DC Tom

Bunch of ***** elephant *****...

And what message would that be? "Wear gloves when you handle envelopes?" "Don't cover your van in stickers that scream 'Mad Serial Bomber?'" "Make sure your ***** actually works?" "If you're a congenital *****-up with a 20 year history of getting caught for every crime you try to commit, maybe you should take up knitting instead of domestic terrorism?"

"BREAKING NEWS: Is Trump's Boundless Energy Due to Cocaine Or Methamphetamine Abuse?" [/CNN chyron]

No. You just based your ENTIRE judgement of him on "But think of the children!" And you're now trying to backtrack from it. You're not even a very good NPC. You're from EA, aren't you?

In addition to the administration's crackdown on human trafficking and drug smuggling across the border, there's another under-reported yet very serious issue they've been addressing quietly by effectively: poutine trafficking.

Nothing new. I hear that a lot.

Clinton: 'You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for'

He's not woke enough to be truly racist.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. The people pushing "incivility" towards those who would "destroy" them would be (and I think are) hopelessly naive to not expect an incivil response to their rhetoric.

If you're voting for president based on "Who's the better role model," you have a seriously *****-up view of parenting. Know what the single most damaging thing is to our country? The belief that the president must have a near-popish moral center, making him an appropriate father/therapist/teacher/archetype/paragon of virtue for the entire country. Except those features are what define royalty - the "divine right of kings." That's why we have checks and balances, because the people who designed our government were aware that the president would HAVE no divinity embodied within him, and that there thus must be curbs on the authority of invariably flawed people. Of course, you'll likely argue that the government hadn't anticipated platforms like Twitter that would amplify the president's flaws. Which would be an atrocious counter-argument, since it basically comes down to "I don't like Trump's tweets!" Which would be the stupidest measure of presidential effectiveness ever.

Not if they're trying to embarrass Fauxchahontas.

A) Cheating B) got a personal foul. C) uncalled holding.

Probably has better internet service than Verizon.

Always fun to read the replies from white liberals saying "Blacks don't know what's good for themselves, they need to listen to ME when I tell them they're being oppressed!"

That'll be the stupidest thing I've seen all day. At least it's afternoon today. I think I'm going to start tweeting #StupidestThingI'veSeenAllDay once a day.

Elizabeth Warren was a victim. I mean...she's only 1/1024 a victim. So...

To expand on Doc's and contradict pete's posts: the single biggest predictor of violence, by FAR, is a previous history of offenses. Period. Not "Trump supporter," not "Hillary supporter," not "Proud Boy," not "Antifa," not "gun owner." Somebody who does this is always someone who's been in trouble and on the police's radar.

I vote "Crazy Horse."

From their point of view, a lot of people got hurt NECESSARILY because of what they did. When you're fighting Nazis, etc...

So...no WRs, no line, no RBs, and no QB. We're a Charles Clay injury away from "This offense can LITERALLY not get any worse."

"Equal Employment Opportunity"

There's a guy who parks near my office with a truck plastered with anti-abortion, anti-Clinton, anti-Obama messages. Definite right-wing looney-tune. But from talking to him, you'd think he's left-wing. Not because of the positions he holds, but because of his absolute immunity to any rational thought. Invariably cuckoo for Cocoa-Puffs. Even if it's thirty "This Vehicle Climbed Mt. Washington" stickers. Especially if it's thirty "This Vehicle Climbed Mt. Washington" stickers, come to think of it. Who would drive up Mt. Washington that frequently?

They were well within their rights. They weren't required to provide information to the Senate. It's not malfeasance on their part, it's editorialism. *****, biased editorialism. But still editorialism.

He actually does sound like the kind of guy who would hear Clinton's statement and say "Well...okay, *****!" He's not a "three strikes" offender, so much as a "two strikes, thirty foul tips" offender.