RLLD

Lucky for you conservatives are not insufferable twats....you keep that pic, it hurts no one...

This!!! None of these clowns have any greater awareness or understanding than any of us.... there is nothing special about them. Worse....the record for Newsome is pretty bad. How he can perceive himself as "good" baffles me. It requires that he have absolutely no empathy at all for the people of his state, and that really bothers me.

I laughed....

It would seed that our resident poster has a deeper understanding of Disney finances than Disney itself......

I agree with this assertion. When we witness these occasional "celebrations" around abortion we are observing a tiny fragment of socipaths who simply want to taunt folks and/or humiliate them. In every group there are really dark people who lack standard human traits. It does not directly reflect on all the others. I presume liberals will at least support this notion for this instance, though they will not apply it where it does not serve their bias.

No it is not racist, you are misusing the term

Read it as you please, of course. Attempt as you will to interpret what they asserted to feed your bias. My approach is less about trying to find a golden nugget to hold on to so much as considering whether or not they have learned their lesson to an extent where it makes sense to once again invest in them. Right now might be a suitable time to buy, but only if there is some notion they will at least mediate their stupidity and one can again derive value from their stock.

The policies absolutely helped people who care about money, which is any sane person hoping to not spend their entire weekly earnings on gas and food....or wanted to work; and not the fake employment numbers we get today, but actual employment PROGRESS. The President was serving US not Congress....and that is proper. He did the right things, which is so unusual you cannot even fathom it....it staggers you because you are so accustomed to the corruption of typical government.

Why Senate Dems are prepared to swallow a border policy compromise Even though they seemingly had to be compelled to honor their oath to our Nation, I give Democrats some credit for being willing to at least consider protecting us and honoring their oath

Correct. And do not dare even ask a question at all. If you question...then you are <insert>phobic. Nothing less that total capitulation is OK.

Amusingly, I would anticipate that a feminist would also likely resort immediately to the ad hominem. Of course, that would be right out of the gate though. hate is hate....

The facsinating thing about slut shaming is that its not really a male-centric action. Women do it to each other. Women can be rather vicious when it comes to character assassination. But then again that is their main outlet for anger and such.

Ah, good one, thank you

The Green River Killer I liked this one, four caps out of five. The pace of the presentation was pretty good, they kept it going without dwelling on anything too long. They has some period stuff in there, and the interviews were solid. And I will divulge something that hopefully encourages you to watch it, the police actually consulted Ted Bundy to catch this guy; Bundy's insights were spot on. It runs a little long, so setting aside time is useful. Much of it you can predict as it unfolds, but there are some interesting surprises. If you like research around serial killers this is a great one.

The Impossible Two caps out of five for this one. I pulled this one up because my wife reccomended it, first red flag. It was less documentary so much as dramatized movie. It started fairly well, we get a decent exposure to the characters to orient. Then right to the event. The event was disturbing, and likely underscores the actual terror. Then it went into drama mode, and it slooowwwwedd down alot. I found myself at points hoping, nearly begging, for it to move along. When I hit FFWD just to get through some spots my wife objected, so I was forced to sit and watch the paint dry. On the plus side, the undulations of the story were not entirely predictable and mostly interesting. If not for Naomi Watts, for whom I have a weakness and gave this one an extra cap, I might have just hid in the bathroom until it finished.

So you....are...asking me to assert what would be better had Trump been elected? OK, everything.... I mean, its a worthless question. Here is something to consider....had Joe Biden come into office....and done nothing......literally nothing.... we would all have had a better last few years. But instead, he had to make a point....he had to repay the radicals on the left, and screwed us with his policies.

That does not jive with what happened. I actually do not need Trump at all, and I think we would be better off without him frankly.....as long as we get his policies back in play. If its Desantis, fine....whatever, those Trump policies were making us better, getting us back to prosperity and I want it back.

That was the way it was portrayed, I cannot argue against that. We know the truth, when we look behind the veil.

I was likely not entirely clear. I don't think people file just for financial benefit. I submit that there is an incentive associated with that factor that leads to more divorces. And my link supports that. The current financial climate is challenging, and due to this factor there is a movement of people who were down the road to divorce now adjusting; at least considering co-habitation. The tilt of reward for divorce financially benefitting women, and hurting men.....is a driver for the disparity in filing.....more women than men doing the filing. My point being that we again see government interference leading to unexpected outcomes. The notion that women are in the wrong for leading the way in filing due to financial factors is not a negative Being pragmatic about pursuing an end to a relationship is not wrong, its simple common sense. So.....would it help if there were NOT this financial incentive for divorce, sure..... is it some big deal, I guess not. If you are unhappy, just end it. But are you really unhappy? Have you really tried? Put in the work to mediate? To give in a little, work together? If all it takes is a little financial disincentive to agree to co-habitate, then maybe you were not as unhappy as you first thought. JMHO

The first impeachment was never by design. The Clinton campaign worked with Fusion GPS to fabricate a false narrative in the hopes of swaying voters; an act for which they were ultimately held accountable and fined. I doubt there was any notion that it would be of much use past the election. But once he was elected the DOJ saw in this little tactic an opportunity. The DOJ knows very well how corrupt politicans can be, and using this false source as a means to investigate would be an easy way to undermine Trump and just investigate until they found something they could use. As we know today, that did not work out as they planned. The second impeachment was honestly Trump's fault, I freely admit this. He apparently already knew that Biden was on the take from Ukraine and sought to get more info about it. Because he is a bloody idiot about politics he never foresaw how that simple inquiry could be used against him. And use it they did. So he should own that one, part and parcel, he was a dumbass. The entire Democrat party could be targeted by that maneuver along with the DOJ. I suggest he VASTYLY underestimated the threat he was posing to the powerful. Now consider this. Trump is a bad politician. But he is not entirely stupid. Using his experience from the last time in office....coupled with what I am sure he has learned since..... he is not a far bigger threat to the Democrats....not just their power....but the exposure of their corruption....than he has ever been. I have no doubt....none at all...that if he regains that office....he will gut the DOJ, refill it with at least impartial people but probably more conservative people. And then he will ruthlessly out the DOJ and the Democrats with every piece of dirt one them. I am tepid on this. So consider for a moment some of the actions, or lack thereof, from the DOJ during the last seven years. Now, all that.....that was directed toward Trump and Republicans, could now be turned on Democrats....all those people you look toward as "good"....even though they are not... Will you still see that DOJ as being good and right, when instead of violating conservative rights....they are doing it to liberals?

Recently I spent some time really thinking through the last 100 years and generational matriculations; and being honest, reading Jordan Peterson I know that people think back to the WWII era and refer to them as the greatest generation, and in some sense they were. But as parents they were suspect. America enjoyed a surge in wealth as its infrastructure did not absorb the destruction as with the rest of the world where the war actually was being waged. So we were able to then become a power house of production, and with it came wealth. The kids of those WWII folks were the boomers. What wealth did was relieve them of the work of development, its was only too easy....and they thought less about striving and improving, they shifted to social causes. And lets be real, they did some great work. So those boomers.....they had kids, and they looked at their childhood and decided to do it differently, and their kids had it even better and easier, with more access to free time and fun. The boomers graduated from social focus, into business focus once they realized you needed money. But still held that social inclination, fed it to their kids. What we see now is the generation of victimhood. They ran out of real social issues, so they now had to go create ones since their parents and grandparents were so effective at social progress. Now we have a bunch of victims in search of discontent to feel like they matter. The parents allowed it, the schools fed it and nutured it...and the politicals use it....

My original point was that women were leading the way on filing for divorce in part because of the financial rewards that accompanied that outcome. Men were less inclined because the outcomes were disproportionately negative for them. So when the recent shift of fewer women filing for divorce was raised, I simple pointed out the the economics of leaving the marriage were no longer as much of an incentive and hence we see a more equitable split. This was misinterpreted as some kind of "dig" on women. And if you feel that way I understand, but is there really anything wrong with that reason being part of the calculation? Rather than interpret it as a negative I see it as rather pragmatic. Now, we can have documented evidence suggesting my assertion has merit, its not just "me" saying it. It might end up being true that some of these folks stay together for the long term as a result, they mend the fences.....isnt that a great story?

Certainly we can agree to disagree on the documented outcome that Trump was eventually exhonerated of any wrongdoing. I leave it to you to decide for yourself when something is true or not, if you allow me to use facts. There is a shortage of coverage. When Trump was in office we enjoyed evidence of thoroughness, which we no longer have. When can I have that back? Or, will you allow for the current level of coverage to sustain should Trump enter back into office? How about we just have a media that covers what is out there, and stops filtering or expanding based on its political bias. Because right now it might feel great. Most media outlets feed you what your bias wants to ingest. But what happens if that script flips? What happens if your current allowance for that behavior transforms into a mostly conservative-driven media that allows Republicans to enjoy almost no critical coverage? Would you not feel unprotected?

I have thought about this a bit, and I am not sure what bothers me more....the fact that the media decides to protect Democrats and allow them to be as corrupt as they please to feed their bias.....or that they do it so unashedly, like....they do not even try to hide it.....