The writer of true crime diary dies mysteriously at the young age of 46?

I now got curious and watched the Roast waiting on my PVR (it's not a good one).
But. Oh. My. Word. Did Ann Coulter (who by the way was quite open about her book promotions, audience didn't appreciate that openness) bomb or what. The answer: she bombed.
Like bad. Like worse than 'The Situation' (yes, I watch all these CC roasts, I am not proud of it)! Like a lot worse, at least the situation tried without success to get out of the hole on stage.

Here is her performance in a low-talking video that will probably be taken down before I submit my comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCyRRpojn7I
Here she is saying she did great and it's all the fault of bad editing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Jsl1OFjtU
Here is the writer saying it was not his fault, but I don't really believe that is true, the delivery is terrible but the jokes were also sh*t, and I don't believe for a second she wrote that material herself as he claims, because the material is exactly in line with what those CC roast speeches are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FtO15N0iho

John Carter was a case of trying to shove too much into one movie, they took from the first 3-4 books IIRC, the writers of the adaptation were just bad. The source material is actually quite good, and I'd definitely recommend it, you can see a lot of modern sci fi coming from it. Tron 3 actually stopped production because of how bad John Carter was.

I think Firefly is a little overrated. It was definitely well done and had a good premise and characters and the beginnings of some interesting plot threads. Of course it shouldn't have been cancelled so abruptly, but at the same time I bet had it run three or four seasons, it wouldn't be nearly as fondly remembered as it is. Maybe the writers could have kept it going, but I feel pretty confident they would have been hard pressed to keep it interesting over the longer term.

I don't know if this link will open---
This is Donald's reply:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-father-fallen-soldier-ive-made-lot/story?id=41015051

In his first response to a searing charge from bereaved Army father Khizr Khan that he’d “sacrificed nothing” for his country, Donald Trump claimed that he had in fact sacrificed by employing “thousands and thousands of people.” He also suggested that Khan’s wife didn’t speak because she was forbidden to as a Muslim and questioned whether Khan’s words were his own.

“Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?” Trump said in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard.”

To be fair, they both probably had it written in part or entirety by speech writers. I actually feel kinda sorry for Melania - I mean, she is married to Trump.

These writers... So good.

"clickbait is written by a human"

Well, not necessarily. Not because the kind of people who write this bullshit are sub-human (although they might be), but because machine written articles are becoming increasingly popular and harder to spot.

On one hand, this is great. It means that actual writers don't have to waste their time on this bullshit.

On the other hand, the prospect of millions of clickbait articles generated at the touch of a button is terrifying.

My interpretation was wrong, and your right about pointing out truths or untruths. It is something I will have to remind myself. I apologize for not understanding, and thank you for your response.

I asked about your posting because I was interested in, well, lack of a better way to say it, tickles your fancy. I've learned some interesting new things from your comments, even looking up a word or two, so I imagine your posts would be the same.

I agree with your last paragraph as well. Discussion is positive, something I enjoy. I like to see and understand a persons point of view, it's how I learn so much. I think I can't quite read the tone of some comments, and it is something I am working on, to ask more questions than jump to conclusions. I couldn't agree with your last sentance more.

In my mind I imagine you to be a writer, journalist, or maybe even a college professor. It is silly, I know, but I like how you turn a phrase. I also know I need to ask more questions to gain understanding, instead of doing it all wrong by assuming. Thanks for answering me Harlequinn, and I hope to run into you again on a comment thread soon! Have a great rest of the day.:)

According to separation of powers... and the roles defined for each branch.

Parsing words is fine.
Persons vs people is moot. People = multiple persons. Unless your intent is to give a right to a single individual, you're always dealing with people.

The flip side is that if the 2nd amendment only protects militias and their armament, then it protects militias. So you are free to start a militia and get armed.
(Again, by 1791 parlance, well regulated meant well adjusted. There is no prerequisite for government regulation re the 1791 English it was written in.).


"well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" doesn't work when :
- Y and Z did not even exist at the time of X.
- Y and Z did exist, and the writers chose not to include them.
In either case, you end up legislating from the bench.

It's a simple matter to make a new law covering Y and Z. There is no need for a court to jump the gun. Just find the case by the classic scope, and inform the legislature of the circumstances so they can take it into consideration. Heck, there is no guarantee that the legislature even wants the scope expanded. They could even want it contracted.
If it becomes a complicated matter with parties arguing - then it clearly needs debating and would have been inappropriate to decide elsewhere.

As a republic, the people are the state, and the state has all authority. The government exists strictly to record, execute, and enforce the state's will, by the state's authority (govt. has no authority inherent to itself).
The legislature is the channel that codifies the state's will. No other functional element serves that purpose. To codify something, it must go through the legislature. Else it does not carry state authority.

-scheherazade

holy fuck. fuck this guy. if i had a team of comedy writers to create a cartoonish conspiracy theory/"alternative media" driven idiot it would be way more down to earth that this penis with ears.

First Contact has three unforgivable flaws.

1. The time travel plot makes zero sense. Why do the Borg need to go back to that particular time to assimilate humanity? Why don't they go back to pre-WW3, where there were a) more humans to assimilate and b) lower tech weapons? Why do they need to interrupt the moment of humanity's first contact with the Vulcans? Why do they give themselves such a tiny margin of error by only giving themselves a few days to assimilate Earth before the deadline? Why don't they send Borg down to begin assimilating humanity straight away? And the Enterprise conceals itself from the Vulcans by hiding behind the fucking moon.

2. The writers fundamentally ruin the idea of the Borg by giving it a figurehead it doesn't need. They are not a collective if they have a Queen; they are subjects.

3. Worst of all, Picard's characterisation is a complete volte face. Seven seasons of the TV show proved that Picard just isn't a man who stoops to revenge. Only a year or so after recovering from his own assimilation, Picard has the chance to cripple or destroy the Borg forever and he doesn't take it, because he's a man of balance and pragmatism, not of blind rage. His sudden change into Captain Ahab is lazy and it's unearned. Picard, like everything else in the film, is dumbed-down for the sake of the action, and the character as written undermines the work done over the course of the TV series, amputates him from Roddenberry, and is frankly unworthy of being performed by Patrick Stewart.

Star Trek: First Contact is fucking dumb.

Of course I have to concede to subjectivity and some of the action is very exciting (if still stupid; the "no firing at the deflector dish oh except when you do" incident is a prime example). But it's only possible to enjoy it as an action movie if you like your action movies to appeal to the very lowest common denominator.

The other three TNG movies were awful, absolutely, but I think First Contact actually played pretty nicely alongside Roddenberry's vision.

We get to see flawed humans building a warp ship out of an old ICBM, there are questions of humanity (Data) and vengeance (Picard) and on top of that, it still manages to be a fun action spectacle.

Of course, arguing over taste is pretty pointless as it's entirely subjective, so you're perfectly entitled to dislike the movie, but I don't think it's fair to say that First Contact was as dumb as you say it was.

This trailer has none of that. I'm just hoping that Simon Pegg is a good enough writer (and he's a brilliant writer, watch World's End for evidence of that) to write his way out of the complete fucking mess that Lindelof wrote them into.

Nothing about this looks appealing. Jumping from "reconstructing ship" to "destroying recently reconstructed ship" does nothing for me. Clearly nothing is sacred and everything can be pooped back out brand-new, this incarnation already has its first resurrected character, so what's at stake here?

Ever since Wrath of Khan, Star Trek writers have been convinced they can only produce Khan-a-likes as a path to success. I was only partially onboard after the first film, I checked out completely after the last one, but I'm particularly surprised at the laziness of this one. The CG and action direction seem to be the only areas that are getting any creative engineering in any of these films.