I agree with eBay here: we can have no tolerance for terrorist activity. The only safe answer is to completely shut down eBay and PayPal. Please, won't you think of the children!

That's not how it works anymore. You don't have to "play the part" anymore to make that determination (otherwise that would be prejudicial stereotyping, remember?). This is why conservatives have gone ape over the newer bathroom policies. Before, someone who dressed the opposite gender generally could use the bathroom of their choice. All the new bathroom policies do is make it so that a plain-clothed dude can walk into a women's restroom without being questioned.

http://www.thegetrealmom.com/b...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
http://thefederalist.com/2015/...

So the GP is absolutely right, and the way the politics are set up, someone being denied a job on the basis that the employer "didn't believe" a candidate's gender story is probably enough to get their pants sued off. If not, then we have some actual systematic discrimination happening, because literally the only people who wouldn't be allowed gender fluidity would be white men.

Okay, so a lot of best "X" lists are crap. But surely some are good. Does anybody have a list of the best best lists?

Works for Amazon.

This is the world's new business model, for better or worse. If you don't run a business this way, you can't compete (with the likes of Amazon & Netflix) and they will crush you. And if you do run a business this way, you might [spectacularly] fail, but if you are able to survive, then you'll be the only player. It's like running a monopoly before it's officially a monopoly (the way Standard Oil used to undercut competitors until they went out of business). You can use debt, equity and VC funding to do this today instead of a monopolist's war chest.

As a major plus to those who make these decisions--the board, the CEO, and the rest of the executive team--they don't care. They get paid handsomely win or lose, and if everything goes bust, they can just spin up the next one while coasting on their ludicrous money from the last job.

You totally missed the point of the GP. This is not about quantity at all. It doesn't matter if the government wants $2 or $2 million. If you don't pay it, they take your property and kick you out just like a landlord would. It's a perfectly appropriate analogy.

Personally, I'm not inherently opposed to property tax, though I would much rather see services paid for a different way if possible. They really NEED to codify a hard cap for property tax percentage. The part about property tax that bothers me is that they are willing to ratchet up the percentage to laughable levels. When I was a child, it would take 100+ years to pay in property taxes what the value of the property was (1%). Now we're at a level of about 30-35 years (~3%). Nobody cared when home values were rising exponentially. But now that prices have stabilized in most places, it seems absurd that the government can take an increasingly large slice of your assets, and they need to precisely because home values aren't going up, yet they need more and more revenue. At some point, owning a property becomes a liability (what if the government taxed at 10%, or 25%?). My math says we're really close to that tipping point (approximately 3.5%), where the value taken by taxes harms the value of the home more than the services they're paying for.

We need to pay for schools and roads and parks and libraries, but paying for those through property taxes makes us serfs of the state. Even though yours is $2k/year, you are still under serfdom, it's just a lighter load.

You don't get sarcasm, do you? I was using humor to make a point, as my proposal would clearly (very clearly) never actually work in real life. I swear the critical reading skill have left this site (mods, I'm looking at you).

I'm all for #1 unless we start to get squishy on what law-abiding means. It would be disrespectful of the 2nd amendment to say that anyone with a blemish on their record (e.g. a parking ticket, you filthy lawbreaker) is banned from gun ownership.

Regarding #4, I would love to have a rational discussion about gun control policy, but the left has literally made that impossible. That's why we have to resort to hyperbole and sarcasm. But I can guarantee you this is what's going to happen: the left will totally disregard the fact that they made this man who he is if this was indeed politically motivated, but they will be howl for far stricter gun control no matter what you say about points #2 and #3 in your post. They might as well start a conspiracy where they send believers out to shoot up the public so they can force their policy onto the country

I support Gun Control for those who advocate for it. Anyone who registers to vote as a Democrat may not own a gun. That will take care of the problem in the urban areas, right? And it will also keep guns out of the hands of the tolerant, inclusive, loving left who feel the need to shoot up congressmen.

The rest of us will be able to peacefully enjoy responsible gun ownership.

Maybe he and Marissa can make a baby now

warning: missing terminating " character
error: missing terminating " character
error: expected primary-expression before 'return'

Editors--that makes it hard to read, because I can't trust when Intel's quote ends so I don't know if it's Intel speaking or editorializing for any given sentence.

Thanks for the reply instead of the down-mod (I guess I got hit by a Trumper before the discussion could grow--must be because I forgot my usual disclaimer of being a lifelong Conservative [registered] Republican who just can't stand Trump).

Anyway, there is more than one message to take away from today's hearing. The biggest lessons didn't have anything to do with Comey, but for some reason this site has turned really conservative and let its newer bias write the headline. This place was very liberal when I was in high school and college. But I digress...

You might want to watch or read the testimony again. Trump did not handle things correctly after that first meeting. It was requested that all communication from the President go through the AG, yet Trump insisted on calling Comey more than once. He was clearly concerned with something about the investigation into Russia. It might be as insignificant as the optics*, it might be as substantial as worrying about getting caught for committing crimes in collusion w/ his underlings wrt Russia (not saying Trump did, but if he did that would be a big worry of his).

Trump has not been particularly professional in the President's Office. There have been some bright spots, for sure, like the State of the Union and the fact that he hasn't fiddled with the Football, but I have no doubts that Trump has been a serial liar when it comes to Comey. Trump is the one who looks bad if the truth comes out--he's the only one with motive to hide anything--so the Republicans had no alternate explanation for Comey's insistence that he was fired because of the FBI's investigation into Russia. There is no other reasonable explanation. That really is the #1 headline from the hearing today.

I totally agree about McCain. The guy needed to shut up. There was no double standard. Comey was investigating Russia wherever it led him. Comey also investigated Clinton for the email scandal. Sounds relatively non-partisan to me, but McCain couldn't coherently make his point that he thought the whole thing was "unfair".

*If it was just the optics, did he think firing the guy investigating would be GOOD for optics??

You're asking the wrong questions. Of course the MSM uses accurate information. It's usually the withholding of information that's makes certain reporting an attack rather than journalism.

For instance, look at Trump's lawyer's press briefing after today's hearing. Nothing he said was directly misinformation, but it's clear that it was one-sided. He worked hard to convey Comey as a "confessed leaker" and that "Trump never told Comey he needed loyalty." These things are technically literally true, but the first is a misdirection and the second is untrue semantically.

There is no doubt that the MSM uses these tactics to attack Trump. There is also no doubt that Fox News uses these tactics to defend Trump. It's really plainly obvious when you listen to both sides and discover information that was conveniently excluded to promote an agenda. But people can sense that and they realize that what they're being told is pretty much BS. What's a really bummer is that it only seems to discredit the media of the "side" you're not on for most people.

That's the headline?! I know that was a big part of the testimony, but the real story is that Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it (all Trump has at this point is a thin veneer of plausible deniability--"I only said that I hoped...it was a wish, not a command."). That's the part that's really worth talking about, not the Comey leak.

By the way, Snowden is wrong. Comey didn't break any rules. It's not like he leaked classified information.

I came here to say the same thing. I remember reading about Obama's data operations in an article like this one: https://www.technologyreview.c...

The DNC moped the floor with the RNC in terms of data analytics and social media use during Obama's campaign. Did they suddenly dismantle that when Hilary ran? I have a hard time believing that they didn't even make progress on it. At the same time, I was skeptical that the RNC had improved their data analytics over the last 4 years, and while I'm sure they did, I have to imagine the comparative advantage went to the DNC.

Hilary's cognitive dissonance is really astounding. I hope this pisses off the DNC and causes them to go for someone else in 2020.

"Congressional-executive agreements" are honestly the best way to do it, frankly, as any ratified treaty becomes as binding as the US Constitution itself and it's significantly tougher to back out of it if it's suddenly a bad treaty for the country. If we align our laws to match foreign treaties, then we can use the same law passing power (simple majority) to get out of it if necessary. Other countries may not feel as confident in that model as the Constitutional Treaty, but these days I believe other countries are getting a lot more out of us than we're getting out of them, so I'm sure they're more than willing to "risk" it.

Sure, you jump to dumb conclusions and I'm the problem.

I literally said that I didn't care that they did the test, but that's the first thing you attack in response. It's partisan because if Hillary had won, Gizmodo would not have conducted this "test".

When I smell partisan BS, I'm going to call it out. Reds and Blues being at each other's throats is not going to solve anything in this country.

PS You're pretty naive if you don't see the bias and partisanship in this and most of the world. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything is partisan, but it's pretty darn close, unfortunately, and sticking your head in the sand about that doesn't help anything.