|
I remember when WWF changed to WWE, but I never learned the real reason why. Oh, I heard rumors, and I got a few different reasons from different people, but it all sounded like guesses to me. I had no idea that the WWF got wrestlingmoved into submission by a bunch of pandafuckers. I mean, c'mon, that's just silly. That's South Park-level farce.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Also, stigma. I know a few people who bought manufactured homes to install permanently on land that they own. The houses are nice and once the prep work is done, they go in fairly quickly. But, there's no getting around the fact that people look down on trailers, mobile homes, double-wides, etc. That's why that commercial that he aired had the woman saying, in surprise, "you bought a house!" Or "home." I can't remember. But she was careful to say anything other than manufactured home, mobile home, trailer, double-wide, etc. Truth be told, manufactured homes can be better in build quality, because they're made in a factory by people whose job is making that home. Traditionally built houses depend on local contractors who may or may not give any number of fucks about quality control.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think you can get prefab homes that aren't legally classified as mobile homes? I might be wrong though. Most modern prefab homes are of this type now. They're often, if not usually, at least double-wide. My cousin bought some land in Florida several years ago, cleared it, had a slab poured, and had one of these homes moved in. If I didn't know that it was prefab, I probably wouldn't have known that it was anything but a regular single-story house on a slab. Due to local regulations, it can't remain mobile; the axles were removed and it was permanently strapped down to supports embedded in the slab so that it wouldn't blow away in a hurricane. Even the "single wide" prefab homes are nothing like the ones that were around when I was a kid. In my hometown, about 3 blocks from my house was the local trailer park. And like most trailers in town, these were the classic metal-clad "mobile homes." Now, they look a lot more like regular houses (especially since so many houses have vinyl siding), and only the exterior dimensions give them away. Moving them would undoubtedly destroy them. They really aren't meant to be moved around like a semi-permanent RV; the idea is that they're moved to your site, and then never again. My grandma's house looked like a regular house from the outside, but my grandpa built it by moving in two trailers side-by-side about 6 feet apart, building a house shell around them, and turning the space between into a hallway and long-rear end pantry. Enclosed porches on the front and back completed the illusion. You could really only tell that it was two old trailers when you were in the mostly unfinished hallway pantry and could see the metal exterior walls.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:i'm glad they're doing an episode on the death penalty, honestly they could probably do a whole other thing about *who* gets executed. El Jeffe posted:And sometimes innocent. Yeah, the "reasons not to gently caress my mom" metaphor just keeps on giving!
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
If you're going to have the death penalty, I'd second the gunshot-to-the-back-of-the-head method. Unlike a firing squad, there is no chance of missing or hitting slightly off target, and it is an almost instantaneous death. And, I seriously doubt we'd have too much trouble finding people with a) the firearms, b) the ammunition, c) the necessary skills, or d) the willingness to actually kill someone legally. Fans of the TV series In the Heat of the Night might remember Carroll O'Connor describing the ideal execution method as being similar to this, except that it began with the person being told that they had served their time, everything was OK, and they would be released... and once they were convinced and on their way out, bang. I'm against the death penalty. Like, 100% against it in 99.9% of situations. Because to be perfectly honest, I would probably nod in approval if I heard that they executed that dude who shot up the concert in Las Vegas a few years back. But, that's just an emotional thing, and even if it weren't, that guy's guilt is not at all in doubt. My position on the death penalty used to be where you'd expect it to be back when I was a conservative--which was back when I was youngerdumber, before things were as polarized as they are now--and it was one of the last things I changed my mind on as I became more and more liberal. The thing that really did it for me was that here in Illinois, we had a few high-profile cases where death row inmates were found innocent thanks to new evidence (or modern analysis of old evidence). It was really only then when I realized just how flimsy some of these convictions were. I had just assumed that death row was for people who committed huge murders--notorious mass shootings, serial killers, career criminals who have killed several people, etc. I never really knew that it was mainly for poor black guys who were convicted of a single, random murder based on nothing more than a single, cross-race eyewitness account. I can still remember a very heated argument I had with my dad over this. It was clear that innocent people were on death row, and not just one or two. That was all I needed to know. My dad thought I was nuts, and he told me that if I were ever convicted of a murder I didn't commit, and I were executed for it, that it'd be OK because when I got to heaven, the truth would come out, I'd be OK, and the guy who did it, and everyone who falsely convicted me, would have to pay for it. I wish someone would have taken a picture of my face at that moment. I'll never be able to pull off that look again.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Wow, what the gently caress Mississippi? Throughout my youth and well into adulthood, Georgia's flag also had the Southern Cross on it. That changed in the early 2000s. (It was added in the 1950s for... let's just say "reasons.")
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I didn't even think about that but you're right; I've always been under the presumption that the Democrats have the seats in the House to impeach and would do so when it's time to vote, but with as poorly as this has been handled thus far (by Pelosi, largely, unless she really does have some master plan that will all work out in the end) I guess it could allow the caucus to become so demoralized that it fails. I believe that the Democrats do have the votes to impeach in the House, but it's the Senate that does the actual trial. You'd need 67 senators to vote to convict, and seeing as how the Democrats don't have even a simple majority in the Senate, and adding to that the fact that any Republican voting to convict would be committing career suicide, just how exactly does anyone think this could possibly succeed? Seriously, I'm asking, and not just one person. I see a lot of people bitching and moaning about how the Democrats are being weak by not impeaching now, and a level of dissatisfaction at how some like Pelosi are explaining why it'd be a bad idea. But none of you have proposed a way to get the Republican-controlled Senate to vote to remove the president from office when a large number of those senators' supporters would all but certainly vote them out of office at the next opportunity. If I didn't know better, I'd say that some of you don't know how impeachment works. And that'd be a little ironic, since we're talking about this in a thread about a show whose recent episode went to great lengths to explain how impeachment works, and the fact that a two-thirds majority vote to convict was required in the GOP-controlled Senate was presented front-and-center. (And, it's also not exactly top secret information.) quote:Instead, Justin loving Amash is the loudest voice for impeachment... Is he, though? Or is he just notable because he's a Republican who's saying that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
Woden posted:I think the idea is to impeach because there's enough information to warrant it. There's also that whole upholding the constitution thing. And if there would be no negative fallout after a failed attempt to remove Trump from the White House, then I'd agree. But failing to remove Trump would have negative consequences for those who tried to remove him. It would bolster his position and allow him to plausibly say that he was vindicated. It would embolden him to use his position to really screw with anyone who tried to impeach him. It would fire up his base and guarantee re-election. The momentum would swing to the right. These people already have a giant chip on their shoulder and a persecution complex the size of Montana. Throwing them this kind of bone would be insanely stupid. And that's what it'd be--throwing them a bone. Understand this: Trump could come right out and say that he paid Vladimir Putin to dig up dirt on the Democrats, and that in meetings paid for with campaign money he conspired with Putin and Assange to time the release of the hacked emails, and every Republican except for maybe one or two would vote against impeachment and/or conviction. Until the Democrats control the Senate, impeachment is guaranteed to fail to remove Trump from office. If there is a plan with no chance of success, and not being successful has predictable negative consequences, what is gained by proceeding with the plan? With the current political climate, you can't risk an assault on the throne unless there is at least a snowball's chance in hell that you'll be successful. These are the guys who refused to let Obama fill a seat on the Supreme Court, and then the ones who confirmed the most preposterous candidate for that seat that anyone could have ever dreamed up during an acid trip. Remember when Trump said he could kill someone in public and his supporters would still support him? He was joking, sure... but he was 100% right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's a bit distracting when you keep coming up with goofy nicknames for your enemies. It's also a real tonal shift when you do it in the middle of a complex analysis. Kinda reminds me of that really stupid demon rats line. Yeah, it was a bit distracting. But, at least some decent points were made. I don't agree with them all, though. SlothfulCobra posted:And also after he's gone, regardless of how we get rid of him, there's going to need to be a massive effort to get rid of all the stooges, incompetents, and actual criminals that have gotten into important bureaucratic positions, and if the people who want to work with a light hand win out, we'll be feeling all these kleptocrats for the next 30 years. I think this can't be understated. Also, let's not delude ourselves too much here. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's a good idea to start the impeachment process even when the outcome will all but certainly be acquittal by the Senate. Then, let's say that, despite everything we've seen out of the Republicans in Congress over the last few years, that more than one of them will suddenly take their balls out of Trump's hands (feel free to insert jokes about his hand size and/or what genitals he normally grabs with those hands) and defy him, voting for removal from office. Then, let's say that irrefutable proof of high treason suddenly becomes public. Hell, while we're at it, let's also say that it suddenly changes every Trump supporter's mind about him, and all the MAGA crap is burned. Five seconds after he leaves office, Pence will pardon him. So... yeah. That'd happen. In seconds. So, at most, we can hope for Trump to be kicked out of office. And all it would take are all of the incredibly unlikely things I mentioned in that paragraph above. He's never going to get within sniffing distance of a jail.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:That leads to another important question; is having Pence as President going to be better than having Trump? The only thing that would make me say yes is that Pence, for all his faults... and there are a lot of them... but for all of his faults, he's a politician. He might like to say he isn't, but he totally is. My biggest problem with Trump is that he's not a politician. I mean, yeah, everything about him is awful, but 93% of what and how he's loving up right now is all down to him not being a politician. Not knowing when to leave well enough alone. Not knowing how to deal with world leaders, especially those who want to manipulate you. Not knowing who your friends are. Not knowing how to deal with your friends. The last two points again, swapping friends with enemies. Knowing not to look for economic advisors by searching Amazon for books that agree with your ridiculous ideas. Any other Republican president would not be doing the damage that Trump is because any other Republican president would have been a politician. Lots of people like to say that politicians are the problem, but the fact of the matter is that it's a political job, and it takes political skill. Of course, Pence would be awful. But we would probably get out of the trade war.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Laughing at Jon thinking people aren't going to order their oreos. I can get Oreos at any of several shoppes that are all within a 5 minute drive of my house. While it's faster for me to order them on Amazon, why wait one or two days for them? I've been on a diabetic diet for over a year now (and I've dropped 100+ pounds!); if I want me some Oreos, I can't risk waiting a whole day or two for my conscious to play on me, convincing me to throw them away the moment they arrive. I need them now. God drat, I want some Oreos. And I've never been particularly fond of them; they're a 3.6 Roentgen cookie... but I want them now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 13:59
|
|
|
And here I was thinking that all this talk of ordering Oreos was super-racist on a few different levels. I had no idea it was also fat-shaming. Let's start an online petition to have them change the name of Oreos. That'll fix the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:Racist? Do non-whites love Oreos or something? Americans are messed up with their racism man Don't know if you're being serious or not (I only know that I was joking), but the word "oreo" has been used as a slur in at least two ways: 1) as a word used to describe someone who has a black and a white parent; and 2) as a word used to describe a black person who "acts white;" i.e., they're black on the outside and white on the inside, or so the sentiment went. The latter was by far the most common variant, but I know I've heard "oreo" and other slurs used for mixed people before. (And I'm pretty sure it was on network TV, not from some random drunken racist uncle.) And before anyone yells at me, I didn't invent this use of the term. I just remember it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:It's really weird when the plot stops and he spends 30 minutes on an in depth breakdown of the lion monarchy Oh, please. He jokes around about some of the jungle news topics from the last week for at least seven minutes, and really only talks about issues regarding feline monarchy for, at most, 19 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:The Morning Report is now just a QUICK recap of the last week, and we begin in the savanna, where the new prince, Simba, was born, and immediately held out over a stunningly high cliff, whereupon all of the animals were forced to make ritual oaths of fealty, or the baby would be dropped. [intense laughing is heard, and a few mascot-sized hyenas wander onstage] Stop it! Stop it right now! You stop that! The fate of the hyenas... (directly into camera) is no laughing matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Here's an objectively perfect explanation of the situation in the UK, and I don't even need to use words (other than setting up this wordless, perfect explanation of the situation in the UK):
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Makes total sense when you think about the huge loving tools that break Guinness records. Would you say they were... the world's biggest tools??
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:If you watch this show and aren't voting Bernie I don't even know what to tell you. Right now, I see Bernie promising everything to everybody and almost for free (well, we just won't notice the cost, so kind-of for free). That doesn't impress me. He and a couple others are coming off like they'll say anything, no matter how crazy, just to get elected. I know that's always been the case in politics, but now it doesn't even seem slightly realistic. They're doing what Trump did, except with real problems instead of imagined ones. But it's still "elect me and I'll make all the bad go away, it's so simple!", and how anyone is falling for it is beyond me. And also, well, maybe Hillary wasn't the right woman for the job. But does that mean we seriously need to consider only super-old white guys? Can we seriously not get some diversity here?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Rarity posted:MAGIC MONEY TREE It actually is as complicated as rocket science, and your statement is why people who actually are informed about some of the issues don't get how people can hear Bernie speak and not get even a tiny bit skeptical about his plans' feasibility. Paying for the plan isn't the only thing to consider, and I don't get how his fans don't see this. (And that assumes that his plan for paying for it would suffice.) ((And that assumes that taxing the rich is something the President would be able to push through the House and Senate.)) Additionally, the unintended consequences of just, say, Medicare For All could easily be disastrous to the economy if done in the hamfisted way that Bernie is suggesting. I happen to have quite a lot of inside knowledge about Medicare, the CMS, and private health insurance. Medicare only works at all right now because it is the primary payer for a small (but growing) portion of the population. It was designed to work within a profit-based system to keep a small minority of people from being devastated by the high cost of hospital bills. As such, it's largely non-managed (you don't need a PCP), and it exists to pay the bills, whatever they are. Asterisk. HUGE ASTERISK on that one. But I'm not going to get into it because I'm not sure if you'd believe me if I told you how much Medicare paid on things. It's one of the reasons why there are a lot of doctors who totally opt-out of accepting Medicare as a payer. Bernie is offering ultra-simple solutions to extremely complicated problems, and he even presents the problems as really simple. And, his solutions have little hope of getting through Congress, and probably passing some judicial reviews. And mind you, he is fully aware of all of this. It's intellectually dishonest and blatantly so; if you choose to believe it, be my guest. I'll only vote for him if he's the guy running against Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:Imagine the mental gymnastics necessary to think America's first jewish president does not count as 'diversity' Sorry, but I didn't actually realize (or remember? I don't recall if I ever learned that last cycle) that he was Jewish. Democratic candidates don't talk about their faith too much, or maybe I just tune it out. It's not generally part-and-parcel of their platforms the way it is with GOP candidates. Does Bernie bring this up often and I have just missed it? But he is still a really old white guy. And he's one I might still vote for, by the way. I'm not happy with how he's promising sweeping changes that I believe even he knows won't ever become law, because I am aware of the fact that he is counting on the number of people who buy whatever he's selling without question outnumbering those of us who scrutinize these things more. It's a particular kind of gamesmanship that I personally don't care for, but I'll still vote for him if he's the least worst DNC candidate. Hell, I did in 2016, and I don't regret it. But it's kind-of early to make that decision. For all we know, he might get me-too'd a week from Thursday. I've only got two checked off my list so far. (Sorry, Grandpa Joe and Oprah Lady.) But look at the response I got by pointing out that he's using an old political campaign trick of making huge promises that he can't deliver and ignoring the negative consequences if he were to deliver on his promises, which again he probably won't manage in the first place with the Congress he'd be inheriting. If anyone thinks this fanaticism makes him look more attractive as a candidate, then I don't know what to tell you other than, it doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I've known about this for quite a while. Now, the whole thing about women having heart attack symptoms that are different than men's symptoms... that's not really a surprise. For the last 30 years, I've heard reports on this in the media on TV news magazines that always seem to hit the same points. I seriously grew up thinking that heart problems weren't an issue for men because the only information I ever got on heart disease was directed at women. That, and I grew up having only one man in the family die of a heart attack, while several women in my family ended up dying of heart attacks. So that isn't anything new. But women being treated different? Let me tell you about my experience with this. And by "my experience," I mean my then-newly-wedded wife's experience. We'd been married for just over a year, and my wife was bitten on the ankle by a spider. Not a huge deal, really; not a black widow or brown recluse. It was just itchy and a little hurty. But, it began to get red, and it started to swell a little, and it was hot to the touch, and all of that started to spread. After a week or two, she was having trouble walking on it; by this point, the red was down to the top of her foot, went all the way around her ankle, and was starting up her calf. We were young and dumb and had never seen anything like this or we'd gone to the doctor sooner, but finally we went to the ER because the pain was too much. The doctor took one look at it and got a look on his face. I was happy, because we had no idea what this could be, and clearly he did. He had a nurse escort me to the waiting room over my wife's protest, but I told her to relax, figuring they were getting me out of the way so they could fix her up or something. An hour later, she was admitted to the hospital. I stayed for a while, but eventually I had to go and get our newborn from the sitter, so away I went. She was in good hands, but incredibly upset. A day later, she was transferred to St. Louis University hospital, as they were afraid they may have to amputate. And about this time, I started to notice that my wife was getting upset when she was asked if she had any STDs, or if she might have any. Then they pulled me aside and asked me. The answer was no. She was inconsolable, and they had to bring in counselors. I had never seen her upset like this, and I was really worried. What had happened was this: at the first hospital, the ER doctor immediately diagnosed her with infectious arthritis caused by gonorrhea, a disease she had never, didn't then, and has never had. They assumed she'd been cheating on me and had picked up the disease, which is why they removed me from the ER that day--they were grilling her so she'd admit it. And the kicker is that neither the doctor nor anyone else on the hospital's staff ever asked me about it, which seems like an obvious thing to do since I've heard talk that sometimes, men cheat on their wives, and they bring STDs into the marriage bed. It wasn't the case for us, but still, that's something they should ask about! So there she was, in incredible pain and worried about losing her foot, and all the while they're asking her every 10 minutes how she got the clap and if it's possible that she could have given it to me. Only when we got to SLU did anyone consider asking me if it were possible that I had the disease, and if I'd possibly given it to her. I hadn't. We were both tested, and she was very upset about it, crying the whole time. Turns out, it was cellulitis. A really nasty, uncontrolled case of cellulitis, but it was cellulitis. Being given the wrong treatment obviously didn't work, but the right one cleared it up in a few days. Her ankle wasn't right for a few years, though. At least we found out she's allergic to ciprofloxacin; I guess that's a plus. I am still pissed about that, and to this day (this was 20 years ago), I still tell anyone who will listen and most who won't to avoid that hospital like the plague. And my wife has a serious complex about male doctors ever since; she has me accompany her any time she's examined. And she actually worked in nursing for years afterward.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Anesthesia was invented so Cliff Burton would have something to call his bass solo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
I knew which one was fake because while I'd never heard of a "diva cup," the fake one had a patently absurd name.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Five seconds after the very first secret ballot election in human history was announced, a corrupt politician figured out a way to manipulate the results, .
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Does the US not have laws for branding people vexatious litigants if they repeatedly file SLAPP suits? From the segment it sounds like even the states that do have anti-SLAPP laws only make people pay their opponents attorney's fees if they lose, without restricting their ability to file suit again in the future. There are cases where people who are absurdly litigious have been effectively barred from using the court system. It's extremely rare, and oddly enough, it tends to happen less to rich coal magnates and more often to... well, a certain brand of non-wealthy person. You've probably heard stories of people who live off of lawsuits, purposefully fall in stores to sue the owners, walk past "DANGER! DANGER! HIGH VOLTAGE!" signs and sue when they're injured in electrical fires at abandoned discos and Taco Bells, etc. And when you give those stories a moment of rational thought, you roll your eyes and wonder why you ever talk to the person who is telling you tall tales of these mysterious supertortfeasors. Here's the thing, though: a few of these people actually do exist, and on occasion, they are forbidden from abusing the system again. I know California has a pretty specific law about this, but not all jurisdictions do, so if you look up the circumstances of these people, they don't have much in common besides the fact that they filed a poo poo-ton of frivolous lawsuits. Bob Murray is basically what you get when you take one of these people and give them a coal company and way too much money for their own good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
If anyone watches Legal Eagle on YouTube, he just did a video about the latest episode of Last Week Tonight. It's pretty neat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I hate sites that completely abuse the fact they have your email too. Like I bought something from Fanatics not long ago, and I swear I got something like 13 emails from them in a space of 2 or 3 days. You’re a legitimate business, what the gently caress makes you think this is ok? Remind me some day to make a database out of all the stuff Adam & Eve has sent me over the last few years. Many years ago, if you and your good lady wife were looking for some marital aides (and I love the term "marital aides!"), you might go to a website like Adam & Eve, which had supplied you with the implements of naughtiness for years through their mail order catalogues. Sure, it was basically a weird website that was an electronic version of the paper catalog, and sure, you had to call them to give them your credit card info, but it was so much more convenient! Somehow! And in the near future, it was going to be much less frightening to enter your credit card info into their newfangled "pay online" option.... I can't remember the last time I even went to their website. It was after I got gmail, but that was a long time ago. But starting about five years ago or so, I began to get the dreaded "IF YOU DON'T ORDER SOMETHING, WE'LL HAVE TO CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT, BECAUSE IT COSTS MONEY TO KEEP IT OPEN!!" messages. Now, mail order businesses used to do this, and they were serious: you would lose your account, and you'd get no more catalogs. Why? Because it cost lots of money to send them. But it costs almost nothing to send emails en masse, so I ignored the messages. And I still get them at least once a week. I also get daily--daily--emails from them, offering me increasingly amazing deals on oils and other goo, movies focused on fetishes I have no interest in, and various tubular things filled with rubber pussy. I'm not even offended or annoyed anymore. It's like a daily joke.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I'm sorry, I can't help myself: SNL did a great commercial for an alternative use for Jos. A Banks suits.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
Azhais posted:All I'm saying is the president has very little power to fire magic bullets at problems.... Let me stop you right there. They're already here. In the thread. Posting. Unironically posting things that look like sarcastic jokes but absolutely aren't. It's too late to say anything that isn't 100% supportive of Bernie. So until Bernie is defeated in the primary or general election, here's my official take on him: if Bernie is elected, he'll solve the problems by taxing the rich. There's nothing a president can't do as long as they really want to solve problems. An openly hostile congress won't be a barrier to Bernie, and it doesn't matter that hostile and friendly legislatures have thwarted the efforts of pretty much every president over the last couple hundred years. With Bernie, it'll be different, and if you don't believe that, then you're just not liberal enough, sorry, and you want America to be Trumpy. Honestly, I'm hoping this season covers some non-election topics worth talking about. This current election has been going on since the end of the last one, and I'm not an undecided voter. I'm just waiting to cast my ballot for the person who loses to Trump, because let's face it--much of the whole world is riding a wave of nationalism, and I'm not seeing any signs of that ending in the next 10 months.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
I work with an "offshore asset" who is based in India. He happened to mention that nobody knew what was going on in his country, that New Delhi was burning, and I told him that, yeah, I had heard about it. I didn't say it was because of a comedy show. He said that the citizenship law is causing a lot of trouble, and it was purposely created to be all but impossible to comply with. The closest thing I can equate it to is voter ID laws. You know how they are harder for the poor, elderly, and some minorities to comply with because records may be hard to get (if they exist), and getting to a place where you can obtain the ID is not easy during business hours? Well how about this: to prove you're an Indian, you need paperwork (like birth certificates, school records, etc.) going back two generations. That's your parents and your grandparents. Sure, we think: that's annoying and burdensome, but I'm sure I could get my grandpa's stuff, right? Well, it was around this time that India was becoming independent, and the vast majority of the country was a rural area where such records were simply never created or kept. India still has large areas that are barely out of the third world; for a lot of these people, these records aren't inconvenient to get, or difficult to gather--they simply don't exist. So, you're hosed. And my Indian partner? He's also a Muslim, so he's double-hosed. He has no idea what's going to become of him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:The funny thing about Chris Matthews quitting is that while the network knew about it I don't think they were prepared for how he did it, by saying he quit and throwing to commercial and apparently just taking off during said commercial. Well it's not like he was capable of delivering a smooth goodbye....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
I feel like I should remind people that Jon Stewart was one of the big proponents for getting Donald Trump to run. It came up often toward the end of Stewart's run. Stewart, like most people, assumed that a Trump candidacy would be a naught but a golden gift to comedians; something that would never, ever, actually result in anything other than a mountain of ridicule from both sides of the political aisle. How did that work out for us?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
I feel cheated. Dr. Oz made the title card, but not a single mention in an episode about the spreading of misinformation regarding Covid? Who, what, when, where, why, and how, in the actual gently caress, did The Blunderful Whiz-ard of Oz not make this episode??
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:It makes me sound like a stupid rear end in a top hat but I miss hearing everyone laugh at the jokes. I think I get some kind of satisfaction from knowing other people are also cracking up at whatever I'm laughing at. If that makes you sound like a stupid rear end in a top hat, then you're in good company. I also miss the audience. This kind of comedy doesn't work as well for me without some basic audience interaction. I like having the little breaks for laughter; it gives the delivery a cadence and some breathing room. Watching the show without laughter is like watching a stand up comedy special with no audience: the jokes are there, but something is conspicuously missing. I will say, though, that since John has had a few weeks to adjust, mainly by omitting the pauses for laughter that were practically reflex by this point, that the lack of an audience is less noticeable. My only complaint about this last episode is, again, the inexcusable lack of Dr. Oz ridicule. I was ready for it because of the opening credits, and then... nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The right wing propaganda machine was not meant to be believed on the top level. This is pretty much why before, it was ridiculous and worthy of nothing but scorn; but now, we all have to pay attention to it, because it is informing Glorious Leader's actions. And the scary thing about paying attention to it is that the longer you stare into the abyss, the longer Ed Harris stares into you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
Yeah, here in St. Louis, there was a case a few years back where absentee ballots were used to steal a local election. The Post-Dispatch covered it extensively, and the details were laughably disturbing. People were being told that they had filed absentee ballots who had never voted. One of the candidate's relatives was even dropping off ballots that didn't stand up to any scrutiny, and a new election had to be held. I'm not sure how well that would scale up, but pretending that mail-in ballots are somehow immune to tampering is short-sighted.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:A friendly reminder that there are more vacant or unused houses in America than there are people without homes. A friendly reminder that vacant or unused homes are often in states of disrepair that range from just a couple dozen thousand dollars away from passing inspection to literally falling apart and scheduled for demolition. Housing is a complicated issue. There is a reason why every simple solution instantly falls apart under even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Listening to people try to solve the housing crisis with a brilliant, can't-fail, simple solution is like watching Trump solve COVID-19 after reading the back label of a bottle of Clorox. tarlibone fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Jul 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:I mean, that's basically what renting is and people are willing to do that. Most people rent because they have to, not because they want to. Often, they can afford monthly payments, but they have no insufficient savings or credit to buy. Sometimes, the reason is less about their economic situation and more about logistics: maybe they don't plan on living in a given place for 20 or 30 years, so they rent a place instead with the intention of moving sooner rather than later.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
pwn posted:I remember him from High Spirits, which is also my main exposure to Peter O’Toole and Daryl Hannah (before Kill Bill anyway.) For me, Daryl Hannah is and will always be Splash. Also that one movie where she's topless (it's set in Africa). I think that was her. But I also remember High Spirits. I wonder how badly it's held up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
The Merkinman posted:Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? We do, we dooooooooooooo!!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2020 17:10
|
|