DC Tom

Is KB out there, or is he in street clothes and on his way home already?

How the hell do they call that a fumble? And why would you challenge for a, what, six-yard difference in spot?

Snippets I'm seeing on NFL Red Zone, it looks like sandlot football played by a taller, stronger Doug Flutie.

Reverse Kelvin Benjamin syndrome.

Last time I saw someone post this - exactly this - was Trent Edwards' third game.

Or both.

Allen is going to get himself killed.

I don't have to work at DHS.

So I only have the radio feed...but from the posts here it sounds like, just as I predicted, Benjamin pretty much retired mid-route?

Yeah, it's my fault for getting threatened and harassed on my way to work. I should have anticipated that when I went to work at DHS.

Why even ask him anything? Just make a statement about "rape culture" and "war on women," and it'll be just as meaningful.

So "credibility" should actually be "creiiidblthankyou?" I'll remember that, thanks.

Can't argue with that logic.

"When is the process going to be fair to a rape victim who's lived with this trauma for 35 years? Misogyny, War on Women, yada yada yada..." This whole thing has been artfully constructed to ensure Republicans are wrong at every turn.

You didn't read a word I posted, did you? Veracity: the quality of being true. Credibility: the quality of being able to establish veracity. In this case, the truth or falsity of the claim is irrelevant, because it cannot be established. The accusation has no CREDIBILITY, because it is impossible to establish its VERACITY. Nowhere in there is it stated or implied it was made-up. "Not credible" is not equivalent to "make-believe."

I can't decide if you're a poster with a drinking problem, or a drunk with a posting problem.

Yeah...uh...lost in Strassel's excellent thread is the fact that the Post had the entire detailed accusation before the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee ever saw it. Again: there's a difference between "veracity" and "credibility." The accusation's veracity - it may very well be true. But it's credibility...it has none, it's a craven political hit intended to do nothing more than !@#$ with the normal functioning of federal government. It's an attempt by the Democrats to do an end-around the filibuster rule that they themselves so short-sightedly created.

This is pretty sad. While this: Is true, if you're claiming this Establishing someone as a witness to your accusation, then this: Is patently ridiculous. They are directly stating that the witnesses who corroborate their accusation are not credible witnesses. What's more, they're using that lack of credibility and the accusation to justify each other - "She's a witness...but she won't remember anything, because nothing happened to her, which proves our story!" This has entered conspiracy theory territory, where even evidence that contradicts the accusation proves the accusation. The truly nauseating thing about it is how many victims of sexual assault this is going to discourage from coming forward.

Oh God. Don't encourage the chucklehead.

No, I'm saying you're all idiots.

Thanks, Mr. Cosby. Hardly universal advice. Ask an astronomer. I can confirm this.

"Insider help" like...the people at Google who have already talked about scrubbing search results for political reasons? Facebook, who's spent the past two years being raked over the coals and developing real-time processes and procedures to censor whatever they define as "fake news" or "hate speech?" Welcome to the dangers of the "Russia hacked our election" over-reaction. There is no way to suppress "fake" information without the capacity to suppress any and all information. Even if they can't do it know, they've been publicly working on that ability for two years.

I'll save you a seat. Bring steaks.

I particularly like "But that's from 2005." No double standard there.

I can see wings flapping. So clearly...they're ornithopters looking for spice patches in the high desert of Arrakis. Or birds. Probably ornithopters, though. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!