There's always rye, people. Calm down.

In Texas's defense, they have a machinehead. It's better than the rest.

It's called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder," and it's [back] in the DSM-5.

Or, the cornerstone of the holiday might be what the government intended it to be when making it a holiday, to wit:

Well, if you're not going to kick off the blog post equivalent of an 80s sitcom clip show with a joke minimizing the sacrifices of people who died in the service of their country in favor of complaining that it's hard to get someplace when you go there at the exact same time as half the population of the Eastern…

"everything old is bad"

I'm a little surprised that Schacher hasn't come out denying that she filed this incomprehensible garbage.

I understand the philosophy behind giving teams draft pick compensation for departing free agents, but the NBA has taken it way, way too far.

Not liking to be hit on by people to whom you're not attracted doesn't make you phobic. If a lesbian did not want to go to some mostly-straight meat market because guys would hit on her, that would be totally understandable. It would not make her a misandrist or a heterophobe.

Unless that hockey player's first name is Alexander. Then you might see it all the time.

PROTIP: Not dating someone you like solely because of your fear that other people will think ill of you for doing so makes you a coward.

BobbyRush is a conservative troll who posts nothing but reductio ad absurdum versions of "liberal" positions on this site.

That kind of attitude also allows these nuts to treat "the government" as some monolithic entity instead of being a thing which is made up of people.

You can't recover on the potential for economic damages to manifest at some point. You have to have concrete, provable damages with a causal link to the false statement, or you'll be dismissed for lack of standing out of the gate. So: what's the damage done by a comment on Concourse - a comment that, as you…

It's about as attractive as the picture in the above article, right?

Actual malice subsumes reckless disregard within its definition. I did not leave it out.

I would advise no such thing, as I already stated.

I wasn't discussing defamation writ large. I was discussing the immediate case.

When a statement is so blatantly false that average people will not believe it, or when it is so easily disproven as to be brushed aside with a simple Google search (a step that any reasonable employer would take), it's hard to argue damages in any significant amount. See, you have to be able to prove tangible,…

I didn't say that there were no potential liability issues (there are always potential liability issues); I said it's not as simple as you portray it.