Jump to content


Enhance

Mods
  • Posts

    15,293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by Enhance

  1. Hey all, let's please not post jokes/suggestions about assassinating current or former elected U.S. officials. That's not really appropriate for discussion purposes and just a bit risky overall. Thanks for understanding. If you have questions just shoot me a DM.
  2. I have traditionally found stories of 'good samaritan' gunmen who take out active shooters largely to be annoyingly frustrating red herrings. In these rare scenarios, yeah, it is good someone stopped four people shot from being more. But mass shootings make up only a small portion of the overall gun and gun violence problem in this country. Not to mention that fact that most homes don't have guns. Most people don't want to own or carry guns. So, when you get these stories, all it primarily does is manifest these fringe firearm fantasies for gun activists to latch onto as proof of what a well-armed citizenry can accomplish. Never mind, of course, the obscene access to guns our adults and children have, the number of suicides committed by them, the majority number of crimes that happen with guns that are unrelated to mass shootings, etc...
  3. Yeah she gave a great performance, is a bomb shell, and the idea to bring that role into play (and cast her specifically) was great. For me though, most of the movie felt like it was trying to tell me I should care about her rather than help me actually care about her. And then the relationship development itself just felt disjointed. They apparently had off and on flings over the years that never worked out but now this time it's gonna work? They made a point to tell us that but then never go much further (IIRC). And then he goes on a potential one-way trip mission after having reconnected with this lifelong love, only to return to her apparent abandonment (couldn't even leave a note/text him?) but don't panic everyone because GOTCHA 30 sec. later she's back looking fine in front of a sports car in a weird 'surprise she does love you' moment. She did encourage him to get back into the fold of the mission once Iceman was gone, which helped her story and their development, but then why does she just go MIA at the end? Felt like more of a trope to get me to think 'aww his gf dumped him' rather than to actually develop their love story. I fully accept this is a Tom Cruise action movie so I wasn't expecting a great romance plot line but it just all felt a bit forced and a little awkward.
  4. My wife and I finally saw this last Friday. I think it fulfilled its destiny to be a Tom Cruise action flick intended to spur nostalgic memories while people watched fighter jets go pew pew at one another. Very entertaining. As a movie, I'd probably give it a 7/10. Its greatest strengths are the action scenes, VFX and the Miles Teller/Tom Cruise acting combo. Its weaknesses are some of the secondary/tertiary plot elements. The Penny Benjamin story angle was really clunky (hell, even the main plot itself is a bit ) and it was about as scripted/routine of an action flick as you can get. But hey, you don't go to a movie like Top Gun expecting to be blown away by the writing and character development. And they obviously put an immense amount of work into filming, which is worth a lot of kudos in and of itself.
  5. Flaming is against board guidelines, which is what you were trying to do, as I have already pointed out. It's time to move along, please. This is the only time I'm going to ask.
  6. Ha - nice try. As I said, it's not going to fly. You can ask someone a question without throwing in little quips like "if you are so brave." Please attack the post, not the poster.
  7. You are welcome to disagree with his opinion and his choices, but the bolded is not going to fly. Attack the post, not the poster.
  8. You should (actually, shouldn't) meet my father-in-law. He's big into boating, so we naturally meet a lot of people when we do that. I can't tell you a single time that politics hasn't come up when he met a stranger. And he is always brazen about what he thinks. Not in an offensive way mind you... but very casual... as if he could be talking about the weather or sports cars. It's almost like he just assumes a) people want to talk about it and b) will share a similar interest/opinion as himself. Most people handle it graciously by either complicity nodding along or just looking for a casual/appropriate opportunity to change the subject. But I immediately get tense. I'm also a happy drinker so I will immediately just be 'that guy' that leaves the conversation lmao.
  9. It's a lifestyle/image thing. That said, I've never in my life understood people who place so much identity association with their political leanings and ideologies... at least in the sense that they get so angry and worked up about it. I'll never have a political bumper sticker. I'll never have a political yard sign. I'll never hate someone for who they voted for (even if I think they made a moronic decision in voting for that person). To me, that's humanity at some of its lowest common denominators.
  10. People refer to each party or a political viewpoint generically here all the time, yourself included. "Libs" this. "Conservatives" that. I think if you gave BRB an opportunity to clarify instead of just banally saying what amounts to 'WRONG' then your conversation might prove more fruitful. You'll also notice he clarified his statement with the following "You're saying that isn't successful all the time......Yes, I know that." But, hey, don't let that get in the way of a good pissing match. I agree, but what I said still holds true. A Trump endorsement can be influential and there are significant portions of the Republican party still beholden to him. Why they are at this point is still troubling.
  11. I don't want to put words in BRB's mouth, but I think what he is trying to illustrate is that Trump is still an incredibly influential element in the Republican party. More specifically, I think it's clear that Trump still holds a fairly ironclad grip on his base. His base does not make up 100% of the Republican party, but it does make up a significant enough portion that conservative political strategists are having to take it into account. Many Republicans have acknowledged that Trump's endorsement in political races remains influential, although it obviously does not guarantee victory. There are also unquestionably some factions and representatives of the party that are doing exactly what BRB is saying. If you try to dunk on Trump, they try to dunk on you. It would be unfair to cast that as a problem among ALL Republicans, but we know it is happening. Frankly, I'm still surprised (and disappointed) he remains such a fixture in the party.
  12. Yep you and teach hit the nail on the head, but really the biggest thing is relationship building and the benefits that come from that. Most of the times I would meet up with a source or contact for coffee or lunch, we might talk about specific things going on that I wanted to report on, but we would usually talk about our lives, challenges we face at work, why certain things happen that make both our lives difficult, etc. That's probably a lot of what was happening with the story Devo shared. You wouldn't meet up with a high profile government employee for lunch in a public place to share government secrets. You'd probably do it just to get to know each other better and see how best you can help one another. That might include a lot of "off the record" details but those details may not be germane to a specific story.
  13. Just quoting you Devo but the following isn't targeted at you, FYI. When I was a journalist, I had "unauthorized contacts" with law enforcement officials/government agencies and off-the-record conversations every single day. I know a lot of things I shouldn't technically know. Sometimes these meetings were at restaurants/bars or over coffee, but they were usually over the phone. That's because, in the eyes of PR people, public information officers, and leadership, any time you don't go through the song and dance of getting approval from them, they get all pissy. They always want to control the narrative and prevent anything that makes them look bad. People seem to be grateful for a journalist's work when it ousts something important, but based on some of those Twitter comments, I can tell some people see this as a "gotcha!" moment that is really isn't... at least not to the degree they want to make it. So, part of what this article is outlining is just part of being a journalist. We're encouraged and taught to do that in order to build rapport with sources, get the jump on stories, etc. In the VAST majority of cases, the relationship is productive, and most of what is talked about does not at all negatively impact investigations. Most of what is talked about is also not reported. If this kind of stuff didn't happen then journalists wouldn't be good watchdogs. I can't endorse stuff like the payola/plugola stuff in that article. That's unethical. But I would safely wager most of these 'unauthorized contacts' are just upset PR people being upset PR people.
  14. It's relatively straight forward mathematics based on what I recall of the subject; most states have studied the matter and their conclusions have generally been in line that the death penalty is often more expensive than life in prison. It usually comes down to the fact that people sentenced to death often have a more robust, long and expensive appeals process that can last years or even decades. And by default, capital cases are much more expensive than non-capital cases. Additionally, someone sentenced to death will often be placed in more expensive special facilities than someone sentenced to life in prison... so they're eating up much more money. Meanwhile, someone sentenced to life in prison might go through the appeals process but overall those costs are usually less and then they're also not as likely to be in the high security special facilities. Some states (Texas) really push through executions, so that could be a place where life in prison is more expensive, but few states are like Texas in that regard.
  15. The Inquisitor story line started off great - I just don't think the writing and the acting with that specific character has done it justice. It is over-acted and at times disconnected from the other plot elements and themes. I don't know if that's more of a her problem or a directorial problem, but Reva scenes have become less and less interesting as the story has gone along. Perhaps the best one so far was her Other than that though I've been really pleased. I think Ewan McGregor has re-captured the role nicely and the dynamic between him and Vader has been a lot of fun.
  16. I've been enjoying the series so far, but, there have been some pretty glaring and bizarre writing decisions up to this point. And I'm not a fan of the way they've written Reva or the performance that actress is giving. So far I'd give it maybe a 6/10. We'll see the last couple episodes hold.
  17. I think we should re-categorize Republicans from being "pro-life" to simply being "anti-abortion." In the literal sense, they often contradict the term pro-life. Republicans have regularly fought against policies aimed at protecting and promoting life and well-being, all under of the guise of 'wanting to limit government over-reach' and protect freedoms... when it's convenient to them. Gun control is perhaps the most prominent example but there are a number of others, particularly in the social program realm. Too many Republicans want to force you to have a baby and then provide relatively unfettered access to the gun that may one day kill them. If they were truly "pro-life," they'd acquiesce to the truth that wrangling in our gun violence problem involves not only mental health resource improvements but also serious and aggressive changes to our gun culture and policies; which, yes, could make it way more difficult to own a gun. And the best (or worst) part is this - this is what most Americans want. Most Americans want stronger gun control. It's the bureaucrats and special interest groups who are preventing this.
  18. Yeah the full screen pop up ad is serving a bit intrusively right now. I’ve noticed it specifically on mobile when changing threads and logging in
  19. Follow board guidelines or don’t - either way, you’ll decide your own future. Testing your luck with a mod isn’t a good strategy. Please stay on topic. This point won’t be argued further.
  20. I referenced 200+ years of court precedent that didn’t change until 2008. I also made several other points your response neglected to address. Also, we can do without the quips and ‘gotchas’. You can take those to another message board.
  21. This quote might shock some people. "[The 2nd Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." - Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger, a conservative, in 1991. The legal consensus surrounding the 2A for the majority of our country's history was that the right to bear arms was not an individual right, but rather a right for those called into military service i.e. a militia. And that's what the actual language of the 2A talks about - a militia. The U.S. SC did not rule that the 2A guaranteed an individual the right to own a gun until 2008 by a slim 5-4 vote. Up until that point, every other time the court had ruled previously, they had ruled that you did not have that right. And to this day, the court has still concluded that gun ownership is not an absolute right and is subject to limitations. What we're seeing and have been seeing for decades now is a lobbying effort by groups like the NRA, as well as anti-democratic push by certain politicians and presidents (who don't represent the popular vote of this country), pushing policies on people who don't actually want them. I'm all for hunting. I'm all for responsible gun ownership. But I'm also all for more strict gun control and much stronger barriers to entry/ownership. Most of this country is. And it's pretty clear that most of the apprehension towards more strict gun control is largely a result of successful manipulation by gun rights lobbyists with deep pockets and a financial agenda.
  22. I don’t understand why they’re being associated in the first place. Is there some context I don’t know about? Likely, a statistically insignificant number of people are taking their children to drag bars (which, in most places I’ve seen, almost always require entrants to be of legal age in whatever municipality they’re in, or at least 16 years of age). Just seems like another baseless opportunity to trigger a voting base over something that’s not really a thing right?
  23. The things these politicians come up with are just hysterically inept and awful. Would love to see the statistics on how many parents are taking their children to drag bars, but I think we can all safely assume there aren’t many, and it’s not enough to even try to make it a talking point in the first place. I also love the unstated but intentional evangelical inference that being a good parent and person requires church. Edit: BTW, I went to a drag show in Puerto Vallarta a few years ago. Incredibly entertaining and fun. Highly recommended.
  24. That's what makes this conservative talking point asinine and unintelligent - there simply is no realistic or cost-effective way to protect all the places that have suffered a mass shootings.
  25. Several posts have been moved out of here and into the Woodshed. Personal attacks and flaming are against board guidelines. Some of you should be abundantly aware of this by now. There is a core group here whom are regularly finding themselves in the middle of a fit with one another and it needs to end. Immediately. I won't lose an ounce of sleep handing out further warnings or multiple, simultaneous suspensions if that's what it takes.
×
×
  • Create New...