Greatoneshere

21 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

 

 

He didn't go far enough. Organized religion was a mistake. 

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Says who?

Me, I'm saying it! I was with some . . . let's say . . . stupid and/or sleazy people who were going to law school to get away with things or purely for money/power/prestige rather than be a real attorney who believes in the civic mandate of the profession. As a result, knowing the actual law wasn't high up on their list of priorities.  

23 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I said it first Ronan!

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Non fibeous asbestos is plenty safe.  And as long as you have adequate ventilation you won't die for many decades from the asbestosis.

You really have to stop pushing for things based on the assumption people, particularly governments, are rational actors with the peoples' humane interests in mind, just because you are smart and rational and responsible (which you are!).

I'm not outing you, but I have noticed a pattern. In this specific case (as the case with the DIY guns) you're technically correct but it's potential abuses outweigh its potentially benign nature in this case, and elsewhere where you've argued a more moderate or conservative viewpoint. 

To be clear, I agree with you, but its ignoring context and how people work and are. I learned this the hard way, where I thought objectivity was more important than context. This election and this era has taught me . . . it isn't. It just isn't, because the world isn't objective. So why would we be? We need to bend things to how they should be when one side is actively doing the opposite, but using the veneer of objectivity to push their agendas. It's insidious. Just my .02 not trying to hate, I respect your opinions as they are often very informed and I learn a lot. 

1 minute ago, Jason said:

Paul Manafort Keeps Admitting to Stuff On Monitored Prison Calls

I would say this was surprising, but I went to law school. Some people should not have become attorneys, I can tell you first hand . . . 

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I love when Christians talk about Jesus like they know what happened back then better than what they ate yesterday for breakfast.

"Jesus was definitely in Egypt for 3.5 years! Didn't you see his lease on his apartment in Cairo in 29 CE? It's all right there!"

These people, seriously. The Bible is just stories, not historical documents peer-reviewed and checked. 

4 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Nearly, but not quite, as stupid as the voters that ushered in this new chapter of American History! 

Preach.

6 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

 

@SaysWho? - this is why abolish ice is important. Trump's wins are mostly symbolic and lead to the acceptance of other wins. It's a strategy where he is shaking everything in his direction. If the left won't shake shit, they only keep some pieces in place as broken remnants.

Edited my previous post and added a good bit haha.

8 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

 

@SaysWho? - this is why abolish ice is important. Trump's wins are mostly symbolic and lead to the acceptance of other wins. It's a strategy where he is shaking everything in his direction. If the left won't shake shit, they only keep some pieces in place as broken remnants.

Precisely. Abolishing ICE is an incredibly important move.

If not abolish ICE, at least separate the two branches of it from each other so everyone knows which branch to really hate (Investigations vs. Immigration Detentions & Deportations).

http://thehill.com/latino/394757-more-than-a-dozen-ice-agents-call-to-abolish-agency

That would help so much. Because ICE has clearly gone way past its mandate at this point and separating the two bureaus under ICE would so clearly indicate how bad the one bureau is for the people. Trump uses the existence of the "Investigations" branch to justify all the bad things the "Immigration Detentions & Deportations" branch does and it confuses people.

Separate them, Trump has no leg to stand on, and the Immigration Detentions bureau will be abolished, I guarantee you. The Investigations side is actually important and I do not think that should be dissolved but I'll take the entire dissolution of ICE if they can't be separated. ICE being under the Department of Homeland Security is also a labeling nightmare because immigration generally shouldn't inherently be under "Security" because it implies that all immigration requires security which implies threats. Immigration, as an idea, is not inherently threatening, but the government wants us to think it is by doing it this way. 

You see the marketing now? It's ridiculous. 

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

Well, if I could have double-italicized the word something in my previous post, I would have.

Not too surprised, but sad all the same. 

18 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Well these two things are something at least. 

4 minutes ago, Engel said:

I'm not getting what's so hard to follow here.

 

Ort states they need someone to kill off.

 

I reply with they have already have Leia [to kill off].

I think Leia doesn't really count as "someone to kill off" in terms of drama for the film,  which is what Ort is getting at, I would think. 

11 minutes ago, Jason said:

SOOOOOOOO simple

 

 

He's just saying things now. Of course he forgets to mention that the Democrats (who aren't obstructing - laughable - I WISH they obstructed more) are/would only obstruct because they want to go back to at least Obama-level era immigration. Trump wants it even harsher - he wants to make his illegal immigration policies and executive orders legal by turning them into law through legislation, and he's annoyed Democrats won't vote for draconian immigration laws.

Of course they are obstructing! That's like being angry that someone is obstructing your ability to murder people, while you ask them to help make murder legal. 

Like, WTF?

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I don't mind this at all, to some degree, I understand the point.

He should be 3x as harsh on Russia though, yet . . . 

Weird. He chastises Germany for doing a deal with Russia, but then doesn't ever chastise Russia directly? It's like, hate your friends for working with your enemies but don't hate your enemies? 

19 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Fake news = doing investigative journalism to make sure whether alleged claims are real or alleged. Okayyyyyyy then . . . 

It's weird actual adults in important positions resort so quickly to name calling and "fake news" outrage. Like, it feels so childish now I'm taken aback these days that 50+ year olds are screaming things like this. 

50 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Gun people continue to be fucking weird

My first reaction as well. No judgment so long as it remains benign, but definitely weird in a potentially bad way. 

Like, DIY an anime girl pillow or some hentai stuff is also weird, but to me this is weirder than that because one is much more inherently benign. Both should be legal (in this case) but yeah.  

59 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

While 60% of germany's natural gas comes from Russia only 20%of its total energy is natural gas, and that comes out to around 9% of its energy coming from Russia, Trump of course claimed it was 70%.

Trump doesn't understand how percentages within percentages works with regard to subsets and the overall set. 

28 minutes ago, Engel said:

No, they have to kill her off unless they are going to CGI her. 

Right, they'll kill her off offscreen, likely between films during a time jump or at the very start of the film. So how is it they "have" Leia for Episode IX?

3 minutes ago, Nokra said:

Putin is laughing his ass off at how well this is all going.  

Either Trump colluded with Russia, or Putin is the luckiest guy in the world. 

"Hey, totally by accident the American president is doing literally everything I wish he would do."

I mean, that's so highly suspect I wonder why that's not what everyone is talking about. 

7 hours ago, JVC920 said:

I know they talked about it but didn't know 2202 was released yet.  Might have to go check on that.

Just make sure you watch the connecting film Space Battleship Yamato 2199: Odyssey of the Celestial Ark as it helps understand season 2. It's meant to be watched after season 1 but before season 2. It's not available in the US (may never be) but I'm sure you can find a way to watch it as I did. :p 

3 hours ago, Engel said:

They already have Leia.

Joke post?

5 hours ago, JVC920 said:

I know they talked about it but didn't know 2202 was released yet.  Might have to go check on that.

First 9 episodes are out so far subbed and dubbed.

Been watching the sequel show, 2202, every week. 

The show is fantastic, I'm sad the old thread about 2199 and 2202 is gone. 

3 minutes ago, Wild said:

 

Unfortunately that still gets them some flack, as seen by the article when one of the trans actors raising the problem here is actually on Transparent. The complain is that they can't get in the same room as Scarlett Johansson, but that's also the case of 99.9% of the actors in Hollywood. I think it's going to take a breakout performance from a trans actor that lucks into (ie works their ass off to get) a breakthrough role.

 

I don't know, I see both sides of the coin and neither feels like a clear choice. You could argue it is comparable to blackface, but we also praise Cate Blanchett playing Bob Dylan and I don't think anyone thought twice about that.

I think that's because women playing men isn't in the least bit offensive. But if Cate Blanchett played a black man, then it's a problem. It's all about respecting sensitivities. No one is saying make the movie a demagoguery of trans people or anything, they just want representation about their own kind done by their own kind. Same as how blackface is a problem because of how oppressed they were and what blackface represents. 

Again though, it's not clear cut, I agree. 

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Putting pressure on employees/contract labor to make their employers value diversity is incredibly unfair. It’s one thing if she were a producer on the film, but as far as I know she’s just acting in it.

Hey, I'm just saying she can, and I've seen employees do it in real life. I'm not saying she should, no pressure there, but she could if it was important enough to her, especially someone in her position.

55 minutes ago, johnny said:

ScarJo is an actor. Why should she pass on a role that she wants to do because maybe they could cast a trans actor instead? She’s the employee. I think it would be more realistic to ask ScarJo to push for underrepresented people to be cast alongside her. I imagine that a movie about a trans person is going to have other trans characters. Perfect opportunity to include real trans people. 

I did indeed suggest the latter earlier in this thread as more reasonable.