Ranxerox

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.

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.  

To my mind, showing respect for the source material goes beyond simply "staying faithful" to it narratively or visually. I think it involves many elements like understanding the tone of the source material, understanding what worked and what didn't as the character evolved, how it resonated with readers over the years, which aspects of the character and his/her storyline most closely captures the spirit of the character and his/her place within the broader scope of his/her comic-book universe, etc.
 
I feel that the kind of person who truly grasps (and appreciates) all those elements is someone who is intrinsically going to "show respect" for it in a way that meaningfully impacts a movie adaptation. I'm not convinced that WB has allowed/found anyone with those qualifications to take the reins of their properties on film. I don't really consider Nolan such a person; I feel he succeeded (for the first two Bat films anyway) purely on the strength of his skills as a compelling storyteller in general. And Snyder talks a good game at conventions, but at the end of the day, his work speaks for itself.
 
Contrast that with Marvel/Disney who manages to find the right people even when they're not strictly adapting a pre-existing comic-book property (e.g., The Incredibles, which is a better Fantastic Four movie than anything Fox has ever made).

While I'm not a Hillary Supporter, here are Snopes articles on those pictures
 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
 
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-blackface-photo/ 

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.    

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?

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.

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.

Gabby Giffords.  That.  Is.  Amazing.  :thumbup:

George H Bush was competent and, in a WASPish sort of way, likable.  Adding highly appealing to the list is setting the bar too high, IMHO.

George H Bush was competent and, in a WASPish sort of way, likable.  Adding highly appealing to the list is setting the bar too high, IMHO.

To be fair, reality frequently forgets that it is not Satire.

To be fair, reality frequently forgets that it is not Satire.

To be fair, reality frequently forgets that it is not Satire.

To be fair, reality frequently forgets that it is not Satire.

I would have preferred Sanders, however I'll wind up voting for Clinton because I see her terms to be functionally equivalent to Obama.  Everything bad would get rubberstamped by a republican, and some good will happen.
And I don't have my backup plan of having a cross country vehicle capable of fending off hordes of mutants ready yet.

One mystery of evolution solved

Well, I guess at the end of the day they still left a few frames free for Flash special effects in the murder house for when he has to run back in time and change what happened that night *again*.
 
"Ok, ok! Places people! Reverse Flash, you come in from the right and try and kill her.  Flash number 1 - come in and save Young Barry. Put up your hand to ward off Flash number 2 before saving us.  Flash 3 - now you come in and deck Reverse Flash in the snozz.  Ok, Flash 2 - your part of the plan now is instead of getting closure by holding her in her dying moments and letting her know we're safe you get erased from history. Cool? Cool.  Alright since we ALL know how well stopping the murder worked out we're on to Flash 4 - attack Flash before he decks Reversie.  Flash's 6 and 7 - intercept Flash 5 when he changes his mind again.  Flash 8 through 10 - watch out for Jay and Wally this time."
 
"Remember, people, half of us are time remnants now so Flash 11 and 12 - you're wraith bait.  Let's move, we only have infinite more times we can do this to get it right!"

A controversial theory may explain the real reason humans have allergies
 

That reminded me of this, about the CN tower:
 

I find myself feeling kinda embarrassed to have explain this here of all places.  
 
Supergirl is clearly a 4 SPD brick.  This means that despite the whole super speed thing she has going on that she can only perform 4 actions in a turn.  The way she set about rescuing the falling people she had to spend one action phase to rescue each individual, and clearly CatCo Tower was not tall enough for her to get to her 3rd action phase before Kelly went splat.  I would like to think that Supergirl's GM intended for Supergirl to move some large soft object that was conveniently placed nearby (in Supergirl's case that could include a couple blocks away) to break their falls, and that Supergirl's player just didn't think to look for such an object.  However, it is also possible that the GM was being d*** and wanted to force Supergirl's player to make the dramatic choice.
 
As for the fight with Alex, once again you aren't looking a Supergirl's build.  Alex's DCV is at least as good as Supergirl's OCV, so with the -2 OCV penalty of the disarm maneuver, the move just isn't going to work most of the time.  Trying to perform a ranged disarm is going to be even harder since against a sword that is a -3 OCV penalty, and despite your talk of super-accuracy, Supergirl has done nothing to indicate she has any levels in ranged combat.
 
Also, using a sign post or telephone poll isn't the winning strategy you think it is because Alex would just use her sword to block the attack.  Blocked attacks do no damage or knockback and the blocker get automatic first action in the phase if the both act in the same action phase (and since Alex also has a 4 SPD they always act in the same phases).  So as you can see attacking with weapon of opportunity is a risky strategy.
 
I hope these explanations help.  

I find myself feeling kinda embarrassed to have explain this here of all places.  
 
Supergirl is clearly a 4 SPD brick.  This means that despite the whole super speed thing she has going on that she can only perform 4 actions in a turn.  The way she set about rescuing the falling people she had to spend one action phase to rescue each individual, and clearly CatCo Tower was not tall enough for her to get to her 3rd action phase before Kelly went splat.  I would like to think that Supergirl's GM intended for Supergirl to move some large soft object that was conveniently placed nearby (in Supergirl's case that could include a couple blocks away) to break their falls, and that Supergirl's player just didn't think to look for such an object.  However, it is also possible that the GM was being d*** and wanted to force Supergirl's player to make the dramatic choice.
 
As for the fight with Alex, once again you aren't looking a Supergirl's build.  Alex's DCV is at least as good as Supergirl's OCV, so with the -2 OCV penalty of the disarm maneuver, the move just isn't going to work most of the time.  Trying to perform a ranged disarm is going to be even harder since against a sword that is a -3 OCV penalty, and despite your talk of super-accuracy, Supergirl has done nothing to indicate she has any levels in ranged combat.
 
Also, using a sign post or telephone poll isn't the winning strategy you think it is because Alex would just use her sword to block the attack.  Blocked attacks do no damage or knockback and the blocker get automatic first action in the phase if the both act in the same action phase (and since Alex also has a 4 SPD they always act in the same phases).  So as you can see attacking with weapon of opportunity is a risky strategy.
 
I hope these explanations help.  

'Bad' puns? Puns are better than poetry. I mean, puns may be bad, but poetry is verse.

Dude, no.  Just no.
 
I played all the way through the first Baldur's Gate game and have read a number of the Forgotten Realms novels, and I can say with great confidence that it is not a medieval setting.  How do I know?  Well one, in actual medieval times living dragons weren't a thing and magic didn't work, and two, the Forgotten Realms doesn't have the Catholic church or any obvious stand-ins for it.  The Catholic church was huge during the medieval period and influenced every aspect of medieval life.  Remove the church with its deeply hierarchical and patriarchal customs, and replace it with a multiple polytheist pantheons each with powerful female deities as well as male deities and that is going have tremendous social impacts.
 
Now combine this magic that will make pregnancy and childbirth much safer than they were in medieval Europe and also the likely existence of reliable magical birth control, and it is little wonder that woman in the Forgotten Realms are able to become power warriors and magic-users as they have been shown many times in Forgotten Realms canon.
 
So why in such a world where ones sex is no barrier or power or prestige would they be as hung up on gender as the patriarchal cluster**** that was medieval Europe?  We live in a world that in which there are lots of people who if you take the right path on the dialogue tree with them, they will happily tell you about about the trans experience.  But just because the Forgotten Realms not counting there magic (which is a large thing not to count) shares a technological sophistication with the medieval period, we must necessarily assume that trans people are the subject of endless persecution wherever they go and would never share there trans status with a stranger?
 
No, I have to call complete and total, heaping BS on that.  Show me where in Forgotten Realms canon it makes it plan that the citizens of Realms from one end to the other are a bunch of violent homophobes and I will concede the point, but the whole medieval comparison carries no water.