Paladin of Ice

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paladin of Ice

  • Rank
    Bannerman of Social Justice
  • Birthday September 27

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New York

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

2,314 profile views
  1. Yeah, I don't know why anyone would think to call such people deplorable.
  2. US Politics: Sioux suing suits

    A terrorist militia plot to kill Somali Americans was broken up
  3. U.S. Politics: The Bipartisan Dismemberment of the VA

    Maine governor and Tea Party darling Paul LePage has had a bad couple of days.
  4. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    GMO food is not bad for you. The way they make GMO foods so that they are super resistant to pesticides and chemicals in order to spray the food with more and more toxic pesticides that will leave residue on your fruits and veggies or be absorbed into them, all the while ignoring the way that the organisms they're treated for will simply evolve and become immune to these more toxic pesticides... that might be bad for you. And for the environment.
  5. 50 Dead, Dozens Wounded in Orlando Club Shooting

    Speaking of contributing to the overflow of trans/homophobia, there are all the pastors out there calling for the death of gays, including the one who Ted Cruz, (the guy who'd likely be a presidential nominee if not for Trump) had introduce him at a special event back in November.
  6. Also, wasn't the second stock market collapse supposed to happen no later than 3 years ago or so?
  7. Better Call Saul

    It requires Chuck to be screwing over his brother to have Mesa Verde ever involved. If, as I said, Chuck sat down with Jimmy and had a serious talk with him when Jimmy got the law degree, none of this happens. And if Jimmy was just some random person in HHM's mailroom that Chuck knew had been shady years ago but had since been straight for years, Chuck would have never done any of this. He would have advised against giving the person a position as a lawyer, shrugged, and let the person screw up or not on his own. But with Jimmy, Chuck went out of his way to make sure that Jimmy would never be able to be able to go straight. Never even have a shot at it. And I absolutely do not believe he would have done that with another person. He wrecked Jimmy's attempt to go straight, and he is in the middle of trying to wreck Jimmy's chance of being a slightly crooked success. What happened with Mesa Verde was Jimmy finally pushing back. Again, Chuck had the opportunity to be a stand up guy and do this openly when Jimmy came to tell him about the law degree. He chose not to. Chuck chose to make Howard play the bad guy. Chuck chose to undermine Jimmy from within when Jimmy thought Chuck was virtually his only friend and ally. Chuck chose to repeatedly spite Jimmy even as Jimmy nearly killed himself taking care of Chuck. And Chuck did all this after hearing Jimmy swear that he was going to change his life, after he saw Jimmy living on the straight and narrow for years. (Jimmy worked in the mailroom long enough to get a law degree, even from a degree mill/correspondence school that takes a lot of time, as would taking the bar multiple times) He then watched Jimmy be an honest underpaid public defender/solo practitioner for at least another year. (When Jimmy gave Howard a list of Chuck's needs, Howard was shocked and incredulously stated that Jimmy had been doing that for more than a year.) Chuck chose to be a backstabber instead of a straight up guy about his brother practicing law. That backstabbing had a lot of unintended repercussions, and Chuck has his share of responsibility for it all.
  8. Better Call Saul

    More, the reason why I don't see Chuck as fully justified, (partly but a long way from fully justified) is because he could have headed this all off at the start. He could have sat Jimmy down when Jimmy came and told him about the law degree, explained that good name and reputation is all a lawyer has in the business, that they can't just hire someone newly out of law school with Jimmy's past, how if they did it would like nepotism, and it would be ridiculous considering the source of Jimmy's degree. He could have then had a very sober chat about how it's a different life being a lawyer, it requires a code of conduct, it prevents cutting corners, etc. After that, even if he didn't believe Jimmy was straight, he could have wished him well, crossed his fingers, and let Jimmy try to make his way. If he made, it, great. If not, c'est la vie. Instead he pretended to be Jimmy's friend while sabotaging him at every step, (despite the fact that Jimmy was now desperate trying to take care of Chuck) drove him to desperation and near poverty with nary a thank you or good word, spitefully taunted Jimmy about being late to his job at Clifford and Main because Jimmy had come over to take care of Chuck, and most recently the fact that Jimmy helped Chuck in the copy store instead of pulling a Walter White watching Jane choke to death. And he has the gall to complain about Jimmy sabotaging his Mesa Verde meeting when he's been sabotaging Jimmy 24/7/365 for what, upwards of a year? For the first point, there's the possibility that Jimmy and Chuck's father was at least partially responsible for the hole in the store's finances thanks to giving out cash and product to the conmen and grifters that frequented the store. And the havoc at Mom's birthday party sounded like it happened when Jimmy was a teen, and if that's the worst thing that happens during someone's teen years with their parents, those parents are getting off light. The thing is though, Chuck has judged Jimmy, and he doesn't allow for the possibility that Jimmy could change, and that drives Jimmy back to his old ways. And at least part of it is because Chuck resents Jimmy's way with people and being well thought of by their parents. Like I said in a prior post, both of those guys are flawed and twisted. And each one exacerbates the flaws that the other one has.
  9. MLB, Spring has sprung.

    Maybe the pitchers are starting to find their footing. Matz threw a gem on Sunday and Thor did his thing last night, (I really had to fight my urge to say that he was godlike ) plus that's 4 of the last 5 won, which is nice after the way the first week or so went.
  10. Better Call Saul

    To be fair about the first part, it might only make Jimmy feel worse for missing it. I guess Fring really is back.
  11. Better Call Saul

    Chuck isn't wrong, he's just an asshole. Both he and Jimmy are flawed and twisted in their own way, the difference being that Jimmy devotes his efforts to people and Chuck to an institution and ideal. But Chuck is, no doubt, a full on arrogant asshole. and because he's a brilliant arrogant asshole, he cannot change his mind, cannot permit himself to see people differently from his judgement of them, and cannot admit being in the wrong about anything.
  12. US Politics: 50 shades of Scalia

    Clinton proposes closing loophole that allows those on disability to earn less than minimum wage. New York State not only upped its minimum wage during budget time negotiations, but also mandated paid family leave.
  13. US Elections: Children of the Revolution

    Trump will say any and everything on every side of every issue. He'll be for universal healthcare, then he's against government health care, and a private insurance mandate to buy. On taxes he talks about taxing Wall St., then he copies Jeb's tax plan to lower taxes on the super rich, while telling the working poor that they make too much money. Dude doesn't care about issues or policies, and will flip-flop on virtually any of them from one day to another. But because he talks bad about Muslims and Mexicans, all his supporters think he's a truth telling political outsider just like that guy from whatever bad and facile movie they've watched lately, and can do no wrong. And somehow he can change every stance on all these issues and supposedly he's telling it like it is and it's all the media's fault.
  14. US Politics: 50 shades of Scalia

    He will knock you down!
  15. U.S Elections, The Ides of March; Et tu Ohio?

    Basically, it was about the small margin of victory. Michigan went 49% and change to 48% and change to Sanders, Illinois went 50% and change to 48% and change to Clinton. Sanders may have been buoyed a bit in Michigan by debates right before hand, which included fiery language on his desire to rebuild Flint and the local unions getting pumped to support him. On another issue regarding last night's election that I find fascinating and am spreading the word of everywhere I can: Black Lives Matter had an effect by kicking out two prosecutors who were widely seen as mishandling cases where cops killed black people. Too long didn't read version: (and this is already just a small piece of a much larger article) the prosecutors involved in the Tamir Rice case, (the 12 year old that cops shot as soon as they arrived on the scene without warning, then roughed up the kid's sister when she went to her brother's side and failed to give him any First Aid while waiting for the ambulance) and the Laquan McDonald case, (which involved the authorities trying to bury footage of the event for a year) both got bounced. This is pretty significant because prosecutors are almost always reelected, and usually run for reelection unopposed. Of course, my opinion on prosecutors doing the Grand Jury thing to charge police is that it's a load of bull, because literally the job of a prosecutor is to work with the police, which means the system has a massive built in conflict of interest, especially since given how we've seen police groups and unions go after anyone who says a bad word about them, do we think there wouldn't be any professional consequences for a prosecutor who aggressively went after police misconduct? Furthermore, if some ordinary criminal was brought to be tried by a prosecutor who was a colleague or friend, we wouldn't waste a second in saying there was a huge conflict of interest there, but somehow we act like it's ok in the case of police misconduct. So while in my ideal world I'd like to a different system entirely for how we review and decide to try police misconduct, at least it's good to see the public being willing to act as some kind of check on the system in this case. And given the lack of attention and small voter pools that vote in these sorts of elections, it may be a very effective target for bringing about some change.