Valsuelm

She's not an idiot, but she is thoroughly insane. Sometimes these two different things have the same result.

No one who ever got to the White House was dumb. Though some were certainly smarter than others, every single President we've ever had has had above average intelligence. Only idiots of average intelligence or less call President X dumb.

Retail sucks and doesn't pay well. Get a job in a restaurant, serving or bartending, you'll make more than double the money even at a bad gig. If you insist on retail, at least work at a place when you're apt to learn something (ie: Auto parts store, liquor store, some other specialized good store where knowledge is required to be good at what you do), a grocery store isn't that place. Of course, if there are other higher paying jobs in the area, go for them. Again, retail sucks, and pays ****.

Na... I've seen that shape before. It looks like he's just having a bad go with the gender bender drugs that are designed to augment his breasts.

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people). You are pretty much correct. Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong. He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong.

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense. He even has a family member in prison for some sort of Wall Street scandal. No not Wall Street scandal, inside trading. But his actions were condemned unequivocally by all, no one made excuses. You can work in the financial sector and be ethical and not break the law But yes Vals many members of my family are involved in the financial sector but that has got nothing to do with my real concern about this suggestion to break-up the banks or implement restructuring in the financial sector in the USA You ask what has not been implemented before from Trump or Sanders....many things they suggest are radical and never been implemented before..in fact conventional wisdom is vociferously against most of these idea....lets see Sanders : Restructuring of the financial sector in the USA : Never been done before X Sanders : Extreme taxing of the wealthiest Americans : Never been done before X Trump : We will bulld a wall between the USA and Mexico : Never been done before X Trump : We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's, citizens : Never been done before Trump : We block all Muslims coming to the USA: Never been done before X I can on and on if you want but I think you get my point All Xs have been done before. As for the only one that isn't X'd: Deporting people happens all the time. The sheer # of illegals to be deported indeed has not happened. Though it is quite doable. That said, I don't see it happening, even if Trump is in office. What may happen however is the disincentive as well as difficulty to come here illegally may be increased, which would be a very good thing. As for 'conventional wisdom' being 'vociferously against most of these idea'. Mainstream media propaganda /= conventional wisdom, and the voting polls are telling a different story. Neverminding that 'conventional wisdom' regarding anything isn't exactly always firmly grounded in reality or a good thing. Also, what's your sudden aversion to 'never been done before'? Gay marriage was never legal before, once upon a time women were never allowed to vote before. You're all for those things, and others that were 'never been done before'. 'Never been done before', is never a reason to not do something in and of itself.

Ha! I actually know a black lesbian chick who supports Trump, vehemently even. She hasn't been to a rally yet, but I don't expect her to have any problems if she attends one.

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense.

Both Trump and Sanders are anti-established in there own political leanings and views, these views despite having populist support are dangerous and concerning as both candidates offer some ideas and solutions that have never been implemented before or just make no economic sense I wont go into everything I disagree with Trump about but lets take Sanders, he wants to break-up the banks and large global Investment banks based in the USA. This is a terrible idea and makes no economic sense, see the link below http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032 It's actually a really good idea and makes tons of sense. The re-implementation of Glass-Steagall as well as other legislation to similar effect is something that Sanders has very right. It's very arguable that the repeal of Glass-Steagall is the worst thing that happened during the Clinton years. As for not being implemented before? I've seen nothing Trump proposed economically that hasn't been implemented before. As for Sanders, while there may be some specific things that haven't been implemented before in the U.S., I've not seen him propose anything that isn't already common elsewhere.

I dunno about exciting. My prediction of what's going to happen if the election isn't tampered with (an extremely unlikely proposition that it won't be tampered with in at least some districts, in particular in NYC): In short it will be Trump and Sanders winning the primaries. *Note, what the delegates (and especially super delegates) do is another story, as the fix is definitely in there. This prediction, based on my own ears to the ground as well as discussion with some folks actually in the RNC and DNC machines here, is only what's going to happen in the voting booth. And Trump will carry the state by a large margin in the general election if he's the nominee, especially if Hillary is the nominee (any other Republican will lose the state; only Trump can win it for the reds (for this reason alone the establishment RNC should be behind Trump, if they were actually serious about winning the general (they are not)). The anti-Hillary sentiment is very strong here among pretty much all Democrat demographics (she would not win a Senate seat here today), excepting for the sit at home female baby boomer demographic (who think she can do no wrong, and want a female president all else be damned), and possibly the Obamaphone crowd demographic (who are a wildcard of sorts for the democrat primary (It's unclear if they even know who Sanders is, though they often skip primary voting so may not impact it all that much), and also where any election fraud is most like to happen).

This entire thing is BS to a large degree. If it wasn't, the documents would be publicly available.

Avellone actually has stated numerous times that he is not a fan of 'romances' in games.

Yes. It was left in because the delegates from the southern states made it clear they would not sign without it. To tell the truth I doubt the majority of delegates there those days saw it as any kind of moral wrong because it was so prevalent in the world at that time. And Meshugger is correct, it did not stop after the civil war. Or before even when it was illegal to buy slaves not born in the Americas. But as for the slaves in the US at the time I figure that is a fraction of the number that became free men in 1865. And many of those in 1787 were born elsewhere and might have returned if given the opportunity to do so. I used to have a much more romantic view of the CSA and often argued that slavery was not the root cause of the secession and the war. Perhaps I did not want to admit my ancestors would be willing to go to war solely to keep their fellow humans in chains. That they had loftier and more noble ends like States Rights in mind. But as I read and learned more I realize this is not so and the truth is just as ugly underneath as it looks on the surface. I was guilty of the very thing I ridicule in others, and in books and movies: revising history to suit modern mores. To be fair though, the south's entire economy was dependent on slave labour at the time. Abolition meant the loss of a ton of wealth in the form of "property" and increased business costs due to having to pay workers. Wars have been fought in modern times over less. Not to mention that the U,S. Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression) was fought for a variety of reasons. It can be argued it was about ending slavery, it can be argued it was about states rights, it can be argued it was about 'preserving the Union', it can be argued it was about freedom. All are true, and there are other reasons that can be argued as well. Only the ignorant or evil folks who would fool the ignorant simplify it all to say it's only about one or the other or something else entirely. Over 3 million people actually fought in the war, the better part of a million died in it. Many more than that participated in some way if not directly on a battlefield somewhere, and many many more than that had their lives seriously affected in some manner. Each and every person who fought in the war fought for their own reasons. They include what's mentioned above, and they no doubt include other reasons as well. There was good and evil on both sides of the war, and the end result had both good points and very bad ones as well.

People, corporations, large banks, and probably even governments have been laundering money through Panama since at least as far back as the 80s. It's historically been a hotspot for 'drug money' (which is one of peripheral reasons Bush Sr. invaded in 89), among other things.

I agree. I also thought that could very well be a factor, given AMC's somewhat notoriously ruthlessly greedy nature. It certainly is possible the writers themselves aren't sure yet.

So who do we think got Lucille'd? I think it's pretty clear it's one of the following three: Note: both show and comic spoilers below

It's been necro'd a few times in the last couple of years.

This is actually pretty common. Since the 90s many if not most states at this point have laws on the books in regards to 'domestic disputes' where the state will prosecute with or without the alleged victim's cooperation. Where I live, if the police are called to a domestic dispute between a man and a woman (or sometimes between other domestic 'partners'/family), chances are very high someone is getting arrested, and it's usually the guy, no matter what the alleged victim says (especially if it is a female). To further the insanity, whoever is arrested is almost always given a restraining order barring them from communicating with the other person (it's a felony to violate this) until the court matter is resolved (which is usually a matter of many months). And again, that is no matter what the other person says. Meaning even if the alleged victim doesn't want a restraining order against the alleged perpetrator, one is given anyways. To even more further the insanity if the alleged victim (usually the female) wants to communicate with the alleged perpetrator (usually the male) and they do despite the restraining order, and then the police or DA's office find out about it, a felony charge there still will almost always be. I've seen some ugly situations turn into pure tragedy because someone called the cops (usually not even one of the two in the alleged domestic dispute). These aforementioned laws were put on the books in order to 'protect battered women' who were perceived to be too afraid of their batterer to cooperate with the 'authorities'. The reality is that while such people and situations have and still do exist, they are exceedingly rare compared to the oodles of situations where the state makes a mountain out of a molehill, and relationships and families become at least temporarily shattered as a result of the unwanted prosecution. All of this of course doesn't even get into another aspect of the tragedy of these laws in how some people (usually women) abuse the system and take advantage of these laws. I personally say all of this is the result of decades of propaganda demonizing men and victimizing women as well as portraying them as helpless vs the supposed demonic man. It certainly isn't the result of objective rational thinking about the reality of most situations.

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic). The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though. Actually, in regards to the bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post. My apoligies for assuming and inferring you shared his bolded view because you share the rest. Vals you missing the point, sorry I assumed you knew what I meant when I said " women everywhere " I'll happily explain it but I'm sure you dont really believe in sexism and gender equality so I dont want to waste my time but I will if you serious ? No... I'm done. It's too much work to hold your hand and walk you through consonant thinking. Sorry. Look me up if you're ever in New York. We'll have beers.

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic). The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though. Actually, in regards to the underlined bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post My apologies for assuming and inferring you shared his underlined bolded view because you share the non-underlined bolded view as well as the rest. If you don't share that view, you certainly failed at conveying it above: 'And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.' Anon. I suggest you look up the various meanings of 'disgusting' and 'pig', then work on realizing that they are words that do not necessarily refer to someone's looks. I and many others certainly never took what Trump said about Rosie as a jab at her looks, but at her behavior. In fact this is the first discussion I've had about this subject with folks who assume it was about her looks, and this is not the first discussion I've had about that exchange between Megyn and Trump.

This is a gem of a song that has little presence on the internet. Above is Phish's Utica cover of The Might Diamonds 'Have Mercy', and the best stand alone I know of on youtube. The best version I know of this is the Oswego show (a very memorable and phenomenal show just before 'Woodstock '99' which I was lucky enough to attend) where the Tweezer > Have Mercy is divine. There's no stand lone of that on youtube that I'm aware of however, only the whole shows. [day 1 and day 2 if you're interested; the audio quality isn't the greatest without some tinkering (I've tinkered on my home system) but it's still a great listen. One of these days hopefully a soundboard track will pop up somewhere].

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist. Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No. If you can't even understand why that'd be unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem, I'm not gonna waste time on advanced concepts like "what's sexism". Your vocabulary is lacking if you think it's "unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem". Vals you are embarrassing yourself now ....please lets just move on Embarrassing myself? No. Perhaps I'm wasting my time though in attempting to point out reality to a couple folks who lack in vocabulary and somehow think that ad hominems directed at a specific woman is necessarily sexist, and even somehow indicates a lack of respect for all women everywhere.

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist. Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No. If you can't even understand why that'd be unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem, I'm not gonna waste time on advanced concepts like "what's sexism". Your vocabulary is lacking if you think it's "unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem".