Lawnmower Boy

I dunno. Compared to the comics, her hair isn't yellow enough.

Possibly a good choice. I'll have to check Marvel's height & weight to see if actress matches the character.

Ask Magnus, Robot Fighter!

I've mentioned Awesome Gamer Girl occasionally on the forum, starting when we met back in late 2012. (I think?)
 
It's my great pleasure to announce that she's now Awesome Gamer Fiancee, and she'll become my Awesome Gamer Spouse on June 18th.
 
Also, I've been at my new job for a year as of May 30th. We've just replaced both of our old clunker cars, and finally finished laminating all the floors.
 
The master bath is getting a complete remodel in July....

I'm not distinctive at all!  I'm an utterly mediocre non-entity.  So leave me alone!!

Obviously, Applejack is the very best pony. Great strength, a lasso, and down home simplicity.
 
I'll take the Mustang though. My drivers side window is plastic and duck tape on my 2003 Altima, and I hit 230k miles today. I need a car.

Look, America, I know you were in a hurry this morning.  An early appointment, slept in, forgot to buy milk for breakfast. There's lots of good excuses for missing your meds this morning. I get it. I'm not judging. All I'm saying is, you have to go home, sit down, and take them now.

That looks pretty dirty.

Ultimate Cap is also a prick.  I like Movie Cap much better.

I'm sorry to return to this, because it looks like I'm taking issue with Sinanju, whereas in fact you will notice that I have clipped his hopeful codicil. What I want to say is that I've read these guys, too. Or to put it another way, We know these Papenheimers.
 
I'm returning to it, above all, because there's also a substantive issue. It has been very convincingly argued that this age of secular stagnation we live in (also known as: the reason you haven't had a real raise in thirty years) is due to a shortage of public debt. As incomprehensible as it may seem to people raised on a steady diet of deficit scolding, the amount of public debt around the world has been shrinking for years. The only reason America is an exception is that you've cut your tax rates so far. (Leaving the argument about whether that was a good idea or not aside.) So this pose of world-weary, cynical wisdom grounded in historical knowledge is dangerous to the public weal, even before you tancy that you see seven flavours of awfulness in it from the pens of Jerry Pournelle, Heinlein and H. Beam Piper. 
 
Because it's a terrible argument. It's wrong everywhere! It's actually not even just wrong. It's like anti-truth! It's like someone taking you aside and telling you, "Hey, kid, you're young and I'm wise and old, and I know science. Trust me, the Moon is made of green cheese." Almost literally so.
 
i) Two hundred years? There are precious few regimes that last two centuries. Dynasties fall; civil wars happen; invasions succeed. Mostlly, it is monarchies and tyrannies that fall this way. But! But! But! But! I'm sputtering here because singling out democracies is such a terrible move to make in this argument.
ii) Because, well, for one thing, there aren't that many historical democracies. The Death Tribble notes that Britain's democracy has lasted more than two hundred years, but that's not really true. Britain was an oligarchy with representative institutions until some point during the long road of parliamentary reforms made in the course of the Nineteenth Century. I don't know where in the progress of freedom you want to place the magic moment of breakthrough to the sunny uplands of true democracy, but it wasn't in 1816! 
iii) Given this, the whole pose of objective-data-driven-social-science is just completely wrong. What historical democracies are we singling out? There aren't that many of them, and the examples we single out: Rome, Athens, Venice --they all lasted a lot longer than two centuries. For the most part, they didn't even fall to internal tensions! In fact, if we're looking for examples, we need alleged Greek democracies of the sixth century BC, about which we know absolutely noting, and what we know is almost certainly wrong; the Roman republic (two centuries, not so much); and, I don't know, I guess Florence? Machiavelli was all upset about that, so I guess it counts. But if you're going to make some kind of point about democracies being particularly unstable, I've got a longer list right here of Chinese dynasties (alone) that fell. Though most of them made it three centuries, so good for them, I guess? Actually, I bet you could make a longer list of states-of-the-island-of-Java-that-fell-in-less-than-two-centuries than you can make of democracies that. . . 
 
iv) This is just another numbered point, but I'm separating it off because of the whole rich and deeper cray-cray factor. Not only have there not been many democracies in the world in history, there are a lot more now. Right now, and for the last two centuries, the pattern has been for dictatorships and anarchies to fall and be replaced by democracies. And the number of democracies which have fallen in that time is . . . . Hungary, maybe? Thailand's had some rough patches, too. But, overall, the clear, the very clear trend, has been the opposite of this historical insight presented above. Oh, maybe we're due at the magic two centuries mark, but until then, where's the freaking evidence?
 
So that's democracies failing. Now, the bit about the crowd realising that they can vote themselves money out of the treasury. Public debt is a feature of the modern age, ever since the Habsburgs of Spain (accuracy note: note a democracy!) started borrowing to fund their wars in the Sixteenth Century. The Habsburgs of Spain also pioneered national debt repudiation, which is clearly not a good thing, but in no way the end of the world, as we can see on account of the world not ending. 
 
The Habsburgs having set a precedent, everyone started borrowing large amounts of money to fund their wars. And stuff: Like, for example, corruption. Right down to today, the entire list of countries which have repudiated their public debts since the French Revolution consist of: the Weimar Republic (by stealth); and, assorted dictatorships and anarchies. Not a single democracy has repudiated its debt since 1815, to the best of my knowledge.
 
Why? Because, in the mid-seventeenth century, two regimes which fought the Spanish a lot realised that they had to put their national-debt-raising on a solid footing and establish proper taxation to pay for it. And you know what countries those were? Two republics! (Dutch, English.) Then, in the Eighteenth Century, in a particularly bad episode of public debt repudiation, the French monarchy's handling of it led to a revolution which established a republic , which, in turn, put French finances on the right path.
 
One of the more interesting things about this was that they did so by getting rid of the rich and connected rentier class which took a large share of the public debt as private payment. It turns out that monarchies last until aristocrats realise that they can privilege themselves a fortune out of the public treasury. . . 
 
Meanwhile, in the second decade of the 21st century, we see public debt shrinking everywhere. It is projected that the American debt will stop shrinking and start growing at some point in the future, but this is because the projections assume that Americans will  never raise taxes, ever again. For example, you will not raise your social security taxes by, for example, eliminating the tax preference for private retirement plans that have so dramatically failed their investors. I --never mind. Of course, that tax break has served at least one purpose: it has put a lot of money in the hands of the American financial industry, and, since some of it comes back in the form of lobbying money, into the hands of its politicians. 
 
Something about public largesse?

I'm sorry to return to this, because it looks like I'm taking issue with Sinanju, whereas in fact you will notice that I have clipped his hopeful codicil. What I want to say is that I've read these guys, too. Or to put it another way, We know these Papenheimers.
 
I'm returning to it, above all, because there's also a substantive issue. It has been very convincingly argued that this age of secular stagnation we live in (also known as: the reason you haven't had a real raise in thirty years) is due to a shortage of public debt. As incomprehensible as it may seem to people raised on a steady diet of deficit scolding, the amount of public debt around the world has been shrinking for years. The only reason America is an exception is that you've cut your tax rates so far. (Leaving the argument about whether that was a good idea or not aside.) So this pose of world-weary, cynical wisdom grounded in historical knowledge is dangerous to the public weal, even before you tancy that you see seven flavours of awfulness in it from the pens of Jerry Pournelle, Heinlein and H. Beam Piper. 
 
Because it's a terrible argument. It's wrong everywhere! It's actually not even just wrong. It's like anti-truth! It's like someone taking you aside and telling you, "Hey, kid, you're young and I'm wise and old, and I know science. Trust me, the Moon is made of green cheese." Almost literally so.
 
i) Two hundred years? There are precious few regimes that last two centuries. Dynasties fall; civil wars happen; invasions succeed. Mostlly, it is monarchies and tyrannies that fall this way. But! But! But! But! I'm sputtering here because singling out democracies is such a terrible move to make in this argument.
ii) Because, well, for one thing, there aren't that many historical democracies. The Death Tribble notes that Britain's democracy has lasted more than two hundred years, but that's not really true. Britain was an oligarchy with representative institutions until some point during the long road of parliamentary reforms made in the course of the Nineteenth Century. I don't know where in the progress of freedom you want to place the magic moment of breakthrough to the sunny uplands of true democracy, but it wasn't in 1816! 
iii) Given this, the whole pose of objective-data-driven-social-science is just completely wrong. What historical democracies are we singling out? There aren't that many of them, and the examples we single out: Rome, Athens, Venice --they all lasted a lot longer than two centuries. For the most part, they didn't even fall to internal tensions! In fact, if we're looking for examples, we need alleged Greek democracies of the sixth century BC, about which we know absolutely noting, and what we know is almost certainly wrong; the Roman republic (two centuries, not so much); and, I don't know, I guess Florence? Machiavelli was all upset about that, so I guess it counts. But if you're going to make some kind of point about democracies being particularly unstable, I've got a longer list right here of Chinese dynasties (alone) that fell. Though most of them made it three centuries, so good for them, I guess? Actually, I bet you could make a longer list of states-of-the-island-of-Java-that-fell-in-less-than-two-centuries than you can make of democracies that. . . 
 
iv) This is just another numbered point, but I'm separating it off because of the whole rich and deeper cray-cray factor. Not only have there not been many democracies in the world in history, there are a lot more now. Right now, and for the last two centuries, the pattern has been for dictatorships and anarchies to fall and be replaced by democracies. And the number of democracies which have fallen in that time is . . . . Hungary, maybe? Thailand's had some rough patches, too. But, overall, the clear, the very clear trend, has been the opposite of this historical insight presented above. Oh, maybe we're due at the magic two centuries mark, but until then, where's the freaking evidence?
 
So that's democracies failing. Now, the bit about the crowd realising that they can vote themselves money out of the treasury. Public debt is a feature of the modern age, ever since the Habsburgs of Spain (accuracy note: note a democracy!) started borrowing to fund their wars in the Sixteenth Century. The Habsburgs of Spain also pioneered national debt repudiation, which is clearly not a good thing, but in no way the end of the world, as we can see on account of the world not ending. 
 
The Habsburgs having set a precedent, everyone started borrowing large amounts of money to fund their wars. And stuff: Like, for example, corruption. Right down to today, the entire list of countries which have repudiated their public debts since the French Revolution consist of: the Weimar Republic (by stealth); and, assorted dictatorships and anarchies. Not a single democracy has repudiated its debt since 1815, to the best of my knowledge.
 
Why? Because, in the mid-seventeenth century, two regimes which fought the Spanish a lot realised that they had to put their national-debt-raising on a solid footing and establish proper taxation to pay for it. And you know what countries those were? Two republics! (Dutch, English.) Then, in the Eighteenth Century, in a particularly bad episode of public debt repudiation, the French monarchy's handling of it led to a revolution which established a republic , which, in turn, put French finances on the right path.
 
One of the more interesting things about this was that they did so by getting rid of the rich and connected rentier class which took a large share of the public debt as private payment. It turns out that monarchies last until aristocrats realise that they can privilege themselves a fortune out of the public treasury. . . 
 
Meanwhile, in the second decade of the 21st century, we see public debt shrinking everywhere. It is projected that the American debt will stop shrinking and start growing at some point in the future, but this is because the projections assume that Americans will  never raise taxes, ever again. For example, you will not raise your social security taxes by, for example, eliminating the tax preference for private retirement plans that have so dramatically failed their investors. I --never mind. Of course, that tax break has served at least one purpose: it has put a lot of money in the hands of the American financial industry, and, since some of it comes back in the form of lobbying money, into the hands of its politicians. 
 
Something about public largesse?

Hermit will not be available for the rest of the afternoon, as he is out being beaten with a stick.

Hermit will not be available for the rest of the afternoon, as he is out being beaten with a stick.

I was cracking up at Barry totally screwing up his time travel attempt.
 
I was proud of him for finally winning a battle of wits with Thawne.

Does Cap's Marty Stu-ness ruin the film simply because he is a Marty-Stu?
Do they spend at least 43 minutes properly explaining exactly how Thor's hammer works so the cinematic universe will make sense?
Does the black dude playing Black Panther look properly African?
Is Baron Zemo an Asian who doesn't know martial arts?
Do all the characters have the correct height, weight, and breast size as they do in the comics?
 
If the answers are yes, then I will go I guess...but knowing Marvel they'll just give us another great story with fantastic action...bummer.

Look, America, I know you were in a hurry this morning.  An early appointment, slept in, forgot to buy milk for breakfast. There's lots of good excuses for missing your meds this morning. I get it. I'm not judging. All I'm saying is, you have to go home, sit down, and take them now.

For some people, forums are a write-only medium.

I was exported to Texas for processing.

I was exported to Texas for processing.

I was exported to Texas for processing.

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.  

The high water mark for reviews for superhero films of recent vintage is 94%, shared by Iron Man I and The Dark Knight. CA: Winter Soldier got 91%.

It's gonna suck, you know.