WorriedNoodle

Will you accept the polling results?

Such an unhinged viewpoint of one the best TV programs of the era. Sorry you cannot understand it.

When I went thro the process at CW many years ago, before I could apply for a Non Imm O based on marriage I had to first get a 60 day extension of my existing permit to stay based on marriage. Was always like this wasn't it?

Yet all Trump has said is "its a shame", a bit like someones grandmother might say when their offspring have been up to some mischief.

So Bessent was lying when he said on Apr-2 the tariffs were the ceiling and not to retaliate?

Jon Voight, named a “special ambassador” to Hollywood by President Trump in January 2025, significantly influenced the 100% tariff proposal on foreign films announced on May 4, 2025. Voight, along with his manager Steven Paul and SP Media Group’s Scott Karol, met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, presenting a “comprehensive plan” to boost U.S. film production. This plan included federal tax incentives, co-production treaties, and infrastructure subsidies, but only mentioned tariffs “in certain limited circumstances.” Trump’s subsequent announcement of a sweeping 100% tariff exceeded Voight’s proposal, suggesting Trump amplified the tariff idea beyond Voight’s intent. Sources, including Politico and NBC News, credit Voight with planting the tariff concept, though Trump framed it as his own initiative, citing national security and Hollywood’s decline. Voight’s recent film career, with roles in lower-profile projects like Man with No Past and High Ground, lacks the critical or commercial weight of his earlier work (Midnight Cowboy, Coming Home). Similarly, Trump’s other ambassadors, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson, are known for action and conservative-leaning genre films, limiting their representation of the diverse film industry. This narrow focus raises questions about their suitability to shape policy for an art form that thrives on global perspectives and creative freedom. The arts, including film, are often seen as a liberal domain, reflecting global events and cultural exchange. Tariffs threatening international collaboration could stifle creativity and economic viability, as many U.S. films rely on foreign locations for authenticity and cost savings. Critics on X and industry experts argue that such protectionism ignores the globalized nature of storytelling, potentially harming Hollywood more than helping it. Voight’s influence, while notable, appears to have been a starting point for Trump’s broader, more punitive policy, which risks undermining the industry’s liberal and global ethos.

Excellent if true. They had it coming... Way to go. #morons. A leading immunologist, Dr. Paul Offit, has warned that the world is entering a "post-herd-immunity world" due to measles outbreaks in the US, Mexico, and Canada. The US is experiencing its largest measles outbreak in a quarter-century, with over 900 confirmed cases and nearly 300 hospitalizations. The outbreaks in the Americas have led to a tenfold increase in measles cases compared to the previous year. The US eliminated measles in 2000, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that as of 1 May 2025, there were 935 confirmed measles cases across 30 jurisdictions. Immunologists fear that the rate of infection and unnecessary suffering from measles will increase due to misleading claims about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases spread by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the US health secretary's hostility towards Covid-19 vaccines.

Such a bizarre and twisted logic runs amok inside your mind. Everything seems to be in reverse logic mode. Is it meds or something?

Do you understand what Photoshopped means? It seems clear from all your responses this is a challenge for you.

All I'm reading here is negativity and whinging, no input. Not British are you?

It's amazing people can be duped by President like this, when he is surrounded by sycophants all preaching the same lies and no one points out the errors of his ways. The tattoos on Kilmar Abrego Garcia's knuckles—a marijuana leaf, smiley face, cross, and skull—do not definitively indicate MS-13 membership, according to multiple gang experts and researchers. The Trump administration's claim, amplified by a digitally altered photo labeling these tattoos as "M," "S," "1," and "3," suggests they spell out "MS-13." Experts like Steven Dudley of InSight Crime and Roberto Lovato, who has studied MS-13, state these symbols are not known MS-13 signifiers and are commonly used in mainstream tattoo culture. Some law enforcement officials note that certain symbols, like a marijuana leaf, have appeared on gang members, but they are not exclusive to MS-13 and are insufficient alone to prove affiliation. Current MS-13 members consulted by Lovato also denied these tattoos represent the gang. The narrative tying these tattoos to MS-13 appears largely driven by the Trump administration, with critics pointing out the lack of concrete evidence and the photo's alteration as misleading. Meanwhile, Garcia’s legal team and family deny any gang ties, and no court has definitively ruled him a gang member based on these tattoos.

Wrong on both counts. Trump clearly says in interview the MS13 tattoo is real and not photo-shopped above the original tattoos. The original tattoos (without the MS13 photo-shopped text) have no basis of meaning MS13 anyway, as the gangs tattoos are clearly documented and available on the internet showing different images.

The reality of being in a senile parallel universe of opposites, where truth is lies and lies are truth. No thanks. #VascularDimensia

Are looks important to you in this context?

The opinion you @Cameroniprovided contains several problematic elements, both factually and ethically, that warrant a reply: You use derogatory terms like "whore" and reduces Virginia Giuffre to an object devoid of agency or complexity. This dehumanizing language dismisses the nuances of her situation and perpetuates victim-blaming. It ignores the power dynamics inherent in relationships involving minors and influential adults, especially in cases of alleged trafficking or exploitation. Giuffre was 17 when she met Epstein, a minor under U.S. law, which complicates the narrative of "willing participation." You assert Giuffre "chose" to engage with Epstein repeatedly, framing her actions as purely transactional and voluntary. This ignores the potential for grooming, manipulation, or coercion, which are well-documented tactics used by individuals like Epstein to exploit vulnerable people. Minors cannot legally consent to sexual activities in many jurisdictions, and psychological or financial pressures can undermine perceived "free will." The claim that Giuffre "made up lies" to extort millions is speculative and not fully supported by evidence. Giuffre’s allegations against Epstein and others were part of legal proceedings that resulted in settlements, not convictions for perjury or fraud. For example, her settlement with Prince Andrew (reportedly around $16 million) was a civil agreement, not proof of falsehood. The opinion also misrepresents the Dershowitz case: Giuffre’s acknowledgment of possible "misremembering" was part of a mutual settlement, not a legal finding of perjury. The assertion that Giuffre was a "professional blackmailer" lacks substantiation beyond the opinion’s narrative. Legal settlements in high-profile cases often involve complex motivations, including avoiding protracted litigation, and do not inherently prove deceit. Misogynistic Undertones: Your fixation on Giuffre’s alleged greed and sexual behavior, while framing her as manipulative, reflects misogynistic tropes that disproportionately vilify women in sexual abuse cases. It suggests that her pursuit of financial compensation undermines her credibility, ignoring that civil lawsuits are a common recourse for survivors seeking justice. Misapplication of "Karma" and Moral Judgment: The invocation of "karmic law" and the claim that Giuffre was "ruined" introduces a moralizing tone that lacks grounding in evidence. There’s no clear indication that Giuffre faced legal or personal ruin; this appears to be wishful speculation. Such rhetoric shifts focus from factual analysis to personal vendetta. Selective Use of Legal Outcomes: You highlight Giuffre’s settlement with Dershowitz as evidence of her dishonesty but ignores the broader context of Epstein’s crimes. Epstein’s 2008 plea deal and subsequent 2019 charges for sex trafficking corroborate a pattern of predatory behavior, lending credence to some of Giuffre’s claims. Dismissing her entire narrative as "fantasy" overlooks these established facts. You fail to grapple with the power imbalance between a wealthy, connected figure like Epstein and a young, economically disadvantaged individual like Giuffre. Even if she returned to Epstein, this does not negate the possibility of exploitation, as victims of trafficking or abuse often face barriers to leaving, including fear, financial dependency, or lack of support.