Karl Rove has whiteboards - plural - detailing her health situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqAiRRVLdHc

I've never understood what this gambit is supposed to pay off in. Do whackjobs believe that Democrats will think - 'well, Hillary might not be long for this world, so I'll vote Trump'? Any president is better than a corpse?

Or do they just want to bolster Trump-trooper spirits? Are they afraid the grass roots will lay down their arms if they don't have at least a remote hope of winning?

Bob - you speak for the whackjobs of the world; what do you say?

Aww, now I'm all hurt because some prick with a high opinion of himself doesn't want to talk to me anymore... /sadface

re: the "private" comment, you don't get to write the rules when you decide to take your snipes out of public view. I never agreed to keep confidences for you, and you're even more of a fool than I had you pegged for, and that's saying something, if you thought I would.

By the way, it's "your", not "you're". One would have thought an English master such as yourself would get that. They probably should have double checked those test results.

And the icing on the cake:

Sook: English from 14thC, Scottish from 19thC. From Old English sūcan ‎(“to suck”). See suck.

sook ‎(plural sooks)

(Scotland, rare) Familiar name for a calf.
(US dialectal) Familiar name for a cow.
(Newfoundland) A cow or sheep.
(Australia, New Zealand) A poddy calf.

So yeah, it's English, and you sure do suck... = D

It's been fun, toodles!

@newtboy and @ForgedReality
First up, I'm not saying I like Hillary, but let's be real here; Trump is much, much worse.

Hillary's a liar and a felon (citation needed, btw)?
Trump wants to bring back torture, to close the country to Muslims and deliberately bomb people's families. Yeah, he might not get to do any of that, but the fact that he WANTS to is fucking terrifying.
So, yes, she's undoubtedly the lesser of two evils.

As for voting for someone other than Hillary or Trump, as far as I'm aware, right now, there aren't any other candidates announced (assuming Hillary gets the Dem nomination, which she will, as I already explained because numbers).

A quick google doesn't show any other third party candidates (although it did reveal that Roseanne Barr once ran!) for this year. Bernie has said nothing about running as an independent, so right now your options are almost certainly Trump or Clinton.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary gets the dem nod and Bernie decides to run as an independent.

Now in a sane political system, I would absolutely advocate voting for your favourite candidate, but the US election system is so fundamentally broken that voting for Bernie would hand Trump the election. That's the reality.

@Baristan
"Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. "

No, that doesn't happen. *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

A third party rises up, splits the vote of it's nearest rival and then disappears over the next couple of election cycles.

Your voice is already inconsequential. The US badly needs election reform.

It SUCKS, and by FSM, I really hope I'm wrong. Maybe Bernie will somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but it's just really unlikely.

But above all, you cannot elect Trump. If you really think he wouldn't be worse than Hillary, then I'm sorry, but you're fucking delusional.

Look, I REALLY wanted Bernie to win. I even checked if there was some way I could donate to his campaign as a non-US citizen. But it didn't happen. You (plural, US voters, especially democrats) had your chance and y'all done fucked it up and now you have to live with the choices you've made.

I find a lot of these complaints to be pretty silly. Particularly the roles of 40+ years ago, like John Wayne as Genghis Khan, etc.

And The Last Samurai is awesome. OK, Tom Cruise (white guy) is the main character -- because he is a lens through which an American audience can reflect on the respect that he gains for the real (Japanese) samurai. All the roles that the script/plot dictates should be played by Japanese people are. I'd even argue that the title doesn't refer to Tom Cruise's Nathan Algren, but rather to the whole group of samurai (notice how the word can be plural or singular) led by Ken Watanabe's Katsumoto.

There are some (plenty of?) legit gripes about "whitewashing" movies, but accusing movies like the The Last Samurai of it (when they are actually doing things exactly right and making a movie FULL of non-white roles played by non-white people) seems counterproductive to the argument...

lol - no....

me·di·oc·ri·ty
a person of mediocre ability.
plural noun: mediocrities.

It's what happens when we celebrate something or someone for doing the bare minimum for what is expected.
It's like that participation trophy that all kids get at the game, even when their team lost. Making people feel special for not having done anything to deserve it.

I've been to Bari and this is not Shells, it is Orecchiette (the plural form of orecchietta, from orecchio (ear) + etto (small) is a variety of home-made pasta typical of Apulia, a region of southern Italy. Its name comes from its shape, which resembles a small ear.

1) Depends
2) WHY?!?
3) Dunno. It shrinks as girls age, possible it helps keep germs etc out before, you know, anything else might need to go there.
4) The same way as women prolly. Winky Face. I'd wager men have probably _seen_ about as much, or possibly more, hymen (Hang on, plural of hymen? Hymens?) than women given-
a) I don't imagine it's actually that easy for women to see their own hymen - feel free to correct me on this ladies.
b) Gynecology, as indeed almost all of the medical specialist areas, has been the domain of men until recently.

Oh, and I did google it and I don't regret it because of this entry on the wikipedia page:
"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, medical researchers used the presence of the hymen, or lack thereof, as founding evidence of physical diseases such as "womb-fury", i.e. (female) hysteria. If not cured, womb-fury would, according to these early doctors, result in death."

One wonders what treatment they might have prescribed for WOOOMB-FURY!!!!

Adding an apostrophe is the accepted pluralization of an acronym or initialism ending in the letter S. Same is true if the noun is a single letter or number. You'll see it most frequently in books that contain the initialism SOS or on the hats of the Oakland A's or Baltimore O's.

"I'm sending out SOS's to warn of the impending BBSes."

Christians have often tried to enforce their 'morality' on the rest of us....it NEVER works out well for anyone, and in hind sight is always seen as evil and stupid, as well as non-christian. Morality is a personal decision. When you start legislating/forcing it, you've lost your freedom to decide for yourself. In America, it's 100% legal to sin, the only excuse for singling out this 'sin' is the hatred for those disenfranchised by doing so.
The bible also said I'm to stone anyone working on Sunday, or worshiping incorrectly (even if they're Christian), or worshiping idols (like a cross), or adulterers...where's the standing up for that, if it's so important to follow the bible? It also said to take slaves, rape, murder, sacrifice children, ...shall I go on explaining why 'the bible said so' is the worst argument ever?
Doesn't the bible say it's not OK to marry a different 'race', what about a different religion...why aren't you fighting to end inter racial marriage, and inter faith marriage? Come on, let's hear the logic.
The day marriage was recognized as a civil process, the institution was removed as a religious one and became a civil one, which means one religious groups idea about it matters not. Even if you believe it was 'created by god', you must admit it's now a civil process with civil benefits, not religious one's, so YOUR religion has nothing to do with it anymore. That's YOUR religions fault for insisting on benefits for 'married' people.

As for 5 men...well, I can't really see a reason plural marriage is illegal beyond someone's morals...but a tree? How does a tree consent and affirm their wish to be married? If it can, go for it. Why do you want to stand in the way of that tree's happiness?

Absolutely they are, in my eyes, their beliefs demand it. They must 'exclude' themselves from following their own beliefs (which is ironic, since that's why they harass and kill the doctors) because something bothers them based on BS they've been told by others (like a blastocyst is a person). If one of the main tenants of your belief is 'treat others as you would have them treat you', yet you ignore that, and another is 'thou shall not kill', but you ignore that too, you can no longer stand on the tenants of your belief system to excuse or explain your action, you don't follow that belief system.
Again, I disagree. People may hold any insane notion they wish, so long as they don't ACT on it. The problem is that they ACT, not that they believe insanity. That they believe insanity is the REASON they act. It's kind of like saying the problem with thieves is not that they steal, but that they don't make enough money. But many, if not most thieves have money.

Many people hold bad ideologies without acting on them. In America, you are allowed, in fact guaranteed the right to believe any crazy thing you wish. It's only how you act on those beliefs we are interested in. For instance, I think what Mormons believe is completely obvious insane BS, but it seems to create a group of people that's well adjusted, happy, kind, and not angry or abusive (plural marriages and 'Profits' notwithstanding). For me, what's in your mind is your own, I only care about how you act in the real world.

I completely disagree with your last sentence. ONLY the action is relevant IMO.

What is Islam? Who or what are Muslims?

It seems every single debate over whether Islam is a religion of peace or of violence comes down to this same argument over who or what defines those terms and there is never an agreement. Indeed, much of the conflict in the middle east is due to followers of Islam arguing over who's particular interpretation is correct. Meanwhile in the western world religion is something that, as the late Hitchens put it, we take "a la carte". It seems you can no more describe a person by revealing their particular faith than you could describe what food you had last night by giving somebody the whole menu to the restaurant. You might ascertain that it was perhaps Thai food... but little else.

Still though, when we go the texts we do find quite unequivocally immoral preachings. I think the religious really have to find an answer for this. We aren't buying the alternate interpretations or the lost in translation theories. When you describe yourself as a Muslim or as a Christian, or as any other faith, it seems to me you don't really have much of a right to get upset when we call you on the evil shit in your holy books. You might protest that you are not that "kind" of Christian, but the speed at which you dismiss any given passage is only matched by the speed at which you declare divine truth for another. We understand the vast plurality of beliefs, which is why it baffles us that you subscribe to a particularly narrow set of ideals whilst simultaneously admonishing us for tarring you all with the same brush.

You are empirically incorrect. You are proposing an impossible scenario, that somehow 1.5bn world wide are perfectly aligned, have some say over the actions of all the other people simultaneously and ergo bear some responsibility for any actions committed under the broad umbrella of "Islam"...

http://enews.fergananews.com/articles/2698

To speak of “Islam” as a homogenous phenomenon is analogous to speaking of “Christianity” as a single whole that includes Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Copts, and countless other sects, including such marginal ones as the Mormons, the Scientologists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, we never do so, because we intuitively recognize that the label loses all meaning when forced on to such a diverse group. We seldom have such qualms, however, when it comes to Islam, even though the label “Islam” covers just as wide a spectrum of geographic, cultural, and sectarian diversity as the label “Christianity.” If anything, it is even more internally diverse than Christianity, which crystallized around an institutionalized Church from the very beginning. In Islam, such an institution never developed. There is no religious hierarchy and no single individual qualified to pass final judgment on questions of belief or practice. Within thirty years of the death of the Prophet, the Muslim community had split on matters of doctrine. Since then, there have been multiple and simultaneous sources of authority among Muslims. Authority is located not in church councils and such, but in individuals who derive their legitimacy from their learning, piety, lineage, and reputation among peers. This gives Islam a slightly anarchic quality: authoritative opinions (fatwa) of one expert or one group can be countered with equally authoritative opinions, derived from the same sources, of another group, or one set of practices devotional practices held dear by one group can be denounced as impermissible by another. In more extreme cases, such conflict of opinion can turn into a “war of fatwas,” fought out, in the modern age, in the press or in cyberspace. (If Islam were held in a more positive light in the West today, this diversity would be described as a “free market of ideas”!) To speak of Islam as a homogeneous entity ignores this fundamental dynamic of its tradition.

This pluralism extends to the most basic level of belief. The major sectarian divide in Islam, between Sunnis and Shi‘is, goes back to the very origins of Islam. The two doctrines evolved in parallel, and therefore it is incorrect to see in them an orthodox/heterodox divide. All Muslims share a number of key reference points (the oneness of God, loyalty to the Prophet and his progeny, the need to prepare for the Hereafter, to take a few examples), but they have been played upon in different ways by different sects and movements. Nor do the two sects exhaust the diversity, for they both have many branches and various theological and legal schools within them, while many modern ideological groups straddle the divide between the two sects.

Or
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-myth-of-homogeny-in-islam/

I could provide link after link, discuss Sunni vs Shia, or any one of the innumerable other sects (70+ iirc), discuss Islams war with itself throughout history etc, all demonstrating that you are wrong.

You are portraying (demonising actually) Islam in the same way the two morons in the video are, by making all Muslims responsible for any action committed by a Muslim. You talk about enlightenment, but your post reeks of bigotry, hardly the hallmark of an enlightened person, right?

Incidentally, the "popular" view of Islam is of a homogenous group of people, us vs them, a group to be afraid of, or to attack. The average person on the street (ie. plumb ignorant, much like yourself) would not be aware of just how complex it is, far more so than Christianity. It's exactly why the talking heads who got schooled kept trying to make out that Islam was homogenous, and were proved wrong...

But give it your best shot trying to shoot down the considered opinions of Phd's, scholars, philosophers etc if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

FINAL FANTASY XV?!
WTF?!

adjective
Final:1.coming at the end of a series.
"the final version of the report was presented"
synonyms: last, closing, concluding, finishing, end, terminating, ultimate, eventual
"the final year of study"
antonyms: first
reached or designed to be reached as the outcome of a process or a series of events.
"the final cost will easily run into six figures"
allowing no further doubt or dispute.
"the decision of the judging panel is final"
synonyms: irrevocable, unalterable, absolute, conclusive, irrefutable, incontrovertible, indisputable, unchallengeable, binding
"their decisions are final"

noun
noun: final; plural noun: finals
1. the last game in a sports tournament or other competition, which decides the winner of the tournament.
synonyms: decider, clincher, final game/match
"the Stanley Cup final"


ps. I never finished Final Fantasy VII, but really loved it

my girlfriend has turtles..plural.
and rats..plural again.
my girlfriend is weird.

but this turtle is pretty damn adorable!

The answer to most of your questions is what I already stated. The internet is full of experiments in monetization. Notice the plural. None of them have proven successful over a broad range of content, or location. Since damned near every country has it's own legal restrictions, I think it's pretty obvious why there's no single system to work for them all. The same goes for various types of content. What works for games isn't really going to work for music, or text.

And I don't think I ever suggested trying to stop piracy, or deal with those who'd rather steal than support the artists. I gave up on those a long time ago...but I have no problem with calling those who steal thieves, especially when there -are- other alternatives. Don't like the name, don't do the deed.

I doubt you're ever going to see one new strategy to rule them all (welcome to the balkanized world). If we do get one new system...it'll be because the plutarchs won, and we'll be more worried about buying our water than getting our games or movies.