DC Tom

There's at least one judge in the country who'll issue a stay on a presidential emergency order issued by Trump, and the Democrats will venue-shop until they find him. But he's wearing them on his head. I snicker because it's not worth considering. There was no evidence that the birthers would accept as proof Obama was born in the US. And it didn't even matter - "born within the borders of the US" is not the definition of "natural born citizen."

I was gonna say, that's not bad for Jersey. I'd personally rather leave Jersey and find an attractive woman, but if you can't leave the state - you're car's in the shop, you're chained to a light post, you've confined to a hospital bed after a horrible badminton accident - she's certainly acceptable.

Not Al Jazeera. They have standards.

To keep out the deplorables. They allow illegal immigrants inside their walls, to do their landscaping.

They lied. Pelosi never negotiates after she gets what she wants.

So I don't have to go look. Let me guess...yet another desperate failed attempt to prove he's not a shitgoblin?

Point of note: I never assumed you're abusive to your family. I have no evidence to support that, and have been very careful to not say so. I merely see you as being at high risk to be so. You've left us plenty of evidence for that.

What'd he say now? Do I have to go look?

That's why I'm funny and you're not.

Now, from those who brought you Summer of Recover, Summer of Recovery II, Summer of Recovery III: Recover With a Vengeance, Summer of Recovery IV: Recover Harder, Summer of Recovery V: Live Free or Recover, and Summer of Recovery VI: A Good Day to Recover Hard, comes the newest blockbuster: Summer of Impeachment III.

That would be interesting, considering the half-dozen times Obama abused "national emergency" powers on situations that weren't an emergency, without injunctions or even complaints. Never saw the human rights sanctions against Burundi go to court, did you? Which isn't to say you're wrong. Just that you're pushing an egregious double standard.

I know something of what DR has been doing the past few years, and what his sources do. He's not being dismissive of yoh. He actually has them.

Let me add that I read The Root. But I do knowing its biases.

The inference they didn't is also incorrect. There were as many reasons as there were slaveholders. Black farmers of any moderate size would have required slave labor due to the economic structure of the South. Urban black middle class merchants might own slaves as a mark of status. Like I said, *****'s more complex than you think. The source is garbage. The Root interprets everything through modern racial anger that didn't exist in the mid-1800's.

I just had this image of Acosta standing on Omaha beach arguing with General Cota about Eisenhower's ties to Naziism.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/10/world/mission-to-somalia-tv-army-on-the-beach-took-us-by-surprise.html CNN having light towers set up on the beach still makes me crack up. They had enough time to set up light towers to photograph Marines coming ashore...and the Marines were surprised.

And DNC emails do not equal Clinton emails... ...unless you're arguing that, yes, Donna Brazille is right and the DNC was a wholly-controlled subsidiary of the Clinton campaign. Pick your poison, liberals.

Somalia. Marines landing on the beach, met and interviewed by CNN.

I've heard at least three times this morning (on the radio, no link) that Stone was arrested for lying about his role in the Clinton email hack, what he knew about the Wikileaks releases, and his "ties" to Guccifer 2.0. The interesting thing about that is that there was no "Clinton email hack." There was a DNC email hack. But there was the joke during the campaign by Trump about Russia releasing Clinton's emails. Given that, and CNN's presence at a "secret" raid...pretty sure this is going to be used to file articles of impeachment against Trump on "he asked the Russians to release Clinton's emails to Wikileaks; the indictment of Stone proves collusion" grounds.

No...but slaveholders listed their slaves, since they counted for 3/5 a person for state representation in the House, which is the entire purpose of the census. Of course Southern states listed slaves in their census results. Otherwise they'd be underrepresented in Congress.

I know. But it's not so much "renaming" standards as "misapplying" or "misrepresenting" them. This current discussion is a good example - a consistent confusion of the concepts of "life" and "viability." Life begins "when you can hear a heartbeat," which is 7 gestational weeks...but no head or spine, and a quarter-inch long? Not even remotely a viable person. So should the argument be "when life begins," or "when viability begins?" Because viability is considered to start after...24 weeks, which shows you the basis for NY's bill (25 weeks is the point where half of all premature births survive.) Whether or not that's a reasonable legal definition for abortion legality, I think it at least represents a reasonable point of departure for discussion, being as it is a concrete objective measurable.

You wouldn't have heard of it. I found it digging through census data. I've never seen it anywhere else.

At two months, it's not a child. It's not even a fetus. But you can't see a head or spine.

To you. It was to her.

What's really interesting is that there was a fairly robust black middle class in much of the antebellum South, that was largely destroyed by the Civil War. In Charleston, SC, where secession and the Civil War started, some 40% of slaveholders were middle-class blacks. *****'s always more complex than you think. Or were taught.