Guessing he's an exhibitionism who used his celebrity and clout to foist it on women. Kinda casts his on stage masturbation jokes in a different light too.

"Indecency of our discourse"... his voting record is as indecent as it gets. And that includes his vote to shred the CFPB's arbitration rule six(!) hours after this speech. Same for Corker. As much as they seem to be aghast at what a dumpster fire the current administration is, they sure don't have mixed emotions about getting in line when it's time to cast a vote.

Real champions of the common folk, these two.

The problem is that most people who are victimized reach a point where they don't feel capable of protecting themselves. Abusers rarely start with actual physical abuse, they work on a victim mentally until they break. Once they control the mind, the body simply refuses to follow typical fight or flight responses.

Think about it, if defending yourself was the only thing stopping abuse why wouldn't a person being abused equalize the playing field immediately? Grab a gun, a knife, hell a cast iron pan, and then protect yourself! But a person who has been trained to be a victim isn't going to take that step without outside influence, some sort of mitigating factor.

You will find that the overwhelming number of battered people won't defend themselves until that catalyst is added, like seeing their child being abused as well or someone they care about.

Come on, it's ok if we agree on something . Your African examples aren't really oppressive dictatorships, they are collections of failed states or outright anarchy, which I'll readily agree is easily possible with or without a well armed population. If you want to note African examples, when Kagame seized control of Rwanda, he didn't exactly decide to leave the genocidal opponents he cast out open ended gun rights. As is always the case, removing their ability to wage war was kind of prerequisite to his control of the country.

Stellar cast. Looks great.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/We-Are-the-Millers-cast-pranks-Jennifer-Aniston

We Are the Millers cast pranks Jennifer Aniston has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

Some pretty nasty stuff was done to discredit AC current during the 'War of Currents', such as Edison electrocuting several animals.

I also agree the casting choices seem poorly made, my mental image of Tesla certainly doesn't include him playing pool.
I think Bowie's portrayal in Nolan's The Prestige was great though.

Edit: Turns out I was wrong. Tesla was quite the pool shark.

I told you about strawberry fields
You know the place where nothing is real
Well here's another place you can go
Where everything flows
Looking through the bent backed tulips
To see how the other half lives
Looking through a glass onion
I told you about the walrus and me, man
You know that we're as close as can be, man
Well here's another clue for you all
The walrus was Paul
Standing on the cast iron shore, yeah
Lady Madonna trying to make ends meet, yeah

Damn, I wish I owned that 2250s collection. All I got is a 1950s collection. :=(

I'm Canadian so maybe that's only a problem here from my country. We have complaints and confrontations against churches for not hiring or rejecting a hire based on sexual practices, or even in one case for being an atheist. We also have a 'women's only' nude spa facing human rights complaints for keeping out people with penises because they are women too.

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/will-atheist-rev-gretta-vosper-obtain-no-fault-divorce-from-church

A 5 second google at least has some American tracking of demanding sexual practices be untouchable when religions or other clubs add new members or hires:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lgbt-employment-discrimination-churches_n_6082846

It is happening, and more importantly, whether the laws are all there already or not, the fact a complaint likely would travel to the supreme court at least is certainly a pretty legitimate concern about where that line is being drawn.

And hey, maybe the Dems don't want to try and find common ground with that particular demographic. The fact is though that there are plenty of anti-nazi people in that demographic and many others that the Democrats have currently cast as 'enemy' thinkers. The Dems need to pick some things they are willing to compromise on that will help them reach out to voters that didn't show up for Hillary.

I find it much more sad that people are willing to delude themselves with placating mythos that can't stand the slightest critical examinations than I find the fact that there's almost certainly no god(s) by any definition. Lack of a supreme being is not a scary thing to me in the least, but a capricious, judgmental, incomprehensible, vengeful god ready to cast immortal souls into hell for eternity over small rule infractions is horrifying.

Reality is scary. I get why people would hide their heads under the safety blanket of religion(s), I just disagree that it's any more useful against reality than hiding under a sheet is against home invaders. It might make you feel better because you can't see them, but that's all (unless they are as dumb as the bugblatter beast of Traal, who thinks if you can't see it, it can't see you).

I feel bad for your uncle, who it sounds like believes in god out of a fear instilled in him as a child. Consciously, it sounds like he understands it's an irrational belief, but fear makes people do irrational things all the time. Fear is the mind killer.

The human species measures elevation relative to sea level, as they are both a terrestrial and a single-planet species. So to adopt the common parlance of this species one must accept that Mount Everest is indeed the tallest mountain on Earth. To vocally argue against this point amongst the humans would either clue these clothed-primates to your extraterrestrial origins, or may otherwise cause them to view you as the most haughty of pedants, and cast aspersions on you who revels in the intentional abstrusity of abstract technicality.

Really enjoying some of the Netflix shows, which have unusually good production values/special effects and casts so far.

Now knowing James Franco remained in character the WHOLE time, I just want to see the cast holding it in. Imagine, James Franco as Wiseau acting director, directing himself directing a movie wherein he acts like Wiseau in his acting role.

The rumors stated that not one new cast member cold keep it straight for their first hour or more on set dealing with "whoever the fuck he is...is he serious?"

I've said it before, i'll say it again - all women films are fine, all women remakes are fine, but for god's sake let it not be this tokenistic gesture of bullshit.

This wasn't done because it was a good idea. How do i know? Because a ghostbuster remake at this point wasn't a good idea. If you think otherwise name the 4-person cast, women and/or men, that would make this a good idea.

We're not ready for a ghostbusters remake, but i imagine a lot of shrewd businessmen in hollywood saw a gilt-edged opportunity in the booming equality scene and Ghostbusters scripts were being floated at the time. Not done for any good reason; done for money. And now this will be cited as to why female led films don't succeed.

People so easily forget about the aliens franchise. Potentially one of the biggest franchises. All of them have been female led (Noomi Rapace, Sigourney Weaver, Winona Ryder) in a genre that is barren of other successful examples, and it was originally written for a man.

So - when decent people see the right actress for the right role performing quality material, you get successful female led films. You don't say "let's remake something but they're all women lol." It's something that natural and happens when those at the top are blind to gender - that's what you need to sort out, but they throw a few breadcrumbs "here, make a boil-in-the-bag all woman film" and we look the other way.

I feel lost in a world of extremes, where equality is that we split up and write ALL WOMEN films and ALL MEN films and never the twain shall meet, and we argue over which are more successful. I guess it's like our evolution through racism all over again; we're using segregation to solve an equality problem? And some who claim to be egalitarians cheer it on!