Calax

No, in that area they are different. The model/voice actress is a slender little thing. You do realize the Beauty and Beast unit from 4 were carbon copies of glamour models.

Jesus O'Mally, SHUT UP ABOUT THE ENERGY GRID. Although he does have a good point that the democrats seem to be more on the same side than the republicans.

To be fair, He's trying to hit the buzz words from his CNN's bosses, and the candidates just straight up rebelled.

And CNN has lost control

This debate boils down to Hillary saying "I've done a lot of this before." while Bernie tries to be her counterpoint, and the other three just try to get face time.

Jesus, this entire debate is gonna be "Small business" vs Employees...

Anyone know where I could get my hands on NwN 2 or something? I've got that itch (and that signed copy of Storm of Zehir still... I think my discs are all back in California)

To be fair, in that out of africa map, there is a certain point (I think around 20000 years ago) where those living in Africa were futher apart from those living in Europe than us.

Mad Max, DoW 2, MGSV on occasion that I get to play. Considering getting into a D&D game if I can find one to play with people.

GD... aren't we forgetting that Boehner was the one who fought against the President so hard he literally shut down the government in a petty squabble, and killed the credit rating for the federal government?

My point was more to WoD's mention that "There's nothing to STOP texas from departing the union" sentiment. The entire point that Lincoln had to make was that by it's very nature, an act of secession would be against the law because the seceding territory wouldn't be governed by any law and wouldn't have permission from the Federal Government to become it's own government. And that's the historical precedent that we have t operate on, which for lack of a better guideline would shape all foreign and domestic policy. Besides I think Guam and Puerto Rico would have a better chance at secession over Texas. After all, those two are technically not even US states (American Saomoa too) and therefor aren't bound as tightly to the rest of the US (consider, if Texas left, it'd be locked with two trading partners and very little economic base) as any of the actual states.

I'd love that, we'd finally stop being a flock of sheep and secede. Edit: Btw, style point, "Sharia law" is redundant. You do realize that seceding would mean facing the full power of the US military which in the case of preserving the Union would not hesitate to resort to total war if it needed to. The Texans would be forced to stay, or if that became impossible they'd all be killed, by nuclear strikes if needed. No state leaves the union; much less with it's people alive. I don't think the military would fight against Texas for a commie government. Most of people in the military are either Texans or Southerners. Scotland was allowed to leave, how's that different from Texas? Even the republics of the Soviet Union were allowed to leave, are you saying our government is worst than the communists? Edit: In reality, there'd be a civil war in Texas between those wanting to leave and those who don't, that's the real obstacle. The Great Emancipator has declared that you are WRONG sir.

Apparently Huckabee has (in relation to this case) stated that the Dred Scott case is still the law of the land. Only seen it reported by the journalistic ROCK of Buzzfeed... which seems awkward. http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/huckabee-dred-scott-decision-remains-to-this-day-the-law-of#.ker1z8W27 The actual soundbyte is down near the bottom.

She's not in there for life. Contempt is for as long as she refuses the court order, which is exactly what the law states. As to illegals (which I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing it up as this is more akin to a guy saying "It's my personal belief to show my **** in public" and then being confused when he's tossed in jail) they'd get processed and sent home, not detained in prison for years.

I'm sorry, when did you become a frothing mad idiot who projects his wants and needs onto other people so hard he can't spell? Honestly, it's more you don't care about the law because THIS LADY BROKE THE ACTUAL LAW.

Yes it does. She has the option to get out today... or tomorrow. No matter what any Rapist or murderer gets a mandatory minimum sentence with opportunities for parole after that point (if they're good). All she has to do to get out is her job... Meanwhile the "Murderers and rapists" in the same cells could repent and be saints and still be locked away. It's ultimately her decision to be there, she knew the consequences when she refused a court order.

This is basically the crux of it. As much as you want it to be something bigger about the nature of the law or whatever, this is the core of the issue. She refused to accept the law of the land, and she's not in a position where she can change the laws on her own. Her big moral stance is ultimately worthless because she's still a low level functionary within the government. Historically the only time a government won't come down on a low level functionary like that regardless of their political affiliation, for disobeying the direct orders from above, is when the government is basically falling apart at a federal level, meaning that the functionary is left as the highest form of government until the Feds get themselves sorted out. And as much as Volo may complain, NOBODY want's truely free speech... not even comedians who build their entire repertoire on being filthy jerks. Because ultimately the ultimate in free speech is "Yelling fire in a crowded room". And as much as a comedian might get outraged about being terminated (from ad campaigns and the like) for a filthy joke, ultimately it's the right of that advertiser to cut them loose for "Being themselves". "But he got away with it" is never an actual excuse for breaking the law or rules...

The thing is, everyone makes these comments about the Clerk because they think "It won't matter to her, I'm just a guy on the internet" The woman deserves to get her head handed to her metaphorically by the government, but not to become the villain in a "Message" movie. GD, I think that you'll find many liberals don't want government for the sake of government, they want government for the sake of protection from companies. A libertarian's paradise ends up being a world in which you have a very strict class structure defined by where you were born simply because those on top are able to define the "game" to their heavy advantage, while those at the bottom work... but have most of their pay taken back in return for room and board. A larger and better funded government means that your schools would be better, your roads wouldn't be the bumpiest things on the planet, and you wouldn't have a foster care system that is rampant with abuse. Yes the government would want to tax you more, but in an ideal world, those taxes would be put towards preventing situations like those found in schools these days from occurring (where teachers are graded and given pay raises... based on a formula used for breeding cattle). This thing with the clerk highlights the elephant in the room. We're not a society defined by a majority, we're a society defined by the most extreme elements. Those on the left think those on the right are a bunch of "'murica! **** YEAH!" racist gun nuts who want to blow up the world. Those on the right think those on the left are communist gays who want to have a world of no consequences and to be babied. Those who are atheistic think that the religious are all young earth creationists, while those who are religious think that atheists all burn the bible and make love to goats, just to get back at the whole "morality" schtick. And here we have a woman who's a bigot, probably without realizing it. Many people are socialized with these sorts of built in hatreds simply because they had no real exposure beyond stereotypes. I personally can come off as a massive racist, because when I grew up there was 1 black guy in my entire schooling. I make snap judgements in my head about my customers based on their looks (when I give them credit checks usually) and get surprised when they have decent credit (well enough to rent a car), simply because I grew up in the rich red part of California. And this Clerk probably views homosexuality as a mortal sin, while her divorce is much more accepted. But if this was the Tudor dynasty, she'd be much more against the concept of divorce simply because that's the law of the day.

I think it should be considered that the case of Ms. Davis is one in which she's deliberately ignoring the highest power in the land about the very facet of her job. From the law's standpoint this isn't about her personal moral stance on a particular item of the day, instead it's the fact that one person is deliberately standing up to the court and everything the court stands for within the bounds of the United States. If you cannot force one hick from the middle of the poorest regions of the states to comply with the law of the land, how can you say you have the authority and ability to enforce any other law within the realm of the government? Were I in the courts shoes, this wouldn't be about the marriages anymore, this is about her refusing to capitulate to those deemed her superior in authority. She can claim that God's authority is higher, but she has to deal with the here and now, and the consequences of her decisions. After all, what's a short lifetime in prison if she's spending eternity in Heaven for "standing up for her beliefs" anyway.

I assume we are talking about Trump. If his offensive remarks are taking away from his actual substance and platforms, that is completely on him. Although oddly, it seems to be helping him in the primary. Hard to say how that would translate in a general election, you would think offending large swathes of the country would be a bad strategy. Yes and no. I think it'd be a bad strategy in the general election, but in the primary you have to say this sort of thing to get your electorate. I mean this is the same party that had (on national tv and during a debate in 2008) one of their members yell "Let them die" when a question was posed about medical care for an illegal immigrant. Trump is appealing to that Tea Party core of the party, and comes across as genuine because of the fact he doesn't hold back. Its why he's so far ahead in the polls and Clinton's Black Lives Matter encounter goes over far better than Sanders. Sanders got walked all over in the name of politics, while Clinton basically said "Shut the hell up and do something" when the protesters tried to confront her.

I think one of the reasons that Trump gets popularity is just because he's got an identity. People know who he is, on a wide scale... Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul etc are all to careful politicians to let themselves get to far from the party base (ok not paul per se... but he's still enough of a politician to not try and upset the base at this point). Trump is the guy who sticks his name to everything and revels in his brand. He's not afraid to speak his mind so people feel like they know more what they're getting with Trump over any other political that might be placed in charge. On the other side of the ring, you've got Sanders and Clinton... who's entire political strategy seems to be "You be over there, I'll be over here, and when the time comes we'll see who's got more backers" without firing shots at each other. The problem for Sanders is that he's on the democratic ticket as an independant... while Hillary's entire backing is the base of the party. I'm sure Sanders could take an election of him vs hillary in the General, but in a primary? I doubt it.

Have to be dead for that first.

Just gonna say. I think at this point the battle for Democrats is going to be Sanders/Clinton. The reason that Clinton is so favored is just because she is basically the Establishment. Sanders is liked by a lot of people and will actually probably make a fairly good run to the nomination, but if he doesn't have the full weight of the voters behind him in primaries the party will do their best to crush him in favor of Hillary. On Trump: The thing about Trump is that he's built himself as a brand. He's a businessman, and is obviously savvy enough to have managed to maintain his empire. I have to wonder how much of what he's saying is the Brand vs how much is actually him being serious. We consider people like him and Paris Hilton to be idiots because they're caught saying un-PC things that seem insensitive, but the thing is, they've still created a situation where everyone knows their names and pays them just to show up (Hilton is basically a celebrity DJ at this point). I'm tired and a bit buzzed so this may just be the booze talking, but it strikes me that SHOULD Trump find himself with the nomination, he'd actually have to divorce his personality from his brand. On elections as a whole: Honestly I think this whole fiasco is going to have both sides hitting the drawing table to redo the election rules. Either to eliminate or minimize the primary system. The Primary's are where the party kills itself because (as we're seeing now, in 12 and 08) you have to catapult yourself to the extreme to get the most votes from your party, and then go head to head with somebody and run as fast as you can back to being a moderate to try to win over the swing voters. Even in the 12 elections, a lot of the republican candidates there were just running because they had books out and wanted the free publicity. Taking it seriously only when they became the front runner, and then promptly falling because the media would do their best to find every dirty secret in the front runner.

nothing back from anyone on any jobs.... beuller?

Pulled a 53 hour week on my last paycheck, this one's gonna be in the same sphere, and the next one too.... God I hope the post office (or waste management... or somebody) calls me!