
sheeeit
-
Posts
773 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
1 hour ago, Js1 said:
At no point would I trust the data coming directly from ICE. No siree, this administration will lie, make stuff up and fudge whatever they have to
Agree completely. Did you believe Mayorkas when asked about border policy and actions?
-
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:
I'm not twisting anything. You said artic ice extent isn't an issue anymore and there weren't stories or articles on it. I posted two sources directly on point saying Artic ice extent is very much an issue and very much still decreasing. 2012 isn't a baseline. It was a record low. The fact that ice recovered partially from a record low doesn't mean the record low, substantially beyond historical mean, wasn't concerning. 2024 wasn't within a few percentage points of "baseline." It was within a few percentage points of a record fucking low. I'm going to post this again because apparently you didn't get it:
The redline is the 2012 record minimum. The greenish/blue line is 2024. That big think gray area? That's the fucking historical baseline.
2025 is tracking very closely with 2012 and 2024. If you have a 500-year event every 5-years, it is fair to say you're dealing with a changing system. That's what happening.
Your facts were wrong. Your understanding of what you're looking at is non-existent. You're doing exactly what I accused you of doing, being an ignorant slut. And you're doubling down on it.
Talk about stupid. From your link and my link: 1/5/2024 (my wife's birthday and certainly "when 2024 started" arctic ice extent 13.4 M sq km, 1/5/24 of historical baseline 13.9 M sq km. That is 3.6%. Exactly what I said.
You are showing your ass when I said that the network news and CNN and Fox and late night TV and morning talk shows were talking about the decline in 2012 and you countered that it is still being talked about with links from nsidc.org and climate.gov. True bastions of mainstream information sources.
And you and brisket still miss the point or choose to ignore it. If the ice extent was a massive story when it was at low points then it had to be a massive story when it rebounded. I watched Scott Bessent (one of the Trump guys I like) on nbc or cbs. He pointed out that after the tariffs were announced the network ran with headlines of major stock market crash. Then a few weeks later when the market recovered to historics levels the network ignored it.
And of course Fox and OAN do the opposite. It is shocking that reasonably intelligent people actually think one side is more virtuous than the other.
-
3
-
-
38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
The bogeyman you love -- immigrants are disproportionately rapists and murderers and such -- has been proven wrong so many times it's not worth fucking going over it again.
Trying to keep it civil but this is just blatant bullshit. You are a fucking attorney? I have laid out my plan for immigration control on here for years. I am likely more pro legal immigration than most on here. I think the vast, vast total of immigrants in the country are good people and we are a better country because of it. You really have just become exactly what you claim to hate.
What you will not admit, what the previous admin will not admit, what this whole "squash the lies of repubs like germany bullshit" talk will not admit when it comes to immigration is that under Biden, on purpose, the controls we had on who was allowed into the country were completely removed. We let in a massive number of really horrible people, we allowed immigrant children to go virtually unchecked to "host" families that we can not even find anymore, we let massive amounts of fentanyl into the country etc. Yet Mayorkas and Kamala and a large percentage of the media just lied about it and ignored it. Of course the number of really bad people was a small percentage but a small percentage of 10 million is a shitload of people. Remind me when any ranking dem member of congress criticized Biden when literally thousands of hispanic gang members entered the country illegally.
I think Trump firing the BLS guy is stupid and wrong. But not any more stupid and wrong than Biden firing the general counsel of the NLRB because the unions wanted him too. But both are legal.
-
10
-
-
On 8/4/2025 at 12:12 PM, Brisketexan said:
If we as a Republic -- governed by a REPRESENTATIVE government (including the executive) -- believe that "bias is bad, and truth is good," you'd see SOME action by this government to rein in the insane and obvious lies promulgated by the conservative media sphere. You see....zero. Instead, you see only active coordination between the government and those sources to promulgate objectively false information.
LOL. Define government? Last time I checked, Schumer, AOC, Warren, Booker are all part of the government. If you are suggesting that whichever party holds the executive will rally around their leader, then I will agree.
What you can not seem to realize is that it is possible to not like most aspects of either party. There are a few people in Trump's exec that I like and there were a few people in Biden's exec that I liked.
Off the top of my head I can think of: Hiding Bidens mental decline, Janet Yellen telling the world in the summer of 2024 before the election that the debt was in a "reasonable place", Mayorkas continually telling us the border was secure etc. The dems rallied around Biden and swallowed those lies just like is happening now.
-
6
-
-
On 8/4/2025 at 12:21 PM, Dahobbs said:
As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing:
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you.
On 8/4/2025 at 12:21 PM, Dahobbs said:As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing:
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you.
Wow. Nowhere did I say the earth is not warming or that emissions are not part of the force. Nowhere. I do not deny it at all. I also said 2024 (it was the graph I used as 2025 is not over yet).
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
When 2024 started, the arctic ice extent was approximately 3.4% under the baseline used to track it. Exactly what I posted. I do not remember but I am guessing the old post was from 2012. There were stories almost nightly on network news, Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. Late night talk shows, morning shows, newspapers etc. We were told that this was a catastrophic sign. Yet in 2024 the issue gets not a peep. That is my point. You are doing exactly what Brisket wrongly accused me of doing. You can not argue the fact that in 2024 the Arctic ice extent was within percentage points of the historical mean. Of course it could still go down and it could still be catastrophic. But if anyone suggested in 2012 that by 2024 the ice extent would be almost all the way back to the historical mean, they would have been ostracized and laughed out of the building. But it is true.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
His proportions are not just incorrect. They reveal the foundational flaw and evil in modern conservative thought: their "feelings" about an issue absolutely trump and void any and all facts.
Sheeeit posits that out of 10 people arrested:
10% will be wrongly arrested (that number is perhaps high, but genuinely unknown -- the percentage of genuinely legal residents arrested (green cards, actual citizens) remains tough to sort out at present)
20% will be ordinary, otherwise law-abiding and productive people just living their lives and working (this percentage is the OPPOSITE of the actual ratio)...and
70% will be "really horrible people" (again, a percentage that is even MORE the OPPOSITE of what has been seen thus far -- around 8% of people arrested have some sort of serious criminal activity on their record)
THEN, he uses HIS bias of the facts as HE believes them to assail NPR for being counter-factual in its bias. No, I'm sorry, I know facts hurt conservatives' feelings, but they're still facts. The reason that all objective journalism on this planet is painting a shittastic picture of the actions of this admin is because....those actions are genuinely shittastic. Even outfits that are seen as generally center-right (like the Economist) tell the identical tale. Why? Because....the facts are the facts.
I listen to NPR in the morning. They REGULARLY invite conservative officials and commentators on to discuss the issues....and those people REGULARLY state outlandish, counter-factual bullshit. I mean, obvious and insane counter-factual bullshit. And when the host politely prods "but how to you respond to the analysis that shows that only 8% of the people arrested have a serious criminal record," they just lie some fucking more. And NPR gets painted as "liberal biased" because it says "ummm....what you're saying does not match up to the known data, do you have different data you can share?" There is no honest discussion with people whose entire worldview is based on the lie that their feelings are superior to all objective facts. Those people are called "authoritarians," and they are the enemy of any functioning nation state.
Oh for fucks sake. I will happily admit my percentages were off. It is really hard to get accurate data. Here is NBC news tracking of current migrants in ICE detention. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/us-immigration-tracker-follow-arrests-detentions-border-crossings-rcna189148
54% with either a criminal conviction or pending criminal charges. From the same article, they estimate there are 435,000 immigrants currently free in the US with criminal convictions. If you want to argue the stats, take it up with NBC.
Good rant though.
-
7
-
-
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:
This is the foundational problem.
Reporting on simple facts, like "the temperature data gathered in the Gulf of Maine over the past 50 years shows that the body has reached a temp 4 degrees warmer than its long-term average" is liberal slant/bias. You have a POTUS firing the head of the BLS because....it reported and adjusted job numbers using the EXACT same methodology it has used forever, including during his first term, Obama's term, Biden's term, etc. Reporting of ACTUAL FACTS is...to use the exact word from the leader of "conservatives" is "rigged."
A society never gets over that. We are going to gut every single entity that gathers or reports on objective data and facts. Because....objective data and facts are enemy #1 of an authoritarian government. It's not any more complicated than that.
Agree with a lot of this but you are over simplifying and ignoring context. No serious person ever bitches about reporting of increased temps in the Gulf of Maine. Some may question the methodology of the temp data or question if the data is raw or smoothed, but most every serious person will agree with the findings to some degree. It is the opinion of what caused the increase or what that means for the future that is debatable. I remember the very old thread by MOP (I think) talking about the prediction of an ice free arctic. There was wide spread coverage of the issue. The implications were catastrophic. Now, a few decades later, Arctic ice extent is within a few percentage points of its mean and I haven't seen a show or read an article about arctic sea ice in years. My guess is that if someone did simply report that "for 2024 the arctic sea ice extent was within 5% of the historical average of testing" (which is true) that it would be met with conservative, climate denying slant/bias.
Your last point is just too stupid. There is so much more information available today than in any point in the world's history. To suggest an "authoritarian" government can gut these entities is just ridiculous. The numbers are provided to everyone. The government has no control of the numbers or their dissemination. All of the data collected gets shared with the entire freaking world. The govt may get a first look but all the info gets out. If Trump decided tomorrow to completely eliminate the BLS, all of the information that the BLS publishes will still be available. Hell, AI could analyze payroll data of virtually every company in the world in almost real time and give us a much better picture of what is going on.
-
6
-
-
15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
Would that conservative "news" outlets were merely biased.
As an NPR listener and former conservative one thing notable about it is there's very little "analysis," or "editorializing."
Yes, you can often tell that the reporters and personalities are revolted and shocked by what they're reporting, but they rarely come out and say it, or even really imply it.
And don't pretend this is some measured conservative policy. They've been bitching about it since Nixon but haven't done anything about it.
This is 100% Donald Trump's revenge tour.
Also, yes it is different times. But you really never know when the next Sesame Street is coming down the pike and I think there is value to having a non-profit, publicly oriented media outlet.
Don't we have a few hundred page topic on the bias of some conservative leaning news sites? I agree there are biases in almost all news organizations. As far as I know, none of them are a topic of what I am posting about and none of them receive federal funding. Surely you are not suggesting that having NPR is necessary to offset conservative leaning news sites?
It is not always about simply editorializing or analyzing. You have to look at the guest list for interviews and the topics discussed. Plus, as all humans do, we often fail to see a bias if the coverage supports our own worldview.
Quick example, I queried Immigration and NPR. There is actually a link on NPR's website that collates NPR's coverage of immigration. Of the first 15-20 links, all of them were negative towards the current policy and its actions. Fine. Its newsworthy discussion and the negative impacts need to be made public. But not one single article about the positives. Not one. Just throw in one article out of 20 that details the deportation of hardened criminals, rapists, human smugglers etc. When ICE raids a plant and say ten people are rounded up, there likely will be 1 us citizen wrongly swept up, there likely will be 2 cases of immigrants that really should be here that are law abiding and productive and the rest will likely be really horrible people that never should have been here and need to be deported post haste. We absolutely need reporting and transparency on the first two groups. But we equally need transparency and reporting on the bad guys. How were they able to get here? How have they not already been deported or arrested? When you are publicly funded, you need to try to be even handed.
Sure they have been bitching since Nixon. You are unwittingly making my argument. The reason nothing could be done previously is that in Nixon's day there were about as many conservative hosts/panels as there were liberal. There was actual political diversity in the editorial positions at NPR. The right could bitch but there were legitimate facts the left could argue. I think it is a bit telling that you ignored the fact that there seem to be almost zero republican editors currently at NPR. That is a staggering fact. It is almost impossible to explain away.
On your last point we agree mostly. I completely favor continued funding. I do think there should be some changes but it is foolish to just abolish. I will also argue that it is unlikely the next great breakthrough in children's educational programming will come from a source like PBS. Today, PBS just doesn't have the reach or funding of other sources and the competition is brutal versus the 1960's when there wasn't any competition.
-
1
-
5
-
-
On 8/2/2025 at 10:07 AM, TwiceHorn said:
Why didn't the private sector generate Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, etc?
And now we're concerned about private media having to compete with PBS? Fucking hell.
I think the cutting of funding for public broadcasting is short sighted and wrong. I think some changes needed to be made but cutting funding is just silly and non productive and political theater.
To the above, when shows like Mr Rogers and Sesame street were created (late 1960s) there were only 3 real channels for television. Marketing for the fledgling tv industry had to focus on shows that adults watched because that is what advertisers would pay for. The networks did not have the financial ability to generate exclusively kids shows because there were no advertisers for those shows. There were cartoons that offered mindless entertainment for kids but not educational. So getting PBS to do shows like Sesame was great. A really good use of public funding.
What some are suggesting is that times are different now. There are literally thousands of shows on network, cable, streaming services etc that are considered educational children's programming. So it is a fair question whether the public funding is still necessary. I personally think it is but I can see the argument.
There is also a pretty big distinction, in my mind, from PBS and NPR. For anyone to suggest that NPR does not have a political lean to liberals/democrats is just foolish. When Berliner resigned he uncovered a lot of what people certainly suspected. Berliner was as "inside" as you can get and worked there for 20 years and was a strong liberal. The staff at NPR, especially the editors, are overwhelmingly registered democrats. Berliner suggested that there were zero registered republican editors at the headquarters. May or may not be true but the democrat numbers there are overwhelming. That is an astonishing fact for an institution that receives federal funding. It will never be 50/50 but to not even have a few token republicans on the editorial staff just opens NPR up to legitimate criticism by hard core conservatives. NPR did it to themselves. Even if in their hearts the editors wanted to be balanced and thought they were being balanced, they just couldn't. Every human has personal biases. It is part of our DNA and unavoidable at a subconscious level. When the numbers of people editing stories is 95% left leaning, then it is absolutely inevitable that that bias is going to creep into their thought making. Inevitable. Not every single time. But over a period of time it is simply inevitable.
And for certain NPR is not over the top bias like OAN or MSNBC, but it is there. And there is plenty of programming on NPR that is not political at all. But they opened themselves up for this by their own actions and hiring practices. And I have zero objection to any private outfit aligning their staff to a certain ideological similarity, but it just can't exist when receiving public funds.
As an analogy, if there was a publication of some sort in Texas that prided itself on diversity of opinions and the entire editorial staff of the publication were TAMU graduates, no one here, including myself, would believe the publication was not biased. We all know aggies that are hard core, moderate and a small group that are actually liberal. But putting them all together will guarantee a right leaning bent to their reporting. It is just human nature.
If NPR announced back in 2024 when Berliner resigned that it was going to look inward at their editorial staff and make some changes and really try to add a percentage of diversity of opinion to their staff then they would have a good argument against the far right wanting to defund them. Maybe add 20% of conservative leaning editors. But they didn't. They dug in and kept the status quo and are now suffering for it.
-
2
-
3
-
-
On 6/20/2025 at 6:20 PM, Rudiger said:
I played when I lived in England. The hardest thing for me was batting: gripping the bat differently, no strike zone, protecting the wicket, weird spin off the bounce. I was great at fielding though.
Great? Does not pass smell test.
-
2
-
-
-
In my mind, character actor in this thread should mean an actor that maybe 25% of the population could put a name with a face. Pesci, Seymour Hoffman, Duvall etc are fantastic actors that play a myriad of roles, but have become recognizable stars. Been some really great ones named here. I have a couple (and hopefully a few people will not recognize the name but will the face or the other way):
Mark Strong, Ben Mendelsohn, Luiz Guzman, Scott Glen
Interestingly, very few women come to mind. Not sure why that is?
-
5 hours ago, bolverk said:
Full text of the article cited above about IDF soldiers ordered to kill unarmed Palestinians around food distribution sites:
The situation in Gaza is truly heart breaking. I really do not know what to make of a situation where aid can't even be provided safely. And it is not just one side at fault for that. The reality at this point is that Israel is the bigger bear by far and Hamas needs to give up if it has even a sliver of care for its people. I'm not saying Israel doesnt deserve blame. I'm saying sometimes you have to face reality if you care about your kids.
As to the article, if we have learned anything in the last few years it should be that anonymous quotes in articles are worthless. They may actually be true, but if there isn't a name attached it is worthless.
-
14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:
"We've seen the end of major ground wars in Europe."
And we don't have to abandon Germany entirely. We just need to give them sufficient reason to doubt that we will continue to provide our umbrella of nuclear deterrence. Dude. We've done that ALREADY. The discussions on the european side are already (and rightly) happening: https://apnews.com/article/france-nuclear-weapons-deterrence-ukraine-russia-trump-a53dc73395455c753287ae2ecbb7a9a5
The only question is whether Germany will accept France extending its nuclear deterrent as sufficient. If I were Germany, I sure as fuck wouldn't. I would get me some nukes, and right quick. They have to make themselves too prickly a hedgehog for Russia to even think of ingesting.
The logic just doesn’t even come close to adding up. Not everyone over reacts to the stupid things that Trump tweets.
But by your logic, we have Putin sitting in Russia contemplating an attack on Germany. Germany, who’s two biggest trading partners to the tune of over half a trillion are the United States and China. Germany, who is the fifth most powerful country in the world by most analysis. Germany, who buy all accounts is the strongest member of the EU.
And what exactly in your scenario does Russia think that they will gain from invading Germany? Are they going to take it over? Are they going to force Germany to buy more oil and gas from them?
But even though the idea of Russia invading Germany is so far-fetched to the point of not even really needing to be talked about, and even though Russia knows that if they did for some reason invade Germany, that China and the United States and the European Union and the UK would all mobilize against them instantly, in your mind it is possible. However, if Germany suddenly had a nuclear bomb, then Putin would decide against it?
I can just see Putin thinking to himself that he could invade Germany and take on the US and China and the EU and the UK and somehow win (knowing full well that those countries have literally thousands of nuclear weapons) but mighty Russia could probably pull it off. But if Germany decides to get a nuke, then it would be too hard.
-
33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
Well, the hypothetical was US withdrawal. Germany only has nukes because the US does. Without NATO, the EU only has nukes because France does. So if the US nuclear umbrella weren't reliable, I absolutely believe Germany and other EU powers would scramble to develop and deploy their own.
I missed the part about the US withdrawal, but it really isn't even worth discussing. You are hypothesizing that the US would pull all of its military out of Germany and the rest of the EU. That would seriously harm our own defense interests. Not even Trump would consider that. Something like that would actually be a reason for impeachment.
But even if that impossible scenario came about, it would still take more than that. The UK would have to abandon Germany. The EU would have to dissolve and abandon Germany. NATO would have to abandon Germany. France has what around 300 nukes? 300 isn't enough of a deterrent?
And who does Germany think they need to protect themselves from that could attack them without the US and the EU and other NATO countries getting involved? Russia? China? Pakistan? Even if the US got out of NATO, they are still getting involved in any scenario where Germany gets attacked.
There is no scenario that exists where some country is considering attacking Germany but would then change their mind if Germany has a nuke. If someone attacked Germany it is full on WWIII and the attacking country is getting obliterated. And maybe the rest of the world too.
-
17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
Ukraine is an obvious example. And I don't really see why it would require coordination with another country. You could also see countries like Germany in the EU wanting to add a nuclear arsenal if US protection weren't guaranteed.
Germany is a non starter. They are a NATO and EU member and both entities have nukes already. It is not even on their radar. No one is fucking with Germany whether they have nukes or not. They do not need them. Their people do not want them. They are costly.
Ukraine may want them but play it out. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, Ukraine is going to be extremely dependent on the US and EU for survival. They lose all of that support if they try and get nukes. Of course we support Ukraine against Russia but it is still a fact that Ukraine is a terribly corrupt nation and has many rogue entities. We will not let it happen. Russia will go even more scorched earth on Ukraine if they try and get nukes and the rest of the world would likely "allow" Russia to destroy Ukraines sites if the try.
If anything, this past few weeks has shown that the world is not tolerant of new nukes.
-
5 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:
Here's the problem. Even if we did destroy everything including the uranium (which we most likely didn't), it doesn't matter as long as the Iranian regime is still in power. They can just say they have uranium and capabilities to produce quickly. You think we'll just say "we don't believe you" and assume they're lying? Khameini and his cronies lie about everything. To the point where we bombed them even though there was no real proof they were close to a nuclear weapon.
We tore up the Obama deal and no one is going inside Iran anymore to assess/inspect. All of this is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't move the needle until the regime is gone.
It seems pointless at this point to argue the JCPOA but if we consider the factual tenets of the deal including the sunset clauses combined with the "legal under the agreement" ability for Iran to upgrade their centrifuges after just a few years combined with even Obama admitting that after 12 or so years the break out time would be days and in exchange Iran would get 100s of billions in unfrozen assets and trade deals- the JCPOA was a far, far better deal for Iran than the rest of the world.
But, to your post above, we need to remember that it seems very obvious at this point that Israel/Mossad has infiltrated Iran up to the highest levels. They apparently knew where the highest ranking military people were in Iran up to the exact floor and apartment number of a particular building. The "world" will never, ever know the depths of the intelligence that we have on Ira. Reacting to tweets and news articles and quotes from supposed insiders (from all sides) is a fool's game. It is all either subterfuge or guesses. Guesses might actually be right sometimes but they are still guesses. But it certainly seems that whatever Iran decides to do next, the intelligence agencies will know about almost immediately. More importantly, the Iran regime now knows that they have been infiltrated so they have no real way of doing much of anything nefarious. Couple that fact with the now known fact that the US will call their bluff and that no one is going to defend them and you have a regime that really can't do much of anything nefarious without getting killed.
I do not know enough about internal Iranian politics to know who might be the next leader of Iran (likely in the next 5 years) but based on the actions of this past week or so, I doubt a true believer/hardliner is going to get the gig. Hopefully that helps Iran move forward
-
15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:
Between Israel attacking Iran and Russia deciding it wanted a piece of Ukraine (or all of it), and the US pulling back from being Top Dog/kicking countries out from under our tent, I don't see how more countries aren't considering nukes.
Like who? Not necessarily disagreeing but what countries, realistically, could start a program for nukes that don't already have them? It is very expensive. It requires illegal coordination with another country that has them already. Add in the fact that really no other country on the planet has condemned the strikes against Iran suggests that if a country did try to get a nuke now that they would likely be bombed/sanctioned etc. What could possibly be the upside?
-
On 6/5/2025 at 2:18 PM, Texzilla58 said:
That’s my issue with the cold climes. It’s basically a race for fat, and then outlasting the other starving players. I’d rather it be a set time and survivors split the pot. Say 75-90 days.
Australia is very limited on what can be hunted or not. Most things are protected for natives.
Totally get your point. However, one of the challenges and charm of the show is the not knowing when it may end for the contestants. If you give an end date you remove a ton of that issue. It is infinitely easier to steel yourself for a final few days if you know the end is near. Having no idea how long someone else might endure is what makes the show so interesting.
-
59 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:
On Iron Claw, they mashed up a lot of things to fit into a movie. A flawed masterpiece but the only casting they missed was Ric Flair. That was the climax of the movie and the actor whiffed.
For Reacher, the movie which was made possible by Cruise, it doesnt make sense from the screenplay and direction to have a huge intimidating guy with a complex backstory. The movie worked because he was a mystery and he was underestimated. The mystery unraveled as Reachers specific interaction with the suspected shooter was revealed.
Fans of the source material hated it, and they may be right, a better movie could have been made, but the movie was crafted with Cruise in mind. Not a casting miss for the movie.Some fair points. On Iron Claw, they didn’t need giants to play the roles but the 2,big stars are what around 5’8”? They are fine actors but we know they are really short. And I don’t mind using shorter or taller actors for certain roles, but when you’re playing a professional wrestler, then your physique is a definite characteristic of the role.
My understanding is that Tom Cruise‘s production company bought the rights to reacher. So I do think it was poorly cast if he bought the rights with the expectation that he himself would play the lead. The books are very popular for a certain segment of the population. I cannot believe that other companies were not interested in purchasing the rights.
it just seems like a bad idea to me to make a movie that is certainly tailored to a somewhat specific group of audiences. And the people that like the reacher books are definitely a big segment of that particular audience. So you kind of alienated a large percentage of the target audience that you were going for. And, for the record, I think Tom Cruise is a fantastic actor.
-
About half way through. I think it is enjoyable. The acting is pretty good. The premise is good but the writing is just average.
-
Iron Claw (I never saw it for this reason. Was it any good?)
It really bugs me when they just completely ignore physical stature in movies. For many roles the physical size is probably not that important. But it is critical in some roles. Like the Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher comments. It matters because a TON of the backstory and appeal of Reacher is his size. So they make a professional wrestling movie and cast 2 of the shortest actors in Hollywood. I'm turned off before it even comes out.
-
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:
...yes. Because the voters won't let someone sane make it through the primary. See this:
"Non-idiot" is a non-starter in elections in Louisiana, Texas, etc. You are REQUIRED to be a fucking insane moron in order to get enough votes. The math maths on this one.
I just completely disagree. I also think it is funny that you think that Texas and Louisiana have more "insane morons" than the state legislatures in California or Oregon. This is a political board so I assume people here know some of their reps. I'd say 75% are wholly unqualified for the job.
The truth is that the best and brightest among us do not run for office. It is hard to blame them. It pays next to nothing. Your life is on blast. Any moderate position taken will be blasted by the fringe of each party. People will twist your words and take comments out of context to try and score political points. It is a lousy gig for a competent person.
As an attorney I am certain you have met and worked with people from every spectrum of the law. I am also certain that there are a small percentage of attorneys out there that you may have genuine disagreements with and may have been on opposing sides of issues with that you would say were honest, forthright, competent, moral, ethical and smart. None of those people are going to run for office in the state legislature. And yet, you would most likely agree that that smalll percentage of folks (be they dem or rep) would be light years better than who we have now.
-
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
....the voters are electing the representation that they want. Forget the dollar, forget Bitcoin....stupidity is the only currency of real value in the marketplace in 2025. A candidate running on a platform of banning fire, vaccines, and breathing wins in most red states by 10 points or more.
I tend to disagree a bit. The voters are electing the people on the ballot.
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
in Daily Texan
Posted
Agree. Trump does knee jerk, childish things and I wish he wasn't POTUS.
I notice you neglected to comment on Biden firing Robb as general counsel of the NLRB which ended 70 plus years of precedent. This was so much worse for the country and for the things you seem to be suggesting regarding bending to party and squashing dissent and hurting the country. Robb was going after some union shops for workplace violations. During the campain the Communications Workers of America union actively complained about Robb and called for his firing. Biden fired him day 1 and replaced him with a senior lawyer for....the Communications Workers of America union who promptly closed the investigations.
Which is worse and more reflective of an authoritarian/fascist regime?
If I am being totally honest, I actually have a bit of respect for the guy that comes right out on national TV and says he is going to primary someone. I think it is a totally wrong thing to do, but at a bare minimum he is being transparent.
You don't think every admin since the beginning of the USA doesn't use the same tactic? Of course they do. They just don't advertise it. Biden spurned Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman because they did not vote for his infrastructure bill. They both lost primaries. This happens all the time. Again, I don't like it and think it is one of the shittier aspects of politics but it is common.