Ranxerox

No. According to NPR the sex tape that he is referencing doesn't exist. Of course being the good, thorough journalist that they are they had to watch a number of other sex tapes make sure that they weren't the one. You know, just to be responsible.

Well, we are using the word fix in the same sense as when we say that we took the family dog to the vet to be be fixed.

As the subject of the physics of Superman's universe was brought up in relation to normal people being punched through wall with dying, I would like to point out the DCU uses Champions' physics. Or stated more correctly, Champions emulates comic book physics and does a damn fine job of it. In Champions going through an interior wall does 3 or 4d6 of damage, so after subtracting PD we are only talking about a couple BODY. Because of how Champions and comic book physics work, Superman almost never takes BODY but takes STUN frequently. It is really hard to do BODY to most Champions' bricks, but if you have an attack that does 12d6 or 14d6 you can generally inflict some STUN. Since STUN is basically defined as non-life threatening pain, this means because he chooses to go out and fight supervillains to protect the weak and innocent Superman endures a lot of pain. You can see this in the comic books. Livewire will hit with lightning bolts and Superman will be shown as clearly experiencing a lot of discomfort. Of course, if he didn't elect to fight supervillains, he could avoid all that pain. Nor, in those rare occasions where he is facing a foe that can potentially kill him, does Superman change his tune. When faced with a Doomsday, a General Zod or a Darkseid, the man of steel does not run and hide. He goes out and faces the possibility and sometimes even the actuality of serious injury or death in order to protect human life. Now if enduring pain and injury to protect total strangers from harm isn't a moral act in your book, then I can only suspect that you are one of those people who thinks that morality is not a thing.

So, do you guys make a decent beer?

This is par for the course. Back in 2012 when Fifty Eight Thirty was giving Barrack Obama a 90% chance of winning, the media was painting the contest as a neck and neck horserace. Unfortunately, this is a tighter race than 2012, though still not exactly a coin toss. Current best guessimates give Clinton a 70% chance of victory to Trump's 30% chance of coming out on top.

Yeah, I'm fine with immortalizing them as villains and even in some cases as sympathetic villains, but the portraying them as misunderstood heroes is messed up.

Nothing new here. A quick peek at Billy the Kid's wiki page shows that he has been a character, and often the title character, in 21 films. He also is the subject of 10 songs, a Broadway play, many poems and other sundry media. Nor is Billy alone in this regard. The very fact that in 2016 we can hear the names Bonnie and Clyde, Jessie James, or John Dillinger and not scratch our head and go "who?" is proof that they all got way more fame than there actions warranted. So if people are immortalizing Gakirah Barnes, it is just part of a long traditions.

Holy ****. Sorry, I was just have trouble accepting the idea of a teenage girl with that big of a body count outside of Game of Thrones. Really, if only those evil Lannisters hadn't killed her father Ned and her brother Rob, things could have gone so differently. Here is an obituary of Gakirah Barnes. It's weird. She kind of seems like a real life Dark Champion character.

I'm guessing that he was saying that she had had 20 people who were in her social group die before she turned 17.

Already? Wow! The series must be doing pretty well for them.

What? They are doing season 2 right now.

Renouncing our debts is also completely unconstitutional. However while this same portion of the right likes to talk about the primacy of the Constitution, few of them have the foggiest notion what the document says.

The irony of this article is how the author is, while decrying how outrage journalism has taken over movie reviews, makes his case through invective and hyperbole. It's kind of sad.

I'm sure that he just meant go out and spread the message about how important it is to vote against her.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp Edit: Scooped by Certified

There is truth to that. However, I would like to remind you all, that once upon a time, that Hillary was this... a young, political activist with no elections in front of her and no polls to guide her and even then she was already trying to change the world. I also like this picture. She is just so adorkable!

Hillary Clinton has changed her position many things over the years, but she has always worked to make things better for woman and children. If you can walk in single directions and hold to a cause for your entire life then you have a moral compass. Helping woman and children is Hillary's true north.

Okay, since the topic of just how bad would a Trump presidency be was brought up, I would like to give my two cents on the subject. First, jumping to worse case scenarios, if elected president could Trump establish himself as dictator? The answer to this is absolutely yes. The trick is just to keep provoking crises and then use them as a pretext for ever greater expansions to the powers of the executive branch. If he can get us in a large external war while at the same time having rioting in the streets of our major cities, and you know he is capable of this, then he will be in a positioned to establish himself as dictator. Now do I think this is something that he would do? Not really. As horrible of a person as Trump is, I just don't see him intentionally piling up bodies like cord wood. All that slaughter would get in the way of golf and beauty pageants, and I just can't see him wanting to work that hard at this point in his life. Still, never say that it could never happen here, because of course it could happen here. So if we aren't going to embrace worse case scenarios, then what? Well, the moment that Trump is elected (gods I hate typing that) our credit rating will be downgraded just like the UK's was following the Brexit vote. He has just talked too much about renegotiating our debt and his history of walking away from financial obligations. The world simply won't see the US as a safe a bet as it use to. Given the amount the amount of money that we owe, this downgrade will cost us billions and billions. Second out international image will be tattered and it will become nearly impossible for us to form large international coalitions the way that we have in the past. This will significantly hamper our ability to act on the world stage, and will likely embolden expansionist minded nations. Of course China and Russia are the first ones that come to mind, but don't be surprised if other smaller powers get into the action. If you think that the headlines about ISIS and fighting in Syria and Libya are depressing, you haven't seen anything yet. Third, people take their cues on how to behave from the top, so expect under a Trump presidency people to think and act more like Trump. I'm not going to elaborate on that one, because I really don't want to, but I suspect this would ultimately effect the quality of lives even more than higher interest on our debt or fighting on foreign shores. Now no doubt there are a fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh totally predictable consequence to having a Trump presidency, but I will leave them for smarter, more insightful board member than myself. Points one through three were plenty for me.

Oh no, darling. This is the big daddy of the birther movement that we are talking about here. He does not get a pass on conspiracy theories. You know the old saying; if you live by the conspiracy theory, you die by the conspiracy theory.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-wanted-hit-couple-dnc-speakers-hard/story?id=40974703

This is great example of how contentious the relationship is between the DNC and the Sanders' campaign but a total nonexample of the DNC leaning on the media. Go into the letter that Bernie Sanders sent to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You will see that is dated May 6th just like email that MirandaL is sending to Laura Meckler over at the WSJ. So the DNC is sending letter the very same day that they received, but you can tell by context that Laura Meckler had already been asking for a copy of the letter. So, yes, the Sanders' campaign contacted the WSJ about the letter of complaint to the DNC before they even sent it. The Sanders' campaign has put the DNC in the situation of being questioned by the media about about a complaint that they haven't even gotten a chance to read much less consider or respond to. Now in the absence of context I would consider this a rather d***ish move on the part of Sanders campaign, except at this this point it is May 6th, 2016 and there is tons of context and history by this point in the game. Given the history between the groups, I am not going assume that the Sanders' camp aggressive, call the media first and then lodge your complaint was necessarily an unwarranted action. Still unwarranted or not, the move was a bit of a stunt, and my impression is that MirandaL, whoever she is, was annoyed by the move. So she made an off the record comment to the WSJ reporter to maybe let her know this and also to explain why it had taken so to get her a copy of the letter. Sorry, unless it is a bribe or a threat, making an off the record comment to a reporter is no more collusion with the media or leaning on the media than writing a letter to editor. Also, seeing as Sanders' campaign has enlisted the media (in this case the WSJ) to pressure the DNC, the DNC has a right to make there own case to the media and defend their own actions. This is just some tiff-taffing between the Sanders camp and the DNC and has nothing to do with HRC. If you want to prove that the DNC was working with the media to lop-side the playingfield in the Democratic primary, you need to find emails which show the DNC pushing negative stories about Senator Sander or killing positive stories about him, or emails that show the DNC promoting positive stories about Secretary Clinton and failing to do the same for Bernie Sanders. Those are the sorts of emails that need to be found to make your case. There are 20 thousand emails; if there is a smoking gun it is probably in there somewhere ... and if there isn't a gun then there probably wasn't a shooting. Really, does it make sense that the DNC could pressure/bribe all the media bodies you say they did and have none of them turn around make a story out of it? "Hey, Debbie Wasserman Schultz just offered me a bunch of stuff if I would ignore Sanders and focus on Clinton! I'm totally not going to make front page article about the meeting we just had!" Does that sound like the world you live it?

That is kind of nebulous. Do you have any specific examples?

What is this numerous major media outlet thing? I've only heard that some DNC staffers were dismissive of the Sanders's campaign in there emails with one another and one of the heads brought the idea of trying to use Sanders' religion or lack thereof against him. That last one is pretty bad, but to date no proof has been put forward that that particular idea was ever acted upon. So what is this about media outlets?

This demonization is aided by the fact that she is a politician and as such sometimes spins the truth, quotes sources that turn out to be biased or simply wrong, and occasionally she flat out lies. If you look up Hillary Clinton on Politifact.com, you will discover that 50% of her statements are rated true or mostly true. That, of course, means that the other half of her statements are half truths or worse. That sounds really bad, but to put it in context, Bernie Sanders' true and mostly true rating is 52% and Barack Obama's is 48%. So, in essence, you can only trust about half of what comes out of the mouths of any of the top Dems. Lest Republicans (if there are any left in this conversation) start feeling smug, I should point out that on 28% of what Donald Trump says is rated true or mostly true and Ted Cruz's rating is a scant 25%. What it comes down to is that if you wish to portray a politician, any politician, as being a "congenital liar", as William Safire characterized Hillary Clinton did so many years ago, you are going to have plenty of ammunition to work with. The Republicans have taken this meme started Safire and have ran with it and built upon it 20 plus years, and now it is treated simply as a matter of fact by a large portion of the electorate. However, I contend that it is no more (of less) true for Hillary Clinton than it is for Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. That is to say that it is just the nature of politics.

Just because "loyalty" doesn't mean much in liberal circles (which is actually news to me) doesn't mean that Secretary Clinton doesn't care about it. Hillary Clinton is being always accused up lacking morals and being the sort of person who throws others under the bus in the name of her own ambition, and it sounds like people are upset that she didn't throw a friend under the bus. Rep Schultz was accused of many things by the Bernie Sanders' camp, but what was actually proven against her? A big, fat nothing; that's what. This is after a hack of the DNC's emails that would have presumably uncovered any wrong doing had there been any. Still, the Sanders camp demanded Schultz's firing and the name of political unity they are getting there wish. If they want Schultz pilloried and cast out into the wilderness also, well sorry, they are going to just have to want.