Pretty good episode overall.  Didn't like that Jorah didn't mention that Sam cured him.  Didn't like Cersei accusing Jamie of betraying her. 

Dany has lost all moral authority after roasting the Tarly's.  Sansa's desire to be queen despite never having done anything to earn it drives me bonkers.  If that's how the writers feel about female empowerment, I'd say the feminist movement has been knocked back a couple decades.

So everyone there was a Nazi?  Can you at least try to be honest and not a total asshole?  Can you try to defend your claims with facts and not scurry off, sending your personal ball licker love notes through Karma? 

Did you not advocate violence before it started?  Did not "your group" instigate violence by macing people?  The NYTimes wrote that the violence was just as bad on the left before people with the IQ of Mitch started howling. 

How many people have been killed by Nazis in America in the last 20 years and how many under Allah.  I know there's not a YouTube video made by a college drop out that can hand you your talking points.  Samantha Bea isn't very good at coming up with rebuttals.  But can you try to be an adult and prove that you're as smart as you think?

I didn't say there weren't nazis there.  But the idea that everyone who was there or falls under the "alt-right" (whatever the fuck that term means) and that the violence wasn't equal between idiots on both sides is laughable.  You wanted violence.  You advocated for it right here.  Then someone died because the group of people with your same talking points pissed off the wrong retard.  So own it.  Own that you're everything you accuse Trump of being.

I'm not defending this assholes.  But I'm also not defending the ANTIFA/BLM crowd either.  You know, that whole consistency thing you continually fail to grasp.

"I'm not a violent person.  But I sure as hell like advocating Nazis get punched in the face"

"What's a nazi, SLC?"

"Anyone who doesn't think like me and requires more discussion than a 30 second Samantha Bea clip."

Except we really don't.  There's a fundamental difference between some junkie who avoids the law and shelters because they want to get their fix and normal people denied the ability to eat.  Your argument is overly simplistic, because "there's a possibility of someone starving in America (because we don't force feed people), so let's pretend there's an equivalence to North Korea."

And they key word is they're not oppressed.  Black people living in the South in the 1950s were oppressed.  They couldn't vote.  They couldn't eat at the same restaurant as whites, drink from the same water fountain or use the same toilet.  They couldn't go to the same school or use the same swimming pool.  They had to ride behind white people on the bus.  That was oppression.  Some gang banger who gets clipped because he wants to argue with police while armed isn't oppression. 

This is where you guys jump the shark.  The US executes child rapists and murders, and Kim executes anyone who doesn't laugh or cry hard enough.  But in your mind, there's some overlap that's worth paying lip service to.  People won't play make believe, deny science and pretend Bradley Manning is now a woman.  "THEY'RE SO OPPRESSED.  IT'S LIKE LIVING IN NORTH KOREA OR SYRIA."

You sat here on this very forum and said you hoped some white supremacist got their skull cracked.  Well your idiot buddies, hit them with bear mace and pelted them with rocks.  So one nut job drove his car into them.  You own this just as much as you want to blame Trump. 

Trump is right.  Both sides are guilty.  The left has been acting up for years, using violence and property damage to justify their own narcissism.  You and everyone else on the far left kept your mouths shut or outright supported it.  Again, you advocated that a bunch of "chubby beta males" get smacked in the head by a bunch of losers who think gender is fluid or that this is still 1851.  This violence is a direct result of antifa, BLM and the like whom have been violating the law for years.  But god forbid you acknowledge that your "group" showed up at this protest looking for violence and provoking it.  As long as left wing losers are allowed to smash in starbucks, pelt police with rocks, and spray people they disagree with in the face with bear mace, you're going to get a retaliation from the equally stupid far right nut jobs.

Spend 5 minutes on youtube looking for progressive acts of violence.  Smacking someone in the head with a chain and then running off.  You had no problem with it because you hate Trump and his supporters.  Well, now they're going to start throwing punches back.  You can't solve one without solving the other.  To pretend this was a one sided affair is completely dishonest.  Or did we forget some Sanders nut job shot up congress a couple months ago.

And at least one person is dead and several injured after someone drove a car into a crowd. Glad you like seeing people kill each other.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/12/em … ginia.html

Obama didn't face an ICBM. If NK attacks Seoul, we take out their military bases, but we leave Kim in place and wait for UN or Allied support.

If they hit Guam, it's a different ball game. That's an act of war. If that happens I support any and all action to destroy NK to the point no further attacks are possible. I'm not saying we setup shop like in Iraq. But we destroy their war machine and confiscate their nuclear material. Let China have the terroritiry and work out UN aide. Stay on stand by incase any hostile group tries to organize, and respond with total force to anihilate it.

Kim now has an ICBM that can hit anywhere. They think he may have the capability to put a nuclear warhead on it. I don't know if that's true. The CIA needs to find out. But if we accept that NK getting an armed ICBM is inevitable, then we accept there's a chance they'll use it on the US. If we accept NK will use it on the US, or believe there's an unacceptable chance they would use it, it's only humanitarian and logical to destroy that threat now, rather than delay to when NK is capable of inflicting more horror. That saves lives in the end. Because a US response to a nuclear strike would be scorched earth.

Draft a military action. Require a thorough assessment with allied intelligence. Then go to Congress. Trump has the authority to strike first, and absolute authority to respond if we were attacked. But he should attempt to gain Congressional support by pleading his case domestically and globally. The decision is Trump's alone to make. Mattis is an amazing SoD, and Tillerson is working to handle it diplomatically. They'll give him great advice, and I'm sure other channels are being utilized. But he owes it to the American people to get approval from Congress and the public.

And desert storm was a precise military action. We bombed the shit out of them and drove them out of Kuwait with no combat losses. It was as perfect as a strike as one can think of.

The invasion of Iraq under Bush was a fucking huge success. We destroyed their Army in under a month. Conquered Baghdad and captured Saddam. We won. Where we struggled was putting up a friendly, competent government and stabilizing the country. But in the end we all but squashed the resistance and turned the country over to Iraq after building it back up and training the new army. But then ISIS popped up and crushed their weak ass Army. We ultimately failed to create a stable country capable of standing on its own.

But Saddam wasn't threatening to Nuke the US. My argument was always, a sovereign nation can use technology as they want. Iraq could have nuclear energy and capabilities. It's only if they threaten us, do we have an obligation to act. I don't care what he did to the Kurds, just as I don't care what Assad did to his people. Or what Duerte does in the Phillipines or Madduro does in Venezuela. But if they have nukes and threaten to use them against us, I say we assess that threat and respond accordingly. Iraq didn't pose a threat, so I didn't give a shit. Just as I didn't give a shit about the Taliban. Kill those that get in our way, but we should have tracked Bin Laden to any location until we got him. It never should have taken 9 years. But removing the Taliban from power?  I don't think any American should risk their life so some Afghani girl can go to school. I don't give a shit. My tribe is the US. I want as many allies as possible that want to work with us rather than against us.

And I say the same thing about WW2. That French and British school kids don't sing " God Bless America" every morning before school, is a god damn joke. How many of you are willing to go fight and die for human rights in Saudi Arabia. None of you. So why take that risk to countries we weren't obliged through a treaty to help or had never helped us. America got its price though. It got assets and military supremacy across the globe. Could you imagine a South Korean military base adjacent to DC?  South Korean soldiers set up and walking as occupiers? There'd be riots in the streets. So the idea that WW2 was from some noble desire to protect Democracy or protect the Jews, think again. Getting assets in Iraq wasn't worth the price. Just as getting assets in NK isn't worth the price. But knocking out their army and government with demonstrated precision?  I'll have that discussion.