This user has been banned.
Five-to-seven seasons is the longest any TV series should run. Eight-to-ten is pushing things a little too far. Eleven and up? That’s when you know zombification has set in.
What about Doctor Who?
if you have any more suggestions I’d like to hear those too!
I stopped playing that once the jerk referred to Jesus as his n-word.
Huffpost articles…so I’ve included an anti-Dem one to balance it out a little.
More Repubs calling for Sessions to recuse himself.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) joined in. “I think it would be best for him and for the country to recuse himself from the DOJ Russia probe,” he said, but added that Sessions was a former colleague and friend.
Conservative Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) also called for Sessions to step aside.
Sessions called for Lynch to recuse herself in November.
In November, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) called for Loretta Lynch to recuse herself from any investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server or improper conduct by the Clinton Foundation, saying the attorney general could not be impartial after her impromptu meeting with former President Bill Clinton on an airplane in Phoenix.
“When a high public official is accused of serious wrongdoing and there is a sufficient factual predicate to investigate, it is imperative the investigation be thorough, with dispatch and without partisanship,” Sessions wrote in an op-ed, co-signed by other high-profile Donald Trump supporters.
Sessions doesn’t like perjury when other people do it.
In 1999, then Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) described perjury claims against President Bill Clinton as “serious allegations.”
“In America, the Supreme Court and the American people believe no one is above the law,” he said. Sessions also voted “guilty” on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice during Clinton’s impeachment trial.
Dem makes shitty Lewinsky joke in reference to Kellyanne Conway
Proving that vile sexism plagues both political parties, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) made the worst kind of joke about Kellyanne Conway Wednesday night, quipping that the top adviser to President Donald Trump “really looked kind of familiar there in that position” when she was kneeling on the Oval Office couch.
“You even mentioned Kellyanne and the picture on the sofa,” Richmond said at the Washington Press Club’s annual congressional dinner. “But I really just want to know what was going on there, because, I won’t tell anybody. And you can just explain to me that — that circumstance, because she really looked kind of familiar there in that position there. But don’t answer. And I don’t want you to refer back to the ‘90s.”
The ‘90s reference harkened back to President Bill Clinton’s sexual antics on the Oval Office couch, which Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) had evoked moments earlier.
“Has anyone seen the controversy around Kellyanne Conway and the couch in the Oval Office? Come on people. You remember the ‘90s. That couch has had a whole lot of worse things,” Scott said.
And finally, what the hell?
He took a drink of water, so what?
oh boy.
Was he under oath at the time? If so, he could well be guilty of Perjury. If I remember correctly, the Republicans think that is a serious crime, they impeached Clinton for it.
I could be wrong, but I think Jeff Sessions is in a bit of trouble.
That makes me feel very old.
I can’t remember what movie I first saw in the cinema. I’ll bet it was some sort of kids movie. Maybe one the Disney full length animated movies.
Let me know when you are ready.
Sure, let know when you wish to start.
I would have no problem with voter ID laws if it could be assured that that it would be easy and inexpensive enough for everyone(this includes minorities, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, etc . . ) to obtain IDs.
But if they don’t like Hillary, why would they vote for her? I don’t understand this logic. If they don’t like her, they probably wouldn’t have voted for her regardless of who else is on the ticket, and most likely did not think Trump was that bad. Furthermore, frankly it’s long overdue a third party had power in government. I do not see how not voting for your candidate is childish.
Trump supporters voting for Trump was not childish…although it’s already proving to be self-defeating in many cases!
Bernie supporters in swing states not voting for Hillary because of what the DNC did to Bernie was childish…unless they somehow truly still believe things would be no better under Hillary than things already are under Trump. And if you’re really a Bernie supporter, I don’t know how you can possibly believe that. And if they do, I think they’re deluding themselves.
Bernie supporters tended to hate Hillary long before what she and her cohorts did to him at the DNC. There was never going to be a rush of his people voting for her.
Well I hope his people enjoy Trump.
I guess. Personally I think that Trump is a message to the DNC that they can’t afford to push a candidate that their base hates.
I think Trump is a message about what can happen when people fail to see that sometimes you do have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Yeah, somehow this always seemed more right for the Oval office to me.(by right I mean as opposed to wrong, and not as in right wing)
IMHO this was the best ever Oval Office carpet but sadly it was destroyed in a fire soon after…
When was that pic taken? What Presidency? How was it destroyed by fire? I don’t remember a fire happening in the White House since the one during the War of 1812.
Feedback for Warbler:
So here is the promised feedback. Sorry it took so long. First, while I neglected to take advantage of a pawn fork on turn 6, I traded bishops with you, thus making you move your pawn away from the king’s side. Since you castled on that side, it proved to be a huge weakness for you, which I took advantage of down the road. From a strategic standpoint, you generally want to keep your three pawns on kingside on their starting squares, or perhaps move them one square forward. You performed a fianchetto, which on its own can be a sound strategy, but with your pawn out of place, this presented a huge vulnerability that I knew I could exploit once you had castled.
I was trying to create protection for my king. I wanted to castle and have my king’s bishop on g2 and the g pawn on g3 and keep the other two kingside pawns in their original position.
On turn 10, I knew I had limited my own options, first by missing the pawn fork, and next by having my remaining bishop blocked in pretty well by my own pieces. But I saw an opportunity. Your most advanced pawn was defended by only one other pawn. If I could remove that pawn, I’d have a shot at gaining a pawn advantage and removing your portion of control of the center, generally the most important part of the field to control. I moved my queen to where she could attack your pawn on a subsequent move on c7 (generally it is frowned upon to bring your queen out too early, but if I blitzed your weak flank, I thought I could secure an early checkmate). When you moved your bishop to h3, this was a huge mistake, as now your king’s file is completely exposed, your bishop is undefended and on the same diagonal as my remaining bishop.
Yeah, that was a dumb decision. I saw that my Knight on d4 was threatening your pawn on e6. I thought by moving my bishop to also threaten that pawn and then moving my pawn on f4 to f5, that maybe the following would occur
fxe6 fxe6
Bxe6 Bxe6
Nxe6
and I would be threatening your rook on f8 and maybe even fork that rook and your queen and get something going. It didn’t work out.
I realized I could do even more damage. I traded knights. You captured with your pawn, which allowed me to put my queen in an offensive position, gain the other pawn on f4, and begin moving in on your weak kingside.
You lamented that you should have captured my knight with your queen instead of the pawn. However, you would have suffered worse if you did. My move would have then been:
… e5 (threatening your queen)
fxef Bxh3 (winning your bishop)You could have followed up with:
exf6 Bxf1 (capturing your rook and gaining a bigger material advantage)And you could either take my bishop or capture the pawn on g7, which would drastically weaken my position, but my material advantage would probably be insurmountable. So in reality, taking the f4 pawn with your pawn was to your advantage.
I lamented not taking your knight with my queen, because such a movie would have prevent queen from capturing my pawn on f4. I now see it was short-sighted lament. But nonetheless, allowing your queen to take the f4 square could easily cause me big troubles.
I did try to get your undefended bishop by then advancing my pawn to e5, either forcing a trade and giving me greater offensive potential on your weak flank, or if you didn’t pay attention, giving me a free bishop and even more advantage on that side. However, you attacked my queen with your knight, and an interplay between us continued.
Ultimately, through a series of moves, I was able to capture that bishop. I tried to overwhelm you with multiple threats that you would not be able to counter them all. You had successfully prevented it for a time, as you had made counterattacks that would have resulted in an equal exchange of material if I did not defend my own pieces, but eventually I had your queen on d3, knight on e2, and bishop on h3 under attack. You had to move your queen, yet try to keep her defending your bishop and knight, but she was overworked and could not defend them all, and your bishop fell.
Now your rook was under attack. Though it would have hemmed your king into a largely immobile spot, it would have been better to defend vulnerable avenues of attack by moving your rook to g1. But unfortunately, you moved it to e1 where it was much less useful,
Yeah that was a mistake, it is just that I have forgotten the number of mates made against me due to the fact the my king’s moves were restricted my own pieces. I was foreseeing that happening in our game.
and so I pressed the attack and moved my knight in closer, still hoping to secure a quicker mate, I had several pieces positioned to overwhelm your position, but it wasn’t enough. I had to call forth a rook to break through.
This was where you made your final mistakes. You advanced your queenside pawns, hoping your defenses were secure enough. You most certainly were not yet safe, as I had a substantial advantage near your king.
I must confess that by the time I was moving my queenside pawns, I was playing uninspired chess. I was effected and distracted by things in real life. Also I thinking that the game was basically over. At the time, I wasn’t seeing anyway to throw back your attack on my king. I could see mate coming, didn’t know exactly how it would come, but I felt it was only matter of time before you’d nail me. At the time I didn’t see anything I could do on the king side. I thought maybe I could get something going on the other side of the board, maybe eventually threaten the pawns on a7 and b7 and maybe eventually threaten to queen. I just wasn’t seeing any good moves on the king’s side of the board. I wasn’t concentrating my best and wasn’t giving my best efforts.
You could not possibly hope to hold off all my pieces. I decided to threaten your rook by attacking with my knight on e3. I knew it was undefended and hoped you would actually capture it. You did. I was able to subsequently force a series of moves where I kept your queen neutralized behind my bishop with no good position to come to her majesty’s defense. I now had a rook, bishop, and queen against a very defenseless king, and while I could not dictate the exact sequences of moves, I saw several paths to unpreventable checkmate. Your best bet was:
- Ng3
Ng3 would have been impossible on that move, as my king was in check.
But from there I would have played:
- … Rxg3
- axg3 Qh1+
- Kf2 Qg2 mate
axg3? there was no piece on the a-file that could capture on g3. I think maybe you meant 25. Qxg3. Also, Qh1+ would have been impossible, due to my pawn on h2. Maybe you meant Qxh2? But I am not sure.
So, I am not really sure what you intended the set of moves to be here. Could you look at this again please?
You took the bait to capture my knight, and your queen was useless for the rest of the game.
That was my thinking. I think you still did well and played better than in past games. Remember to keep your king safer. You left him exposed from early on, and did not call forth enough material to his defense when the situation became more deadly. Even moving your rook to g1 at any point after I attacked it with my bishop would have delayed checkmate. And moving your queen away was the nail in the coffin. Don’t always grab an easy piece.
Thanks for playing me, Warbler. I hope we can play again sometime. 😃
Thanks for your advice, I also hope we can play again.
Maybe we will get more chess player in the future, and you never know when Skipper might return and attempt to reclaim the title. 😉
I will happily defend my title from time to time. Thanks for the award, oh mighty Thread Creator! 😉
Just remember, this means you now have a target on your back. Everyone will be gunning for you 😉
By the power invested in me by being thread creator, I hereby forthwith declare the title of OT.com Chess Champion vacant due to Skipper’s(the winner of the first and only ot.com chess tournament) long absence, and I hereby forthwith declare Darth Ender OT.com Chess Champion due to his victories over Warbler and Oojason(who finished 2nd and 3rd in the previously mentioned tournament.
I’m going to take a break and focus on real life. I hope to watch others play, though.
Ok, but if you take too long a break, I might have to declare you OT.com championship title vacant. If you wish to keep the title, you have to defend it once and awhile.
I found the thread oojason was referring to, buy it’s been more than a couple of years:
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Announcing-OTCom-Online-Chess-Tournament/id/5139/page/1
ah, the good old days.
oh well.
Fair.
Did that ball touch ground prior to going into the outfield? If so, then whether or not it is foul ball, depends on whether it was in foul or fair territory when it enter the outfield.
Yeah, somehow this always seemed more right for the Oval office to me.(by right I mean as opposed to wrong, and not as in right wing)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robbie-gatti-blackface-tiger-woods_us_58b50bfce4b0a8a9b7859e45?
apparently, this a-hole is extremely ignorant of the history of blackface. Moron.
Here’s another fun story!
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/us/georgia-couple-confederate-flags-threats/
A Georgia couple who rode with a Confederate flag-waving group that made armed threats against African-Americans at a child’s birthday party were sentenced to prison Monday.
Jose “Joe” Torres, was sentenced to 20 years, with 13 years in prison, after a jury convicted him on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of making terroristic threats and one count of violating of Georgia’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act.
Kayla Norton was sentenced to 15 years, with six years in prison. She was convicted on one count of making terroristic threats and one count of violation of the Street Gang Act.
“Many people tried to make the case about simply flying the Confederate Battle Flag,” Douglas County District Attorney Brian Fortner said in a statement. “This case was about a group of people riding around our community, drinking alcohol, harassing and intimidating our citizens because of the color of their skin.”
You consider that a fun story???
Also it says “Jose “Joe” Torres, was sentenced to 20 years, with 13 years in prison”, and “Kayla Norton was sentenced to 15 years, with six years in prison” so what going on with the remaining 7 years him and the remaining 9 years for her?
http://jezebel.com/did-you-at-least-remove-your-shoes-kellyanne-1792809874
Counterpoint:
Maybe this is why some women prefer pantsuits.
Well tonight Trump addresses Congress for the first time. I think the Dems should do something in protest. My favorite(perhaps because it is in my blood to do) is boo the hell out of him when he comes. Perhaps keep booing and shouting so he can’t give his speech. Or, perhaps walking out when he is introduced or not showing up at all. Perhaps they should just sit there reading books or newspapers and not pay attention to him. Maybe turn their backs to him the whole or time or put their heads on their decks the whole time. They should not let this opportunity pass. This is not an ordinary Presidency. The disagreements with him are not of the ordinary kind. They should not give him the respect that the opposition ordinarily gives to the President.
at the very least, don’t give him any applause and the first time he lies shout “that’s a lie”(I seem to remember a Republican did that to Obama, its time to return the favor).
