Valsuelm

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".

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.

No, this video highlights how stupid some people are in that Megyn asks a question that only morons are going to think is relevant, and is somewhat amusing (the Rosie line was a good one). It's exactly the kind of question that a great many people who aren't morons are beyond sick of, hence the cheering of Trump's response. In addition to the various insults he's thrown various women's (and men's) ways over the years, Donald Trump has also laid lavish praise upon various women (and men), do we hear Donald being accused of thinking that all woman are 'wonderful' (which he has called many), or him being accused of having 'no respect for the feelings of men'? No, because that would be ridiculous. What you propose is no less ridiculous, and actually quite sexist. Insulting one woman/man or one person of a specific ethnicity (especially a deserving one), does not equate to insulting them all. Thinking such is moronic. Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

That article is a good example of a hit piece by mainstream media. It's an issue that largely does not matter in the context of a Presidential race yet polarizes many people, and takes what Trump says out of context in order to make him look bad to the polarized. Trump is hardly trying to lose. The establishment has been throwing everything it has at him though. The abortion question, especially in contrived form, is a perennial favorite. It's not going to get much traction, and then will fall off. The majority of people stupid enough to fall for this manufactured type of anti-candidate X crap have already fallen for the other manufactured anti-Trump crap. It's a hit Trump performed on himself. It's perfectly reasonable to ask a question about the platform he's running on. And when you can't answer a simple question with a simple standard answer that almost any Republican politician would easily give, you have to ask yourself what's really going on. Moreover, the abortion debate isn't settled as you say. If a Republican wins (seems almost impossible right now, but things happen, like in my sig) he could easily appoint two conservative Supreme Court justices, and then the issue goes back to the states. The part where people take what he said out of context is the hit, not what Trump said. Trump didn't take his own words out of context to push a false narrative about himself. Regarding the SCOTUS appointments and Roe v. Wade. Five pro-lifers could be added to the court in the next five years, and Roe v. Wade still more than likely wouldn't be revisited for decades. Other possible cases regarding abortion perhaps might be decided differently than they otherwise would, but the 'right to abort' is not going anywhere via the SCOTUS, not even back to the states, unless of course the five justices added were all states rights folks. That isn't happening. The only candidate that might have nominated some judges that were strongly for the 10th amendment and generally against Federal government overreach was Rand Paul. There isn't a single candidate running right now that will give us SCOTUS justices that will seriously chip away at Federal power. Also, given that it has been the norm for quite some time now to nominate from the pool of Federal judges out there, there aren't even many (if any at this point) judges in that pool that are big 10th amendment fans. The most likely scenario where we'd see the 'right to abort' put back firmly in the hands of the states, would be an Article V Convention initiated by the States where some amendment(s) was/were ratified by the States directly (very unlikely) or indirectly (possible) putting it there. A currently very unlikely scenario that certainly isn't happening anytime soon.

Ah ha. I have the self control to not click, as well as not bother to read the only person I have on ignore in all the forums I frequent (I have seriously considered adding Bruce). It would just be nice to not have to see any reference to them at all (especially the 'This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by insane trolly person, view it anyway'), as all other ignore functions I'm familiar with are capable of. It's not important enough for me to spend time to write a script though. Thanks.

That article is a good example of a hit piece by mainstream media. It's an issue that largely does not matter yet polarizes many people, and takes what Trump says out of context in order to make him look bad to the polarized. Trump is hardly trying to lose. The establishment has been throwing everything it has at him though. The abortion question is a perennial favorite. It's not going to get much traction. The majority of people stupid enough to fall for this manufactured type of anti-candidate X crap have already fallen for the other manufactured anti-Trump crap. Ah yes the enemy is the " mainstream media " .......so the established global news channels are just exaggerating and embellishing the image of Trump right? Of course, WOD now you know the truth Now Vals we both know how ignorant and stupid I am because I support the " mainstream media " but where do you get your information from ....how does one get truly informed about how Trump is actually a very reasonable and rationale person who is clearly going to fix everything wrong with the USA Actually Bruce, I think you are insane. It's a byproduct of ignorance and excessive cognitive dissonance. The longer and/or more one ignores reality, the more detached one becomes from it. You are quite detached, as you imply often yet made perfectly clear in the Hogan/Gawker thread. Where do I get my news? All sorts of places, including the 'mainstream media'. I don't just swallow everything whole though. I think about it. Always ask myself 'why was this written?' and often ask myself 'who wrote/published this?'. I check primary sources as often as I can, when they are available (and when they aren't, very seriously doubt authenticity). And again, I think about it, read between the lines if need be, compare it with the rest of the big world puzzle, etc. In this particular case (and a great many others) one need just find the interview(s) Trump gave and read or listen to it unedited. Trump was asked some hypotheticals about abortion. He answered them in a reasonable manner. He then had what he said taken out of context (which is the norm whenever most people in media (especially the mainstream sort) quote anyone) in order to push a false narrative and/or sensationalize what should be trivial. Tip: Begin the practice of always checking primary sources and it won't take you long to see just how very common it is for folks in the media to manipulate a person's words out of context to get a manufactured narrative across. While I would agree that the abortion issue isn't entirely irrelevant as it can give a window into what a candidate values, which sheds light on a candidate's character, for the most part that has become an almost irrelevant thing post 'Monicagate', and in light of the current situations within the U.S. as fairly adequately explained in this link (Trump supporter in that link aside, that's the sentiment of a very large number of people who support other candidates too, in particular Bernie Sanders). Importantly though, the President of the United States has little more say than you or I do over what the abortion laws in the U.S. are. It is a matter entirely outside the President's purview. Also, it's largely a decided issue. There is no chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned anytime in the next few decades. However... In regards to your argument.... Well, your argument is almost laughable, if it wasn't so sad in it's meritlessness. First, women are not a minority. They are in fact, a majority (there were more than 5 million more women than men in the U.S. last census go around (2010)). Second, the arguments for and against abortion can be very compelling if one is honest with oneself and puts even a little value on human life and the well being of it. It's a tough issue, with a real lot of grey. Only evil folks who don't give a poop about human life or it's well being, or morons think it's a black and white (to be clear Mr SJW, that is not a racial 'black' and 'white' ) issue, whatever side of the issue they come down on. However, '...more women in the USA believe is there choice to make and the idea of a man telling them what to do with there bodies is unacceptable' is absolutely not one of the compelling arguments. A very small percentage of women in the U.S. genuinely think they are oppressed by men, and almost if not all of them are insane, because the reality is that they are not (out of the 157+ million women in the U.S. it's possible there are a couple of exceptions, but they are super rare exceptions). Neverminding the fact that there's quite a lot of women out there who are very much in the pro-life camp.

That article is a good example of a hit piece by mainstream media. It's an issue that largely does not matter in the context of a Presidential race yet polarizes many people, and takes what Trump says out of context in order to make him look bad to the polarized. Trump is hardly trying to lose. The establishment has been throwing everything it has at him though. The abortion question, especially in contrived form, is a perennial favorite. It's not going to get much traction, and then will fall off. The majority of people stupid enough to fall for this manufactured type of anti-candidate X crap have already fallen for the other manufactured anti-Trump crap.

All authors have political leanings one way or another, and they more often than not can be seen in their work (if the work is sizable enough), even if unintentionally put there. Marvel is owned by Disney, and that's a company that most definitely has political leanings, and announces them fairly publicly fairly often. DC is owned by Time Warner, and that too is a company that most definitely has political leanings, though they are generally not as obviously vocal as Disney.

Use the greasemonkey script that nukes any quoted post of those on your ignore list. You need never see another Bruce post again. Where might one find this script? Is this addon for Firefox what you refer to? If so, any recommendations on how to write such a script for the addon? Or is there one handy out there?

If one doesn't like the butt, just don't play that toon or don't play that game all together. Getting upset about it is a symptom of insanity, nothing else.

Why dont you think the USA and other countries is a target for terrorism? USA and other countries reign far more terror on their own and other citizens than any supposed 'terrorists' ever have. I don't worry at all about the boogie man. I worry about real tangible threats to my well being and existence. No one but my government has ever pointed a gun at me, extorted me for thousands, or harassed me (in any meaningful way), and I've so far gotten off one helluva lot lighter than many others out there, who are dead, rotting in jail, or just had their lives majorly )#@(ed with or even destroyed in some other manner (IRS, loss of loved one, had their house droned while they were away, maimed by police, etc). Terrorists? Don't make me laugh. You're way too far tuned into what they feed you on the boobtoob. Neverminding the fact that a clandestine 'agency' that flies the American flag yet is very much it's enemy (the CIA, et al), actually funds and arms the folks you think are terrorists and the real threat. You're afraid of the boogie man BruceVC, and cheer on the devil to save you from it. Also, I never said history was repeating, not in this thread anyways.

Eh... I find it easy to believe Cruz was banging extracurricular, but I was convinced a few years back that he was a bought and paid for say anything to get elected lying slimeball. Such folks always have big skeletons in their closet. That said, I think that overall U.S. politics are way past it even mattering one way or another, on a number of levels, true or not. At this point a bona fide video of a Presidential candidate anally raping their dead grandma while simultaneously eating the raw flesh of the neighbors kid could be released and a large portion of the population would find some way to apologize for it, or just outright ignore it if said candidate said things that they liked. It can be astounding and horrific just much so many people like to be lied to.

Those were in fact the " bad old days ", countries and there citizens were less safe and information gathering was less effective Yes, we are now living in good times due to the advancements of how governments can protect citizens from existential threats Bruce, we get it. You have little to no knowledge of history. You don't need to keep reminding us.