PseudoSABR

No, he couldn't have. Show me where speaking in support of terrorism/suicide-bombing generally is crime. Hate-speech and threat crimes demand a specific threat and a likelihood of following through/imminent harm. What this guy said five years ago did not provide the basis for an arrest. If you can point to an actual legal authority that says otherwise, I'm all ears.

How is it that you believe this would be legal? Cite to some authority that Britain could have done any of this. Expressing--even awful ideas--doesn't not provide the basis to deprive someone of liberty. Another small problem, you can't deport citizens.

The reason why there's an aversion to take what you call necessary steps is because those steps are not allowed under the law. No law enforcement officer refuses to act on enough evidence to arrest for pedophilia or terrorism. Having violent and extremist views in and of itself does not constitute a crime, at least in free societies. Although the British have a lower standard for arrest (reasonable suspicion) and different rights, there's nothing in the facts we know to suggest that there was enough to make an arrest on charges for a particular crime. Again, expressing radical views, even violent views, without a particularized threat, does not constitute a crime in any free society.

If authorities had probable cause (or whatever) to arrest, they would have. There isn't some conspiracy to protect extremist Muslims, if there's no arrests, it's because they don't have probable cause under the law. Making the law harsher--lowering the standard of proof for arrest/deportation--would have widespread effects if it survived constitutional scrutiny as it would not target just Islam but any radicalized institutional violence. Arguably, there's far more domestic, non-Muslim terror enacted within our borders.

Does the Montana throat slam help or hurt the GOP candidate, Greg Gianforte? Good on the Fox News reporters to relay their account, adverse as it was to Gianforte's own statement.

What is happening to this cat?

Are you really suggesting we deny people constitutional* due process (among other rights) because of their religion? A strict Constitutionalist, I see. *I imagine the British constitution has similar guarantees.

I don't mean to paint you in any which way. Honestly. I wasn't sure what you meant. I'm worried about that kind of thinking generally so I tried to address it broadly, sorry if it seemed directed at you. On the issue: I guess it's hard to discern what weird is; people cling to weird of all different stripes and group together unreasonably and fervently to find meaning--the weird is just the vehicle, not the source of the hate. Religion happens to be the readily available vehicle in most places that face any scale of strife. My point generally is that you can't root out what it is about Islam, or whatever-ism, that that may portend violence; it's a foolhardy exercise. Rather it's better to address the underlying issues that lay the ground work for organized, radical, ideological terror. People will group together by whatever they can to resist the depravity of their existence, esp. over generations. We could abolish religion, and the depravity of the human condition in some places would necessitate the invention of some other institutional belief that went some name other than religion.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, if not blaming the religion instead of radicalized individuals. And I think it's naive to believe that radicalization or cult-like mentalities are exclusive to religions. I'd argue that Trumpism, the Tea-Party, and white nationalism are secular radical ideologies that are capable of great harm, though perhaps not often through the vehicle of terror. Because the Manchester attack and recent other American attacks have been unleashed by people who were citizens or the like--these individuals were not exclusively a product of a backwoods, isolated culture--our capacity to shift the burden to Islam or some-such other Otherness doesn't make sense to me. Dismantling all religion will only cause desperate people to rally around some other icon/cause to find the meaning they lack in their lives. WII is the start of the terrorist era, not because of something that happened within Islam, but because the West redrew the borders of countries without regard to their cultural integrity--that these countries happened to be Muslim is largely a coincidence, whatever their religion, the people of that region would have still have inherited a legacy of eventual violence--these people rallied around Islam because it was there to rally around, and its more extremist notions became tools for those wishing to capitalize on generational anger. IMHO, as long as we allow our world economy to make winner's and loser's along geographical boundaries, the so-called winners will face terror from the so-called losers. Regional-based terror, or class-based terror, is no better than Religious-based terror.

I think you might fudging your history (even recently) a bit here.

There's a like feature, fyi.

Doesn't Nolasco have an option/vesting year that kicks in if he gets enough starts in years 3 and 4 of the deal (or something like that)?

He's literally bragging about obstructing justice. Jesus.

Looks like Kushner is under investigation. And Comey's confirmed he'll speak to the Senate in an open hearing after Memorial Day. Maybe Trump won't come back after his trip abroad?

It's not because athletes really are great role models. It's that super star athletes have so much exposure, if they happen to be a good role model perhaps it has a widespread effect. People want to believe in the goodness of the players they root for everyday (perhaps desperately so). I see it as naive rather than willfully blind.

Warning, the following image contains foul language. http://68.media.tumblr.com/f44f1b0ad0219754e1739f34491e7b2a/tumblr_oq2izbrpol1svzlzeo1_1280.jpg

It's one thing to say something untoward in the heat of anger/passion, but when your go-to-pejorative is slur about a particular group, you can expect a lot of flak, and rightfully so. It's not as if Pillar used a generic insult, like jerk/a-hole/etc. (No one would care). The issue isn't that Pillar was being mean (although it's not great to be mean), the issue is that he used a group-specific insult to be mean. If you need to refer to sub-groups to insult someone, there's an issue.

S'all good, man.

Ruh-roh. FBI executing warrants on GOP fundraising firm.

Are the Cinnabon scenes we see at the beginning of this season between Jimmy and Saul, or after BB?

As others have said, I hope you keep sharing your takes. And I'd like to point out that I do (and many probably do as well) distinguish between conservative and RW, with the later signalling the turn away from conservativeness towards autocracy. On Comey, the issue for many is 'why now?' Sure he was arguably incompetent, but that was the case on day 1 of Trump's presidency. The rationale given for firing Comey doesn't add up in terms of timing, much less seem like the actual reasons.

Right, Additionally, Comey had officially asked Rosenstein (Deputy AG) for more money and people for the Russia investigation just last week. So why now? Because Comey was seeking to ramp up the investigation (put another way, there's so many leads he didn't have the people or resources to properly investigate it all).

Isn't the lesson that you hold onto assets (even depreciated ones), so that you can retain future assets? Whether the a certain team wins or loses a trade isn't the point so much as they didn't choose to wait until their given asset was worth nothing.

In any case, insurance companies aren't going to compete on cost, they will compete on service (or lack thereof). Competition won't lower health care costs, but it could lower why insurance plans provide. (As Mike points out there's a nominal profit that all insurance companies need to make in order to stay operational; that's not to let them off the hook, but rather to point out how market conditions won't solve the cost problem).

And there's this: