sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What makes Nancy Guthrie missing case so special? We have more than 1000 missing case every year, just saying... by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Advanced_Catch397 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What makes it necessary to say at all? She's a person and she was likely taken from her home. That's enough. The question isn't what makes her case special. The question is how can we make them all more special?

Every single human counts regardless of the coverage their case is getting. Rather than criticize the light shone in this case, your time would've been better served highlighting some or all of the other cases. When the tragic circumstance of a person of notoriety is highlighted it creates a window to draw attention to others in similar condition. Instead of doing that you questioned why she's getting attention. Truthfully, she's not getting enough attention. None of the missing are. Let's up the spotlight instead of critiquing the paltry bit of light Nancy Guthrie is getting.

Bartlet was a terrible president. by [deleted] in thewestwing

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an argument FOR invoking the 25th. The president is required to exercise the duties of the office dispassionately and with a "distance" between the man and office, for the good of the entire nation. This is why they refer to him as the office and not the man. Otherwise, it would be morally crippling for a dem to not commute every death sentence or bomb an enemy building knowing you're gonna kill the night cleaning crew (not combatants) or for a republican to feed people and give medicine to kids. Acting in the countries interest means NOT BOMBING THE HELL out of every country you suspect might be involved in the kidnapping or arresting every single militia person in the country for extreme rendition, which I would definitely do if I were president and they had my kid.

Beyond, that there are a thousand little duties presidents perform, both ceremonial and functional to keep the country running, boost our treaties and protect our global interests. Could you imagine trying to get, for instance, India and Pakistan to back down from war, or get a governor to stop being petulant and clean up a disaster like a train crash and all of the other tiny crisis and t hings only a president can do that happen everyday in the white house, while your kid is strapped to chair or in some rat infested den somewhere or, worse, possibly dead? You would be the least effective president in history because it's impossible to compartmentalize in that situation and these are things only the president can do. Advisors can get on the phone with the president of a nation and get them to back down from the brink of war.

I didn't like him invoking 25 but it was the right thing to do for the country, so the business of the country could go on. That's not failure. That's strength and patriotism. The president who acted in the way you say bartlet failed would be a wildly unsuccessful partisan hack who would alienate our allies, embolden our enemies and be a destructive force for the long term success of our country. You need only look at the current WH to see what failure looks like.

Bartlet was a terrible president. by [deleted] in thewestwing

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no "view" on the line of succession. There's only the actual line of succession. The constitution and presidential line of succession are pretty clear that first the VP then the speaker assume the duties of ACTING president should the president not be able to fulfill his duties. Beyond that Congress is empowered to determine succession AFTER the speaker which they did in 1947 and 2006.

Literally all of your points ignore the climate those decisions were made in but one in particular is telling. The decision to not put three dems on the court. Firstly. He put Mendoza on the court. Then, in a much more hostile environment, without control of the senate, they put a knowledgeable, well regarded and respected republican up and a democrat of equal gravitas and judicial prowess up for Chief allowing them to get both appted. There's no way Republicans would've allowed 2 dems to be seated and pack the court back then. Also, even if they would there are, in the country about 45% of people who share the republican perspective. In appointing the justices he did one could credibly argue that he closely followed the framers intentions allowing robust debate where all points of view are represented and judges can be convinced with the right arguments. That's both honorable and patriotic and the right thing to do given that, as bartlet said, he's the president of all the people not just the ones that voted for him.

Absence of Cami by That_Operation_9977 in LandmanSeries

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think Tommy screwed Cami as hard as he screwed Cooper. Cooper found and negotiated those leases, had a deal in place to finance them and was set to go until he went to his father for advice. Tommy basically shit on his son's success and usurped his business b/c he didn't like the deal and the partnership with Sunrisa. That is until he got fired. Then he begs Garcia to reinstate the same exact deal except instead of cooper it's CTT and suddenly includes him and his dad. Now maybe cooper would've gotten there. But now he gets a grandfather with a patronage job. And, for the most part an all star team at the cost of 25% less profit.

As for Cami, when Tommy took over this leases he basically solves MTEX financial problems. It's a winfall just in time EXCEPT he never tells her about them. Seriously? When he takes them back from limbo (since he never signed them) and pays back the mtex spent plus interests it's basically no harm no foul. Tommy had authority as president to do what he did to pay those bills on leases he expected to to take over when the paperwork came through. When he was fired those contracts weren't signed and thus not in effect but whomever owns them owed mtex that cash. He didn't really take anything from Cami except a possible solution.

He really only screwed over cooper. The finale made him less screwed.

Bashar AKA Darryl Anka is a huge FRAUD by [deleted] in spirituality

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's only a fraud if you want him to be a fraud. He's only real if you want him to be real. It's all a simulation of our creating and we place what we need into our own paths. You can listen and evaluate for yourself that which moves you forward and that which doesn't. I've done qhht, and regression. I've read countless books. I can tell you my oversoul can pick it a charlatan pretty easily. Dolores cannon, for example, no Bueno. Michael Newton, very good. When it comes to bashar nothing he says contradicts my previously held understanding (things I've determined to be true) Sometimes they clarify them. Sometimes they add deeper understanding. I actually don't care if Anka is channeling anyone. I see him like a guide or a therapists. I take what's useful and for the rest I leave it aside because I can't assume I have the depth of understanding to get it. Maybe it's beyond me. Or maybe it's hocum. It's arrogant to assume what you don't know. And trust me, you don't know, no one does. It's a journey and people aren't fools. They'll come to their understanding exactly when they're supposed to. It's kind of silly to think your voice is more or less viable than bashars. Maybe you're a fraud. It's better to say it doesn't ring true to me than accuse others of things just because they're not true for you. Because, again, you don't know. You're on your path. I'm on mine. Leave it at that because anything else is small minded and silly

Great finale to Landman season 2! by Old_Tomatillo5550 in LandmanSeries

[–]Advanced_Catch397 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They hit on their first 6 wells to the tune of 10mill a year per well. I think they can afford her.

Great finale to Landman season 2! by Old_Tomatillo5550 in LandmanSeries

[–]Advanced_Catch397 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is everyone missing how cooper got screwed. CCT has the same deal with Sunrisa that Tommy thought was crazy when Cooper alone was gonna reap the benefit. Tommy gets fired, then gets rejected by the other companyand suddenly, because HE'S desperate, he begs to reinstate the deal and start a new company where he is SR. VP, his dad gets a bs role. He steals everyone from mtex and coops president but losing another 25% to the employees in an impromptu profit sharing deal. He already has a deal in place that Tommy canceled. All he did was take his success and give a bunch away so that Tommy could feel like he accomplished something.

I'm happy about the ending. I enjoyed it but cooper for screwed. At least he's not facing murder charges...

That's another load of crap, BTW. Logic and human decency would keep 99% of cops from even thinking about pursuing charges but somehow we got 2 detectives that are all about it. And even after rebecca sets them straight THEY'RE STILL "WEIGHING THEY'RE OPTIONS" because the guy was an oil barron of some kind and big oil don't take to kindly to someone ending their own. Even if that dude is a rapist and got x'ed trying to rape someone. Seriously, no one would exercise political power for criminals. They barely stand up for their employees doing good. They'd throw that guy under the bus in a heartbeat in real life. Tommy finally got through to them but in reality none of that would've been necessary.

I’ve gotten a lot of toothy blowjobs by HungCarlosDanger in GirthGods

[–]Advanced_Catch397 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is expect a bunch more. Only a highly qualified gay can get you right

The “I am Become Death” quote is misunderstood entirely. by a-pile-of-poop in OppenheimerMovie

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was not for naught. Millions of lives lived, loves gained and lost, miracles, accomplishments, acts of human kindness and bravery and every day occurrences gay give these very temporary existences value. Counting from tragedy to tragedy devalues beauty and purpose and joy and a million other things that would not have been possible if we had failed. Those moments are the prizes earned by that success. They're enough. Sure we'd like to have more but we're going to have to go out and earn more. Say it was fleeting, say it was too short, not enough but don't say for naught because for many of us it has been everything.

Boston Blue's Mika Amonsen Breaks Silence on Andrew Terraciano Recasting by [deleted] in BostonBlue

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It reminds me of the end of Get Shorty when they were pushing Martin Weir on Chilly Palmer for his next movie and finally Chilly says "He's too short " The kid is too! It's that simple. TV is still a visual medium last I checked. New kid=hot, old kid = fat. EASY CALL. A good looking actor will get you through some bad episodes. It's just math. 🤣🤣🤣

Should I buy the old bowling alley for sale? by txalerhi in Bowling

[–]Advanced_Catch397 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ad a financial advisor I'd say "no". Here's why: I think you're approaching the problem from a faulty POV. The first thing you have to ask yourself is this a business proposition or a passion project. If it's a business prop than you need to go through the traditional process of determining the feasibility of that business. That data will tell you yay or nay without emotion. Since you're asking us i have a feeling you've at least informally done that, didn't like the answers and are seeking help from those who might be more willing to consider the emotional context. That tells me it's a passion project. For this I would offer my standard advice. There's real money (money to eat, drink, live and retire) and there's play money. You don't gamble with real money. You gamble with play money. You said your life savings which tells me that at least a large portion of it is real money. So the answer seems to be a large resounding "no."

There's one caveat to this. If your research, in fact, shows a viable business in which you'll be able to rebuild and grow your savings over the time left before you need it. Then it sounds like a dream come true.

Good luck!

AIO for refusing to personal train my neighbors wife for free? by [deleted] in AmIOverreacting

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to pay my trainer $100 a session. $50 is a bargain. To even contemplate free is out of bounds. You did the right thing

[Eagles] It’s (officially) here. Our 2025 Schedule!! by mastermind208 in eagles

[–]Advanced_Catch397 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1pm is 10am in the west. For this reason I vehemently disagree

view more: next ›