Amentep

GD does this mean the Libertarian party will become a permanent political party and voting option going forward in the USA? The Libertarian Party has been a permanent party since 1971. The Green Party since 1990. The issue - as I understand it - is that (a) people believe that if you vote for anyone other than Repub/Demo you are wasting your vote (or worse "voting for" whichever one you don't align with politically as a way to scare you into voting for Repub/Demo) and (b) without a certain % of the popular vote in the national election, the Libertarian & Green party presidential candidates don't get automatically on the ballot and have to spend considerable time and money getting their candidates on the ballot instead of promoting themselves to the public.

is not all that complicated in this instance. no ruling. iran were seeking $10 billion via arbitration at the hague. the curious timed settlement 'tween US and iran would send $1.7 billion to iran. $400 million were first payment o' the settlement... which obama claimed had nothing whatsoever to do with the nuke deal or the prisoner release. HA! Good Fun! Thanks, I hadn't had an opportunity to really look into it for myself, hence why I could only parrot what I'd heard (possibly swapping settlement for ruling in my head too).

Yeah, I really don't know the details of it, hence the liberal use of the word "supposedly".

Supposedly the $400 Million is from an international court ruling regarding a disagreement between US-Iran dating to the late 1970s when the US agreed to back the Shah of Iran in buying arms. The US's position had been that the change of regime made the agreement null and void, whereas the international court determined the agreement was with the country and that the regime was irrelevant. This is - again supposedly - why the right has been arguing that US agreed to "accept" the international court ruling as a cover to buy off Iran to release prisoners.

There was a local school that has a "Good News" club that the Satanic Temple is aiming to get an "After School Satan" club in, according to the local news.

"Science fiction is what we point to when we say it." — Damon Knight.

The concept wasn't explained sufficiently, in my opinion, or else I wouldn't have bothered to ask questions (and I say that while ignoring the backhanded attempt to insult me with a variation of the "Oh you don't get it, you must not be intelligent enough to see my genius!" defense). I had some sympathy for you - having had philosophical posts get derailed myself in the past - but its difficult to have a discussion if it is going to consist of you making statements/pronouncements and then refusing to clarify them. Or...discuss them at all.

Hmmm, but there's no quod erat demonstrandum by merely stating that its logical to think something. You have to show why it'd be logical to think such a thing. In this case, why is it logical to think that prolonged focus on our eyes in motion would make us more attuned to it rather than, say, self-consciously aware that we were focusing our eyes in motions to the exclusion of other things we expect from visual sensory input? Why would we naturally draw the conclusion that the motion would appear understandable rather than conclude that the was an autonomic response to internal/external stimuli?

Didn't Bioware try to close their boards once before? I can't say I was over there much since they went to the EA style forums, but I do think it sad that companies actually think that social media is a better place to communicate with fans than a message board. My experience is that level of contact with fans goes down significantly when a company shunts communication off to their social media accounts.

You haven't defined what you mean by "crossed eye" nor how this relates to humans being "educated stupid" which you also haven't defined Your use of the word "lucid" doesn't appear to make sense in the context of the sentence; I can't tell if you're implying control (as in lucid dreaming but that's a specific phrase definition) or implying "easy to understand" You tell us the pictures mean something and then argue that the meaning proves your theory. You can't define something and use that definition to prove something else in any sort of logic I'm aware of without first proving the definition is correct (at least for that instance if not universally)

How does one go about rating the potentially incalculable? I know you said you were joshing, but theoretically there's no upper limit to Hulk's strength. The longer he fights and the madder he gets the stronger he gets. So if you're going to beat him in a fight, its going to be done early, eventually his strength curve will take him past you. I felt compelled to both like and stinkeye this post. Dooo eeet, its pretty fun. Not that I don't want to, I just have too many shows to watch right now.

Not seen Dark Matter, but cast list says The Android is played by Zoie Palmer who was a regular supporting cast member on Lost Girl (which I've only seen a few episodes of).

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/suicide-squad-review This is particularly harsh "Suicide Squad is bad. Not fun bad. Not redeemable bad. Not the kind of bad that is the unfortunate result of artists honorably striving for something ambitious and falling short. Suicide Squad is just bad. It’s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film’s highly fetishized violence doesn’t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo. (Oh, how the movie wants to be both of those things.) It’s simply a dull chore steeped in flaccid machismo, a shapeless, poorly edited trudge that adds some mildly appalling sexism and even a soupçon of racism to its abundant, hideously timed gun worship. But, perhaps worst of all, Suicide Squad is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something." That author admits to hating Ayer's previous films, referring to them as "repugnant" which makes me think he wasn't in the market for this film. But who knows? I won't until I see it.

Only review I've skimmed complained about elements taken from the comics so...still looking forward to it myself.

I wasn't giving you the business, just trying to be thorough. Interestingly enough, I figured the "Three Little Pigs" may be the reference you didn't get because you are born/live in Greece but I guess those types of stories are international. For some reason I assumed it was US origin or something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68kSK_y8S5s

I hope you watched 'the Gathering' before Season 1 as that's the pilot episode that aired the year before. Thanks to posters here, I did. And I'm 5 episodes (+The Gathering) in now. So just started watching a month and a half ago.

Christophe Gans can make some good looking films.

You can't fight that logic.

RIP I'm watching Season One of B5 for the first time an episode a week (so not gotten real far), but what I've seen of him, he has a natural charisma in the role.

STAR TREK BEYOND - I liked it quite a bit, at least as much as the first reboot Trek. Gfted - what didn't you like about Ghostbusters?

That's what I was thinking reading that list.

Top exports of Ireland supposedly are Packaged Medicaments, Nitrogen Heterocyclic Compounds, Human or Animal Blood, Scented Mixtures and Orthopedic Appliances. Apparently they import 10% of their stuff from the US but export 20% to the US.

The New Defenders were formed by The Beast. That one formed after Dr. Strange, Hulk, Namor and Silver Surfer have to stop being The Defenders or else cause the destruction of the world. The Last Defenders were formed by Nighthawk (initially with Tony Stark as part of the 50 State Initiative, later without Stark or government approval). The Fearless Defenders were formed by Valkyrie (but it was really more of a spin-off of the FEAR ITSELF: THE FEARLESS mini, than a continuation of previous Defenders stuff). So there is precedence for non-Strange formed teams.

I think in retrospect that my misreading of - and thus confusion over - Bruce's post is because of the term "act out". The US usually has it meaning something like "behaving badly" and often in reference to children, so the use of the term seemed both inappropriate for the severity of action and perhaps a little patronizing. But as I thought about it more, I think its clear that he really meant either "to translate to action" or perhaps "to behave in a socially unacceptable often self-defeating manner especially as a means of venting painful emotions". The fun of the English language.

Prepare yourself to be in a high dudgeon, then, Hulk is wandering the nine realms in next years Thor: Ragnarok, so also unavailable.