Badger

so he has a harem and an army of turtles?
 
I demand a Florida Man write-up

Unless I find out the Last Jedi is retconned into Finn's fever dream, there is no coming back.  
 
Though, if not, I demand a space battle where 2 fleets of empty ships save one droid pilot each try to maneuver themselves into position for a kamikaze hyperspeed jump.

wait, wait, I got it, and then the dying parasitic alien that has been controlling Luke crawls out of Luke's ear.   I just saved your (edit), Rian Johnson.
 
(Of course, expect Roddenberry estate suing the (edit) I just saved.

IMO, I like the prequels way more than the current sequels.   And I loathed I and II (III not so bad)
 
So, far the sequels have been a knockoff remake of the original movie, and an abomination I need to risk felony possession of illegal substances to get through again.

IMO, I like the prequels way more than the current sequels.   And I loathed I and II (III not so bad)
 
So, far the sequels have been a knockoff remake of the original movie, and an abomination I need to risk felony possession of illegal substances to get through again.

Unless I find out the Last Jedi is retconned into Finn's fever dream, there is no coming back.  
 
Though, if not, I demand a space battle where 2 fleets of empty ships save one droid pilot each try to maneuver themselves into position for a kamikaze hyperspeed jump.

I don't.  I trust it'll suck.
 
Skywalker is dead, he isn't rising unless there is some wacky rigor mortis issue.

IMO, I like the prequels way more than the current sequels.   And I loathed I and II (III not so bad)
 
So, far the sequels have been a knockoff remake of the original movie, and an abomination I need to risk felony possession of illegal substances to get through again.

Simple, work on 'War of Northern Aggression' as it is known in the South or State rights. People were defending their homes and their States. The war was not fought on the basis of emancipation for slaves or their rights, it was one of the results.

Weekend at Ruthie's

Weekend at Ruthie's

Both parties are addicted to spending.  Raising taxes won't help because that money (and more) will immediately be spent.
 
I can tell because I've been paying into social security for over 3 decades and all of that money is already gone.  Not a cent of what I was promised has been saved.  It's entirely dependent on current year tax revenue.
 
I honestly feel like we could raise IRS revenues to 5 trillion a year and we would still run a deficit after a year or two.  It's quite easy to spend money that you haven't earned and our government has been proving that for decades on end.
 
It's always the same old drum beat.  Sorry we did such a crappy job with this program.  What we need to do it right is MORE of your money and MORE control over your life.  Then we'll do it right...

Seen that graph before and so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to start.  Primarily, putting it in percentages is a ridiculous manipulation of the numbers in a desperate attempt to make Obama look frugal (quite laughable).
 
To say that Obama was so much better than Bush is to say a man who originally weigh 200 pounds, who gained 50 pounds in the next year, then 60 the second year, did a better job of weight manage than year to.  (because he reduced his percentage of weight gain from 25 to 24 percent.  Truly a man who learned restraint.)  But, this is the essentially the argument you are making to say Obama was better than Bush. 
 
Clinton is the only outlier here (cant gauge Carter at all because we don't have Ford on this list).  During the Clinton administration, we did a great job of reducing the deficit, and to at least approach fiscal sanity in our reckless spending ways.  But it set an abnormally high bar for the successor.  Bush wasn't going to be fiscally responsible.  He wanted his 2 front war for good or ill, and he didn't want to due raise money with taxes.  As a result spending rose percentage dramatically in comparison to the previous administration.  Now Obama comes in, as a result of the ensuing years, he has a pretty low bar to not raise it, still he barely slightly manages to reduce the deficit by 1 cent per 10 dollars (where would be without a "Party of No" Congress allegedly kicking him every step of the way?  Maybe Obama should send them a thank you card for all their hard work to "spite" him, because now he can say he is better than Bush, at least by percentage)
 
Conclusion: We did a pretty good job with Bill Clinton as President, didn't we?  We also had a GOP Congress for most of that.  One that on a rare note practiced a modicum of restraint with money.  Unfortunately "He Who Fights Monsters" came into play in 2001, when they got their own in as President.   Clinton for his part didn't put a fight on that level at least.  So, I give him half-credit with the Congress, sorry Republicans.  In the administration of Obama, either Obama was more insistent on pushing his spending through. Or the Party of No wasn't as obstructive as we were led to believe.  Because if the Democrats were so "fiscally responsible"  how come Obama didn't do as well as Clinton?  You don't get to double the debt and claim fiscal responsibility (to Obama and Bush both).
 
I am convinced...….to vote REpublican for Congress, no matter what.  Because their obstruction slows down spending.  Slightly.   
 
Note: This also looks very bad for Trump that he is raising the deficit despite the ridiculousness of the last 16 years.
 
 

THrough the first week and a half, Chris Davis and me have identical batting averages.  

Well, this post makes me happy just to hear that debt can become big enough to become a problem.  It sometimes seems hard to get a mention of that, in general.
 
Regular Surpluses may or may not be a good thing (Coolidge seemed to be good at surplus, and what happened after him should be easy to remember).  But, it does seem we could use a surplus year here and there to keep things somewhat stable.   (Modern Keynesians seem to be extremely guilty of forgetting the 2nd half their own philosophy: Debt has to eventually paid off in good times)

Seen that graph before and so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to start.  Primarily, putting it in percentages is a ridiculous manipulation of the numbers in a desperate attempt to make Obama look frugal (quite laughable).
 
To say that Obama was so much better than Bush is to say a man who originally weigh 200 pounds, who gained 50 pounds in the next year, then 60 the second year, did a better job of weight manage than year to.  (because he reduced his percentage of weight gain from 25 to 24 percent.  Truly a man who learned restraint.)  But, this is the essentially the argument you are making to say Obama was better than Bush. 
 
Clinton is the only outlier here (cant gauge Carter at all because we don't have Ford on this list).  During the Clinton administration, we did a great job of reducing the deficit, and to at least approach fiscal sanity in our reckless spending ways.  But it set an abnormally high bar for the successor.  Bush wasn't going to be fiscally responsible.  He wanted his 2 front war for good or ill, and he didn't want to due raise money with taxes.  As a result spending rose percentage dramatically in comparison to the previous administration.  Now Obama comes in, as a result of the ensuing years, he has a pretty low bar to not raise it, still he barely slightly manages to reduce the deficit by 1 cent per 10 dollars (where would be without a "Party of No" Congress allegedly kicking him every step of the way?  Maybe Obama should send them a thank you card for all their hard work to "spite" him, because now he can say he is better than Bush, at least by percentage)
 
Conclusion: We did a pretty good job with Bill Clinton as President, didn't we?  We also had a GOP Congress for most of that.  One that on a rare note practiced a modicum of restraint with money.  Unfortunately "He Who Fights Monsters" came into play in 2001, when they got their own in as President.   Clinton for his part didn't put a fight on that level at least.  So, I give him half-credit with the Congress, sorry Republicans.  In the administration of Obama, either Obama was more insistent on pushing his spending through. Or the Party of No wasn't as obstructive as we were led to believe.  Because if the Democrats were so "fiscally responsible"  how come Obama didn't do as well as Clinton?  You don't get to double the debt and claim fiscal responsibility (to Obama and Bush both).
 
I am convinced...….to vote REpublican for Congress, no matter what.  Because their obstruction slows down spending.  Slightly.   
 
Note: This also looks very bad for Trump that he is raising the deficit despite the ridiculousness of the last 16 years.
 
 

A sinner-saint rivalry?

A sinner-saint rivalry?

More likeable than actual Batman.

I'm enjoying the Red Sox, right now. 
 
 
Edit: Admittedly I pull for the Yankees to an extent, but it is more of a "hate Red Sox Nation more" thing.

More likeable than actual Batman.

Nah, they don't care about Phillies/Braves either.  It's only because of Bryce Harper (before this year it would have been Nationals/Braves).
 
They do like showing Braves though (a remember a few years ago they played the Braves like 6-7 Sundays during the year, including 3 times in a 4 Sunday span)
 
Note: I am pretty sure an "ideal" ESPN season would be all Bos-NY series on weekends, all Harper/Braves series on weekends, neither at same time.  It would cover 12 Sundays without having to show those "others".  That would be close to half the season (I think usually 26-27 weeks)
 
Red Sox-Yankees have excitement potential I will grant them but even 4-2 games will go past 11:30.   

Nah, they don't care about Phillies/Braves either.  It's only because of Bryce Harper (before this year it would have been Nationals/Braves).
 
They do like showing Braves though (a remember a few years ago they played the Braves like 6-7 Sundays during the year, including 3 times in a 4 Sunday span)
 
Note: I am pretty sure an "ideal" ESPN season would be all Bos-NY series on weekends, all Harper/Braves series on weekends, neither at same time.  It would cover 12 Sundays without having to show those "others".  That would be close to half the season (I think usually 26-27 weeks)
 
Red Sox-Yankees have excitement potential I will grant them but even 4-2 games will go past 11:30.   

Is masochism still considered a disorder?

Bah, I have staring contest with Cthulhu all the time, unaffected.
 
 
 
My mind was already questionable.