? Because I'm not American? The American election affects the entire world, whether you like it or not. That's the power of the American empire. Here's why it directly concerns me. If Hillary wins, Hamas will continue to receive funds. We'll have another war, we'll be villified and then maybe the USA will decide that enough is enough and it is time to end "gross human rights violations" by sending airstrikes against us. I live less than a kilometer away from the Israeli central command building. Yeah, I said it. If Hillary is elected President, I'm worried that there's a chance (a small one but it's definitely there after considering the last 8 years) that I'm not living in 4 years. That's why I care. Feel free to say that that's crazy talk but it's the general underlying feeling in this country. - I get that you have a lot to lose if Trump is elected. That's a fair stance. But lots of other people have lots to lose too from Hillary Clinton being President. I'm not saying "don't be selfish". But understand you're not the only dog in this fight. @ Cynthia: 1) Obama's also praised the Australian buyback program. I'm pretty sure that if he could, he would have passed laws like that after blaming San Bernadino and Orlando on "gun violence" rather than a terrorist attack by radical Islam. 2) Flying on an airplane is not a fundamental human right. Self preservation is. So yes, the no fly list should not have any bearing on buying a gun or not. 3) OK, this one is annoying. You cannot legally buy a firearm without a background check. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Private sellers must conduct background checks. This is law. Stop saying "no, it doesn't happen". Anyone who has bought a gun legally will be able to point out that these claims are false. Suicide is going to happen no matter what. If someone jumps in front of a train, do we blame the train? If someone ODs on drugs, do we jump down phamasuedicals throats? Suicide is bad. Nobody is saying that it isn't. But background checks do not exist to ward off suicide. They exist to ward off threats to other people. I do want to make sure that I know what you're asking for. Are you saying that full medical info should be required for buying a gun? 4) I am asking you to fact check me because I don't think you've ever bought a gun before. The best way to fact check me is by attempting to buy a gun yourself. You don't even have to pay, feel free to walk out once they say "hey, we gotta do a mandatory background check". I'm considering gifting you a gun as proof. I buy it and you still have to fill out background information in order to acquire it. Last thing: "Jews count money or negotiate" is the least of my worries. Try the idea of "the only good Jew is a dead Jew" mentality that has existed for millenia. There are 13 million Jews in the world (of 7 billion people) and about something like 75% of the population hates us. If you want to talk victimization (which is not something I use in any argument), I bet you that we have it worse off than you.

Of course we should look.Science is not governed by concensus. It's governed by truth. There's always room to learn more. At no point should we ever throw up our hands and say "well, we're done here".

1) Gun buyback program was mandatory. Twice. Go look it up.2) The no-fly list is a joke. Want proof? Edward Kennedy and David Cole on the no-fly list. The no-fly list is a "may be linked to terrorism/government doesn't like you" list that involves no due process, no appeal and no basis. If the government doesn't like you, you're on the no-fly list for life. Congrats, you've used a totalitarian idea to strip people of their basis right to self-defense. 3) Background checks are already at the highest level possible. Tell me, how many legal gun owners have gone around mass murdering people. Ballpark. As homework, I want you to look into the case of Neil Steinberg. You are parroting myths about gun control without understanding them. It's not a strawman argument when you continue to spread misinformation as if it were fact. I don't care that Hillary Clinton says that she doesn't want to abolish the 2nd ammendment. She also said that she didn't leak department secrets (false), she had provided all the emails on her private server (false) and that the Clinton Foundation would operate independent of the Clintons before becoming SoS (false). Her actions and rhetoric lead me to believe that she wants a defenseless populace. As for violent crime in Australia, I retract that one because it hasn't significantly increased or decreased. Misread something by accident. EDIT: https://www.google.ca/amp/www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-30-clinton-emails-20160830-snap-story,amp.html I'm done here. You had info about Benghazi on your private server? And you lied about it? What the absolute fuck, woman?

Oh, Trump's economic plan? Terrible.And Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd ammendment. Gun control to her means "no guns". Why else would she praise Australia, a country with violent crimes on the rise? Edit: Cannot be proved true.

Ok. Let's unpack Hillary's speech and see how accurate it is. TRIGGER WARNING: Shit might get real here. And it's LONG. [spoiler=Why Hillary Clinton is no less a terrible human being than Donald Trump when considering the facts] What part of this is incorrect? We've already hit education and I will conceed that I have yet to find out the causation of why black education stagnated under Obama. I have a theory that it applies to funding but since I've yet to get the numbers, let's put that to the side.In my opinion, crime is the reason for poverry and lack of education and I'll explain why. Let's take Chicago as our example. Go to South side (3000S or more) and you're basically asking to be shot. At least that's what they told me last year when I was in Chicago. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Before we get into the crime aspect itself, let's look at the current legislature since this is an integral part of the Democratic platform. Understanding firearm legislation is vital to the argument but I'm going to spoiler it because it's long and can easily be taken out of context to the issue at hand (crime). [spoiler=Gun Control in Illinois]I'm going to take the most important things here since anyone who has ever bought a gun in a legal fashion knows that a lot of the myths about guns are false (no such thing as a gun show loophole, cannot buy a gun without a mandatory background check and automatic weapons are incredibly difficult to get since the process takes about a year and requires a seller with a Class III license). - No open carry allowed. A few things to note. A license is required for concealed carry and not so for open carry. In addition, open carry deters crime on a statistical level because a person is less likely to attack someone who is packing heat because the risk is greater. Open Carry statistics In you want a more detailed analysis, simply compare violent crime statistics as opposed to where open carry is legal. - Assault Weapon ban. First of all, Assault Weapon is a term that is used to make big, black rifles that "spray hundreds of bullets in seconds" to be evil. Not so. A spoon can be an assault weapon in theory but let's zero in on the "big, black monsters". It is virtually impossible to acquire a fully automatic weapon in the legal sense (as described above). That means that weapons like the AR-15 are semi-automatic weapons, like handguns. Squeeze the trigger once and a bullet comes out while the next bullet is chambered. So the idea of "spraying hundreds of bullets in seconds" isn't true because A) it doesn't account for magazine changes and B) these weapons are NOT automatic and can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. In a nutshell, the only differences between AR-15s and your average Glock (or even a hunting rifle) are: 1) Calibre 2) Size of the weapon 3) Aethetics The last one is the difference that gives people grief because it looks mean. But an AR-15 is a very good weapon for home defence because being able to hold it with two hands allows for better stability. As an ex-IDF combat soldier and current reservist, my professional opinion is that an AR-15 is much better for home defense if you are not familiar with firearms. BUT! I'n going to play along and we will go with Illinois's decription of an "assault weapon". Cook County's legal definition of "Assault Weapon" This is specifically across Cook County but Chicago basically has the same definition. The important thing to note here is that a lot of these bans are aethetical. Folding stock, removal of a stock (which I do not recommend), frontal grip (contrary to popular belief, a frontal grip will not provide additional accuracy and I want you to take my word as gospel on this one), shroud... these do not affect performance of the actual firearm in any way, shape or form. After that, the list goes on to mention different models... essentially banning any non-hunting bolt action rifle. Mind you, the limits on handguns are not at the same level. Why is this important? Because a big part of these "assault weapon" regulations are purely aethetical. You can take me to the bank on that statement. - Background checks are mandatory, no registry required... let's dive into registry for a second. It's off topic but while we're here, let's clear it up. Why is registry pointless? Because it costs far too much money. Canada had to eliminate their gun registry because the program would have cost over $1 billion for the 2004/05 fiscal year. That's a country of 35 million people without the right to bear arms. Registration programs in the USA will cost at least $10 billion. And that's before realizing that criminals will not register their guns anyway. Waste of time, waste of tax dollars. All in all, strict gun control rules. Far more strict than... Texas, for example. And yet, gun crime in Chicago is an all time high. Highest gun violence numbers in 20 years As I said earlier, the vast majority of homicides occur in west and south Chicago. Those are areas with high concentrations of poor black families, gangs and general violence. And 80% of all gun homicides are gang and/or drug related. Time for the macro and why gun legislation and crime in black communities are related. Gun control will not eliminate gang crime in black inner-city populations. It will only serve to disarm law abiding citizens. In fact, violent crime raises in areas with gun control (UK, Canada, Australia are all examples) because the populace cannot defend themselves. Meanwhile, you have Hillary Clinton not proposing a solution to gang and drug crime and simply blaming legal firearm holders. She is content with letting the communities suffer and allowing crime to continue. In return, she blames the issue on guns and people want to believe that the Democrats are helping the black community. A bait-and-switch if you will. Gang crime isn't just responsible for murders. It contributes to poverty because businesses cannot flourish. Kids drop out of schools and join gangs. And minimal policing allows these communities simply to degrade even more. So when Trump says "hey, I'm going to bring in more police who are better trained in order to enforce order in poor areas", he's proposing a solution that will curb gang violence. As a result, businesses will be able flourish to flourish, creating jobs, allowing kids to complete education and the community will benefit as a result. But for saying so, he's a racist and slandering the black community if you ask Hillary. Mind you, Herman Cain has the same opinion and he's called a "coon" because of it. Trump outlined an excellent solution to help black Americans. Sorry that you weren't listening.This whole segment is a joke. Hillary intentionally pushes the idea of systemic racism when it was her party that historically was the racist one (her mentor, Robert Byrd, basically had KKK dental and a company car). Let's ignore the crushing poverty in black communities for a second who have voted Democrat for 40+ years. Let's ignore gang crime in Chicago, Harlem and Oakland that kills thousands of black men a year (ironically by other blacks). Let's ignore programs like Affirmative Action that leads to higher drop-out rates by black students in colleges because they can't compete due to lack of education prior to university. Let's ignore the fact that black family structures don't exist with fathers leaving mothers, black children having a 50% of being born due to abortions and a general failure of the system for these people. Thank god for black churches! Either Hillary is delusional about black communities or she knows and she doesn't actually care. She'll get the black vote anyway because the media helps her by pushing the "Trump is a racist" idea. First part of that sentence is wrong when talking about the black community. Others? Possibly but Hillary is referring to Trump's racial speech specifically.The second is partially true. Trump has definitely winked at the Alt-Right but he isn't Alt-Right himself. Oh, because you're so virtuous yourself.What about the Clinton Foundation being a direct link to the SoS's office? What about your support for regimes like Saudi Arabia? What about your own top aide (Huma Abedin) who used to edit a Muslim magazine that blamed America for 9/11? Or your documented hatred of Jews? If Donald Trump can't respect all Americans, then Hillary Clinton is an existensial threat to America. The rest of the speech goes into the Alt-Right who I refuse to defend because they are white supremecists. It's true that they love Trump but he doesn't encapsulate their beliefs. But as I said, Trump hasn't done himself any favours. The important thing to take away from this is that Hillary Clinton is in no position to claim that Donald Trump hates blacks. Not only is it not true, but rather it is possible to make the claim that Hillary has treated the black community with more contempt than Donald Trump ever could. The more I talk about Hillary, the more venom comes out. But all of it is justified. She wants to abolish the 2nd ammendment (meanwhile, I may start petitioning the Knesset for our own version of the 2nd Ammendment), remove the right to free speech and freedom of religion and allow radical Islam into the USA. If Donald Trump stays true to what he said about black communities (and I actually think he will because that speech wasn't full of bluster), he will be the best President for blacks in decades. Hands down.

Incorrect.That speech he had on race a few weeks ago was spot on the money (as I said earlier). Hillary then went out and tried to claim that Trump was "racist" because he was pointing out all the problems with black communities and saying "stop voting Democrat because they're not helping you". That's PC at work. When it is considered bigotry to point out legitimate concerns in a minority community. I think that it is the only policy that he won't flip on because it makes sense and he knows it.

That's Voltaire you quoted. "I disapprove of your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Will look at your stuff later, Raven. I'll answer the second question first.As a private business owner, I should be able to refuse business for any reason I want and furthermore, should not have to disclose the reason for why I am refusing business. If the government steps in, that means the use of force and that's the first step towards authoritarianism. As for Title 2, I don't have a problem simply because of this clause: That means that a private business can "descriminate" (I use quotations because I don't see it as descrimination when they offer other solutions and say that they don't want to cater for this one specific event) in order to exercise their right to freedom of religion.Remember, they never said "we don't cater to gays". The bakery was in Portland and not in some backwater town in Alabama. They just didn't want to do a gay wedding. Question: If you walked into a bakery and they said the same thing (assuming you're gay), would you throw down and sue them for all they're worth or would you simply find another bakery and tell your friends to avoid the first one? Understand that if you choose the first, that's a lot of money and time down the drain and you can't be sure of what the result will be.

Made a mistake in my first claim. Should have said "not enough" rather than "no". Carry on.

The study concludes that it is very much possible that a person may end up gay or bisexual based also on nuture (in general, homosexuals experience maltreatment and violence much more than heterosexuals before the age of 18).What I am saying is that the science isn't all in. There's a rush to claim that it is all biological and yet it is quite possible that A) it isn't and B) the science isn't all in. Pardon me for not making the astrological jump that Raven's made.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/And yet this study (which came out a week and a half ago) clearly states that there is not enough medical evidence to support that claim. Pardon me for backing the comprehensive study that is a few days old and goes into depth about ideas like "born that way". Also, reading comprehension. This is the title of the first article. You're better than that. Why are you making the silly leap from "may" to "is"?