DC Tom

"Boarder?" Gator, stop using mead's account.

Yes, when you typed "without proper compensation."

Nice how that includes "I think minimum wage is too low." That's actually a bad definition, for completely ignoring the concept of labor mobility. "Proper" is completely subjective, and "forced to do labor" is not always an accurate description of systems of slavery (even in American slavery pre-Civil-War, it wasn't always accurate.) But the absence of labor mobility - the idea that a worker can walk away from a job for a better one - is always a feature of slavery.

How much does he drink? Because all great writers are alcoholics. He can't be a great writer without a fifth of scotch on his desk.

Yes, I do.

Really? Last I checked, I can still murder you if I so choose. I never gave up that ability.

That's some good propaganda work by the IDF.

Don't know. Don't even know of the Saudis killed him. It basically comes down to who you believe: Erdogan or the House of Saud. And I don't put any stock in the credibility of either.

Not when the royal family is so factionalized.

Because the royal family murdering someone and a bunch of schmucks committing terrorism aren't the same thing.

"Right to murder?" That is the strawiest of strawmen to ever straw.

If you read the actual decision and the majority opinion, you'd see that it does. The primary factor against Colorado in finding their anti-religious bias was that they did recognize the right to refuse services for ceremonies or messages, but applied it inconsistently. Kennedy's opinion establishes exactly what I said.

The Supreme Court actually indulged in a nice bit of hair splitting in that case, distinguishing between serving a person, versus serving a ceremony. And in splitting that hair, made a decently rational and equitable precedent: while you can't deny service to an individual based on individual characteristic - say, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple or a KKK member, you can refuse to provide service to a ceremony you don't support - i.e., a gay wedding or a KKK rally.

Those aren't immutable characteristics. They should be, but...

Booker's a bloody moron. But Trump's already set the precedent for bloody morons in the White House, so why the hell not? (Side note: my phone tried to autocomplete "bloody morons in the White House" as "bloody morons in the Senate." :lol:)

She investigated financial crimes. She'd almost certainly have access to info on Russia, Iran, and ISIS. Given all the money laundering they do.

The important thing to remember is that, while Republicans lie, Democrats find their positions evolving. Lets also not forget how many Democrats (like Biden) "evolved" after voting for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Funny thing is that likely makes it less criminal. Since Facebook is already considered "public information," there's no argument to be made that Heitkamp's people "leaked" anything or "doxxed" anyone. It does further reinforce the fact that Democrats don't care about assault victims beyond "How can we use them?"

Colts 14, Bills 2. No offense points scored.

By what deranged stretch of the imagination do you believe the Bills will get value out of the #1 pick?

Important to realize that this is common, because states do a lousy job managing voter rolls. My wife and I were just notified this year we were taken off VA's voter rolls, where we haven't lived for 13 years. We were registered in two states...not because of fraud, but because of state stupidity.

Stupidity has consequences.

They didn't paraphrase it at all. It was a direct, exact quote. They contextualized it dishonestly. Which is what media outlets consistently do.

Are we back to "deficits matter?"

She is what the Cherokee call nijadanhtvna. "Really crazy."