5th line wingnutt

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-why-trump-doesnt-admit-russian-election-interference thought this would interest you.

I grew up in Jersey and my parents lived there until my Dad died. Their property taxes were outrageous, too.

I left NY partly because the economy was bad and the taxes were too. I left in 1994, have there been tax increases since then? I really did not know it was that bad. Y'all need to march on Albany with torches and pitchforks.

It only hurts if you are paying more than 10K in state and local tax. How many middle class folks is this?

How does this hurt the middle class?

Why do you think this?

It is only the evil, greedy 1 per centers that will suffer. Screw 'em.

Schadenfreudelicious Of interest to New Yorkers.

I agree, and it goes double for public sector unions.

The president has the authority to fire the fbi director for any reason or no reason at all. How does exercising lawful authority constitute obstruction?

He said obstruction was "obvious". That seems pretty slam dunky to me.

Maybe i did. If you have a slam dunk case, why not just state it? Three evasive responses in a row leaves me in doubt as to the strength of your case. What is "YA"?

I have followed this subject. I have not come across evidence of obstruction. Maybe i missed something. Please explain.

What did Trump do that constitutes obstruction of justice?

Not obvious to me. Please explain.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/

Where did you get this data?

What is the over/under before kavanaugh is hitler?

Barrett is bit too young and inexperienced but i otherwise like her.

!st bold: Why is this bad? 2nd bold: Absolutely poorer or relatively poorer? 3rd bold: We just got done lowering these rates and the economy took off after almost a decade of slow growth. I think the rates ought to be lowered even more. 4th bold: cut spending. 5th bold: I do not think much of boomers either and I am one.

I do not see where either of these disavow personal morality. Why do you think this?

Sometimes it is hard to tell satire from reality. https://babylonbee.com/news/senate-democrats-demand-supreme-court-nominee-not-be-unduly-influenced-by-u-s-constitution/

I have never taken a hard look at advanced stats but try this on for size... Take a random defenseman, I'll call him Nathan Beaulieu, (not his real name) and suppose that he plays a good, steady game for the most part. He will have a really good CF%. Now add in, on average, 2 catastrophically bad mistakes per game, resulting in 1.5 shots and .75 goals. This lowers his CF% from really good to just plain good. His goal differential will suck. We use CF% because of sample size. Maybe CF% is a good predictive stat but goal differential is a better explanatory stat.

Many of the opponents of libertarianism have never really studied it. They have a little bit of mostly second-hand knowledge about it, usually from someone else who does not like it. They try to pigeonhole it just as you did. You seem to think libertarians are all disciples of Rand and the objectivists. Another poster (Dark?) seems to think we are all about economics and greed. Libertarianism starts with the Scottish enlightenment around 1695. It encompasses disciplines including, but not limited to, political philosophy, economics, ethics/moral philosophy, legal philosophy, praxeology, and natural rights theory. It comes from some of the greatest minds of western civilization like Mill, Locke, and Smith. It has been continued by newer thinkers like von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Buchanan, and Nozick, among many others. Is it really reasonable to try and shoe horn three and quarter centuries of intellectual effort into one little box? You are not really critiquing libertarianism, you are critiquing your own caricature of libertarianism.

I also used this.