[All Episodes Talk: Let’s Talk About Dr Phil the Show]

I understand what you're saying, but when it's as simple and basic and obvious as "don't throw rocks", they deserve life in prison. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve to have to stand there and let the relatives of the man they killed (and anyone they may have injured) each throw as many rocks at each of them as they admit to throwing at cars.

[All Episodes Talk: Let’s Talk About Dr Phil the Show]

Oh, that's cute. The kid's attorney believes it will come out that his client was "minimally involved". He also believes that teenagers shouldn't be punished as adults because their brains aren't done growing.

First of all, I don't give a damn whether that kid threw the rock or stood there and watched. The fact of the matter is that all five of those little fuckers know right from wrong; they knew it then and they know it now. And they damned sure knew it was wrong to throw rocks of any size onto the freeway. As far as I'm concerned, they all deserve 20 to life with a minimum of 20 years in prison before they're eligible for parole. If they never get parole, I'd be fine paying the taxes required to keep their asses in prison until they're old and frail. At which point I think it would be perfectly fair to release them and force them to go into debt paying for their own medical expenses and burials.

Second, it doesn't matter whether their brains are done growing or not. Once again, they knew then and they know now the difference between right and wrong. And that's what matters: They knew what they were doing was wrong and they did it anyway. I don't care if they claim they didn't think anyone could die as a result of their actions - because it's a lie, a bold-faced lie. If they didn't think anyone could die, then why were they throwing rocks? They clearly expected people to swerve and possibly lose control. With all the car crash videos on YouTube, they damned sure knew the various possible outcomes of people swerving. No matter what their excuses are, they're all bullshit lies and poor attempts to cover these kids' asses now that they've managed to kill someone. They're damned lucky we don't live in a society where "eye for an eye" is the law, because I'd be in a big damned hurry to help stone their asses to death. The world and society are better off without these kinds of people.

[Pet Peeves: Aka Things That Make You Go "Gah!"]

1 minute ago, Zola said:

The UK version of The Guardian is just as much pretentious and self-righteous, as international versions. It's so far up its own arse with social introspection that it's almost impossible to take seriously.

Well, I started subscribing because they had some good coverage of things going on in this country, and their coverage was less biased than other outlets (CNN, Faux News, MS NBC, etc). I'm starting to rethink that subscription now, though. They've had a series called "The Mother Load" looking at governmental policies that help or hinder families and especially women in this country. Some of the people they've chosen to profile in this series are very poor choices and some of the stuff they've claimed is just made-up. An example of something made-up is one couple's claim that they couldn't put their newborn son on their insurance because he was born outside of the "open enrollment window" (typically 1 Nov - 30 Nov). That's simply untrue because the birth of a child is a "major life event", which triggers your ability to change your coverage outside of the open enrollment window. It's the same as when you get married: You can add your spouse to your insurance any time within either a 14-day or 30-day window after getting married (I forget which it is, but I'm pretty sure it's a 30-day window).

[Pet Peeves: Aka Things That Make You Go "Gah!"]

1 hour ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

I giggled a little.  Even in its current urban trend form, the meaning didn't change, it still means conscious.    What'd The Guardian say it meant?  

Yeah, but it's being used to mean "socially conscious" or "socially aware". And "wokest" isn't even a real word. It's slang bullshit made up by the same squad who decided to equate "woke" with "socially conscious" and "socially aware". That's the way The Guardian used it, too. I'm capable of and willing to wield the fork...

[S04.E11: The Elongated Knight Rises]

On 1/28/2018 at 2:39 AM, CletusMusashi said:

Any of Dibney's "story" could have been assigned to characters that were not randomly inseted dime store Jim Carrey knockoffs.

Has Cisco been injured by acid yet? You know, that might actually hurt and terrify him enough that his powers become hard to use. Maybe he only gets better because Wells eventaully has some kind of sciency blahblahblology that uses his latent metahuman blahtitude to blah blah just pretend it makes as much sense as anything else on the show. Or, even simpler, he gets a tiny painful spalsh of the acid on him while watching somebody else get burned away horribly. Either way, Barry gets to talk a hero back into action. The story does not need Dibney. it works fine with Cisco.

Or... instead of "Hey, I need you to use your detective skills..." leading to a picture of Mrs. Devoe looking like she has a boy-toy.. how about "Hey, I need you to use your investigative reporter skills, Iris..." leading to the exact same revelation? 

Barry can still stay in jail until he uncovers the inevitable criminal conspiracy that we all know he is in there to find. Barry can still inspire a "lesser" hero by helping them overcome their fears. And the special effects crew can stop wasting money on Stretchy Man ( Really? Cisco never came up with a name for him? Fucking really?) and save up for another episode of an expensive character that everybody actually likes. We miss you, King Shark.

This is because we all know that Iris isn't an investigative reporter; she just plays one on tv. LOL. Seriously, though, if she were an investigative reporter, she wouldn't be able to turn that side of her off. She'd always be looking for the ruse/deception and wouldn't just accept things at face value.

[Pet Peeves: Aka Things That Make You Go "Gah!"]

OK. I just want to post a peeve about the "new definition" of the word "woke". The Guardian has an article today with a headline about how the Eagles became the NFL's "wokest" team. Whoever the fuck came up with this use of that word deserves to have a fork shoved up their nose and rattled around in their brain can for a while. All of them!

[S01.E03: Three's Company or Three's Crowd?]

12 hours ago, onatrek said:

Apparently she's trying to combat both the 'just get a nanny and a BFF' and 'Ashley isn't into it comments that are abounding.

From an hour ago:

As far as I'm concerned, this indicates she's interested in some "lesbian fulfillment". The woman already has at least one actual, real-life, biological sister. So she's already got that kind of a relationship covered. I'm sorry, but having domestic help and strong friendships pretty much covers everything else. A lot of what she's written here is just bullshit. It's like the old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." And that's what she's doing here: Trying to baffle us all with bullshit. Once again she's someone who has drunk too much of their own Kool-Aid with shit like "Babies ... will be tended with grace and supreme care", "type of care you give to someone you trust emphatically", "Resources will circulate amongst us", and "it's deeper than most can understand." Bitch, please. You aren't that damned special.

[All Episodes Talk: Let’s Talk About Dr Phil the Show]

11 hours ago, iHateAmpersands said:

According to the Dr. Phil website, it's been replaced with the episode that was supposed to air on Thursday (titled "Exclusive: Deadly Michigan Rock Throwing: Father of One of the Accused Teens Speaks Out"); Thursday's episode is now about a girl obsessed with someone she's never met, the first in a two-part episode).

Oh, Christ. What the hell does the father of one of the accused teens think he's going to be able to say? You can't defend the indefensible. Even if his child didn't throw any rocks, they were there and they participated insofar as they chose not to intervene and keep their friends (or "friends"?) from doing something that all of them probably knew was wrong before they even did it.

[Meri Brown and her Wet Bar of Tears]

Just now, Tabbygirl521 said:

Keep trying! ?

LOL. This might get me blocked by Kody:
 

[Meri Brown and her Wet Bar of Tears]

1 minute ago, xwordfanatik said:

Has anyone here told her what a bitch she is, and been blocked?  If so, I salute you.

Shockingly, I have not been blocked by Meri. I have been blocked by Robyn, Jenelle, and MSWC, though.

[S01.E02: Risky Business]

2 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

From what I remember, when the issue was first brought up, it sounded like Drew agreed to buy Auralee's kids new matresses. When April heard this, she told Drew that she would give Auralee's kids her old mattresses and she wanted her (April's) kids to get new ones. 

I don't recall them showing this on TV. The first time I remember anything about this being shown on TV was after Auralee came whinging to Drew about how April wants her kids to get the new mattresses. So all we have is Auralee's complaints to Drew as "proof" that April tried to get the new mattresses for her kids. Even if April did try this, the only thing that Drew had to do is say "Auralee's children need new mattresses and they're going to get them. Do your children need new mattresses?" But nooooo, Drew can't man up and take control of the situation. Instead, he's got to be a pansy and leave it to his wives to sort out between themselves. Honestly, is it that hard for him to understand that even a family needs a leader? Sure, he should get input from his wife/wives, but in the end someone has to make the final decision when consensus cannot be reached.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't want anyone thinking that I'm saying the husband is always, should always be, or naturally would be/should be/is the leader of the family. In this particular instance, that's the role he's cast himself into by having multiple wives: Someone has to referee. In "normal" relationships (where there are just two people, whether two men, two women, or a man & a woman), that's something for those people to negotiate between themselves.

2 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

There is so much going on here that we haven't been privvy to (yet), and so much stuff that has happened over the years that we don't know about. The problems between these women run DEEP. 

This is absolutely true. There are things going on in the show that we haven't been shown and, of course, things that have happened over the last 12 years that we cannot be shown.

2 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

I'm more inclined to believe that Auralee has good reason to distrust April at this point.

I'd say they have good reason to distrust each other. I have no doubt that April has tried to get one over on Auralee in the past. April is the first wife and clearly didn't want to be one of many. So her responses to the situation are pretty normal, in my opinion, except that she should have stood up for herself and told her husband there's no way she's going for that arrangement. That all said, there are going to have been times when Auralee went crying to Drew about things that didn't rise to that level or that she misconstrued. So I'm not surprised they're incapable of dealing with each other as adults anymore. That's what happens in unresolved and unrelenting power struggles: the participants devolve into children and exhibit childish behaviours and responses.

[S01.E03: Three's Company or Three's Crowd?]

1 minute ago, GussieK said:

Huh?  Not married?  Did they say this on the show? 

Yes.

[All Episodes Talk: Let’s Talk About Dr Phil the Show]

1 minute ago, Jaclyn88 said:

Uh, fairly  certain John Edwards didn't go on the show for free. He was being paid for his services, as he does whenever he does a reading.

I suspect the difference here is that John Edwards was probably paid an "appearance fee", which would be different (and separate) from being paid to do readings - either by the show or the individuals who received readings. This is just a guess, of course, because I'm not a lawyer or involved in any of the relevant industries and have no experience with these things.

[S01.E02: Risky Business]

1 hour ago, Kyanight said:

You make a VERY good point!!  I am suddenly wondering if the issue was simply that Aurolee wants NEW stuff for her kids and refuses to use "Hand-me-downs" from within the family.  However to be fair - we don't know the condition of the mattresses.  If one or more of the kids are bedwetters or prolific barfers when they are sick, I would NOT want my kids sleeping on other people's mattresses soaked with those bodily fluids.  Just - ick.

Absolutely. If the mattresses are old/worn and don't offer proper support or if they're contaminated with bodily fluids, they should not be used. No one should be forced to sleep on such a mattress. And if their spare mattresses are in that condition, then the only reasonable response to "These children need new mattresses" is "We got these children new mattresses." So there is definitely something hinky about this whole dramatic situation. Either the mattresses are not viable, Auralee doesn't want to use them because they aren't "new", perhaps the family can't afford new mattresses right now, or there is something else we have not been shown.

[S01.E03: Three's Company or Three's Crowd?]

14 hours ago, thebalconyfool said:

Wow I am surprised at the Auralee hate on here. To me April really does seem like manipulator in the family. Can't stand her.

The problem is that I haven't seen anything that really exposes April as the manipulator. Auwalee is definitely a manipulator, however, because she's the favorite wife and she knows it. (See the footage of that long embrace Drew gave her on returning home from work in the previous episode.) She knows she can go crying to Drew about "mean owd Apwiw is being mean to me and being manipuwative again" and that he'll believe everything she says and then go confront April on her behalf. The three of them are seriously acting like three six-year-old girls, where Auralee knows she's Daddys' favowite, that Daddy will always take her side, and so goes running to Daddy anytime she feels the least bit spited or unhappy with the outcome.

Auralee doesn't like something April said? "Daddy! Daddy! Apwiw said bad wowds do me again."
Auralee doesn't like how something's going to go? "Daddy! Daddy! Apwiw is being undew-handed and manipuwadive again."
Auralee doesn't like something April did? "Daddy! Daddy! Apwiw is cheading again."
In all instances, Drew will go charging off to save Auralee from that big, bad, evil April, without even bothering to try to find out what's going on or asking April for her version of events.

[All Episodes Talk: Let’s Talk About Dr Phil the Show]

8 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

It was a great idea to bring Michelle Knight on the show today. I could tell she felt, and expressed, the raw emotion the Turpin girl might have felt while escaping. I hope she gets in touch with the siblings, she'd be someone they can talk to, who understands their experience, and give them hope.

I'm leaving that episode for my wife to watch. I'm trying to remain uneducated about the Turpins. I don't want to deal with the anger I'll feel about people treating other people (especially their own children) like that, once I know all the "gory details".

[S01.E02: Risky Business]

18 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

Yeah but I'm not putting this all on the husbands. There's no reason for a grown woman to go through with this if she doesn't want to. Ashley in particular seems like a strong woman who knows what she wants, and she did flat out say "I want this." Maybe she's lying to herself, but at this point, there is no reason for Dimitri to think that she is not on board.

I don't think she's lying to herself or to us. I just think she currently has only a theoretical understanding of polygamy. I also think that once she gains a practical understanding and can accurately assess the difference between "theory" and "practice", then she'll have some buyer's remorse and end up just like April, Meri, and (eventually) the Alldredges' first wife (I forget what her name is).

19 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

I don't know why any woman would put themselves thru this. I thought Aurolee and Angela were being really mean to April . I didn't get the idea she wanted new mattresses for her sons, she said they had some extra matresses that weren't being used. And why did  Auraless's boys not have mattresses to begin with? 

Didn''t understand the woman who goes on TV and says she wants to be a sister wife and then doesn't show up.

I can't figure out the Snowden's at all-the wife seems really subdued and cold. Does she not want this?  At least Dimitri is attractive unlike the other two. 

I wish TLC would have shown us more about that whole disagreement. From what we saw, April wasn't asking for anything for herself or her children. The question we had, though, is why is Drew unaware of these spare mattresses? Hell, shouldn't all of the adults in the family have been aware of the existence of these mattresses? Anyway, these three women are never going to make any progress in their relationships with each other as long as Auwalee (especially) and Angela (to a lesser extent) refuse to give April the benefit of the doubt or a clean slate and let her try to demonstrate that she isn't being manipulative.

[All Episodes Talk: Let’s Talk About Dr Phil the Show]

42 minutes ago, CaughtOnTape said:

Sophy says what I'm thinking half the time.  I have no issues with him being mean to people who can't pull their head out of their asses long enough to realize they're abusive and 100% at fault for why their lives suck.

I never cease to be amazed by the people who know that what they're doing is not working and yet are also unable to apply some reason to the situation in order to change their behaviour and improve it.

[S01.E03: Three's Company or Three's Crowd?]

2 hours ago, Granny58 said:

I agree with all of you in your assessments.  Auwalee is the most manipuwative and steawth of aww!  And the other's nude lipstick is ridiculous.   Hey, Auwalee, news flash....EVEWYBODY who has a discussion is twying to convince the othew puhson of theiw point of view.   The black couple (Snowdens?), they just come off as skeevy.  Agree that he just wants tail and she is just trying to keep him happy.  She said he mentioned it very early in their relationship and she was on board and wouldn't be with him if she wasn't.  But her being cool with polygamy only holds water if she felt that way BEFORE meeting him.   If the new skinny girl remains I think we may witness more in-fighting like we're getting with the Alldredges.  Plus, Drew....ewww.  

Sorry. Could. Not. Resist. I was compelled.

[S01.E02: Risky Business]

22 hours ago, SkippyBeef said:

Dimitri and Ashley make me sad!! They seem like such a great family and I really think this lifestyle will ruin them. :(   When they were looking at the pictures of the woman they are interested in, I thought Ashley looked sad and jealous....she's just doing this to keep her husband from cheating on her.  I can't respect someone who would put their wife through this while she's pregnant! Ugh. 

I agree with most of what you said. I fixed the part that needed fixing (for me).

[Meri Brown and her Wet Bar of Tears]

All right. I submit. I retract my criticism of Meri for having such a large house. You all have shown me the error of my ways.

[Janelle Brown: Smarter Than Your Average Brown (Maybe)]

15 minutes ago, Gothish520 said:

Good news - it's actually a myth that you should not end a sentence in a preposition. I was thrilled when I learned this, as it always seemed so natural, and finding ways to not do it made sentences sound so stilted!

Less a myth than an old rule that is less applicable/useful today. People don't speak as formally as they used to, which leads to ending sentences with prepositions because it makes the sentence more direct and concise (though potentially less clear). It's similar to the rule that a pronoun refers to the noun that most recently preceded it; yet, just yesterday I was discussing something with my wife about her sister and her sister's female friend and constructed a sentence using "she" three times and no actual nouns. The sentence ended up very direct and concise, but would have been completely unintelligible to anyone else.

[Janelle Brown: Smarter Than Your Average Brown (Maybe)]

1 minute ago, AZChristian said:

Or "For whom is the present?"  LOL.  Grammar is a never-ending trail, always leading to a trap.  

It's interesting how our minds work. When I read the original post, I re-worded it as "The present is for whom?" Just interesting how we all solve the puzzle differently.

[Meri Brown and her Wet Bar of Tears]

7 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

 or even if they would deter this Jo freak.   

Initials == J.O. for Jackie Overton. Just wanted to point that out in case you were thinking "Jo" was their first name. If you weren't confused, I apologize if I offended you and please carry on.

[Meri Brown and her Wet Bar of Tears]

44 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

In all fairness, that's not something she can control.  But the rest ....... get a stylist.  Or at least look in a mirror once in a while.

Well, there is plastic surgery for that. Just sayin'. But, yes, otherwise it's out of her control.

36 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

Why is her skin such a strange orange-tinge?  Is it tanning lotions... tanning booths or makeup?

It's from doing a combination of actual tanning and spray tanning. My wife has two cousins who do this and we refer to them as Oompa Loompas because that's what they remind us of.