Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    I stated that medical professionals (and really the general public) knew about the risk to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions by early March. Hell, we fucking discussed it on this board. You told me I was dishonest for stating an easily provable fact. Maybe you're the one with the selective or non-existent memory. 

    Lot to unpack here.  Lets assume you are right and  most everyone, including the general public, knew about the risk to elderly people in early March.  So why haven't we arrested the governors that "knew the risk to the elderly in early march" that mandated that infected people be sent to elderly centers in late march and april?  Why didn't anyone/everyone in the medical community and especially Fauci who was advising the governors and talking to Cuomo daily not immediately come out and state publicly that sending infected people to nursing homes was the absolute worst place to send them?

    And, to be very clear, you said Fauci was neutered by trump in march of 2020 when that was absolutely incorrect.

    12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    What exactly do you think Fauci should have done in March of 2020? Told the general public to hoard masks even though none were available? Why is this discussion only limited to that time and not April and May of 2020? Maybe because you're trying to concoct a very specific narrative that completely falls apart if any broader context is considered? 

    What a load of crap.  I have never said anything about masks.  What I  think Fauci should have done in March of 2020 is to tell the governors not to send infected people to nursing homes because that would be the absolute worst place to send them and would result in massive deaths.  The reason this specific discussion is focused on early March is because the directives to mandate sending people to nursing homes came out in late march/early april.  That is the whole point you dolt.  If the knowledge existed to most everyone in early march then the mandate to send people in late march/early april was criminally bad.

     

    21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    His recommendations were ignored by Trump, who went so far as to publicly disagree with Fauci in proclaiming the end of the virus and advocating for treatments like hydroxychloroquine and bleach. 

    Fauci testified, under oath, that his recommendations were followed by trump.  Here are quotes from his senate press conference on May 12, 2020:

    Dr. Anthony Fauci: (03:16:58)
    Yes, no, there is certainly not a confrontational relationship between me and the president. As I mentioned many times, I give advice and opinion based on evidence based scientific information. He hears that, he respects it. He gets opinions from a variety of other people, but in no way, in my experience over the last several months, has there been any confrontational relationship between us.

    March 10- "said in response to a question about whether the administration was doing all it could to deal with the virus up to that point: “You know, I believe so.”

    March 22- "

    “The coordinated response has been…there are a number of adjectives to describe it — impressive, I think, is one of them. I mean, we’re talking about all hands on deck,” Fauci said.

    “So I can’t imagine that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more,” he added.

    Sept 2020- For his part, Fauci also defended the president Wednesday, saying that at no time did he believe Trump was misinforming the public.

    Look, I am not suggesting that at some point Trump and Fauci got crosswise.  I am not suggesting that trump didnt say a ton of stupid stuff.  I am saying that in march 2020 Fauci and trump were getting along fine and that fauci was not held back or nuetered or any such thing by trump.  You keep saying he was when Fauci himself says he wasnt.

    1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/technology/coronavirus-fauci-trump-conspiracy-target.html

    Actually, go ahead and look at the original Daily Texan thread from that time frame. You'll see plenty of people saying it was all overblown and that the scientists and media were fear mongering. I'm pretty sure you were among them. 

    I cant open the nytimes link.  My quote was that everyone in the GOVT at the time was saying trust Fauci and trust the science.  You pointing out that some people on a random message board were saying something different is irrelevent and worthless in this discussion.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  2. 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

    Or jeez, maybe the President was telling everyone it was no big deal. And maybe those governor's just fucked up on their own, in part because we had no fucking leadership from the head of the federal government. Where are you on that accountability? Or do you prefer to just scape goat the employee that was publicaly neutered by his boss and who had to deal with a boss who wanted to ignore the whole fucking thing?

    I started to call you a non truthful poster again but it is possible you just have selective memory or something similar.

    We are discussing a very specific timeline in early March 2020.  At that point, Trump was still lauding Fauci.  Fauci and Trump were doing their daily press conferences.  fauci is on record before the senate committee where he said that trump implemented every recommendation that fauci gave him.  It was much later that Fauci fell out of favor with trump.  Fauci was not "neutered" in the slightest in march of 2020.  Not one single bit.

    I think trump was a horrible communicator and i am glad he is not the potus and hope he never runs again.  But in march of 2020, everyone in the govt, past or present- Obama, Biden, Bush, Trump, Clinton etc) said we have to trust the science and the doctors.  Everyone.  

    Fauci has said publicly and under oath that Trump never asked him or insinuated to him that he should modify his public comments.  And fauci was indignant that he would never follow such orders if they were ever given.  So your but trump because somehow Fauci was "nuetered" in march of 202 is just complete bullshit.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Well, really, the whole criticism of Fauci is a gigantic straw man.  It's not really relevant to anything.

    You used to care about truth and accountability.

    I am not suggesting that Fauci did anything intentionally wrong.  I am sure he was overwhelmed.  And i do not really care about the NIH funding and other issues surrounding Fauci.  

    What I am very specifically saying is that in mid march Fauci "should" have been acutely aware that elderly people were the most vulnerable to the virus and, as a result, should be given the highest priority in terms of prevention and treatment.  One of the emails clearly stated this to Fauci, and as the other poster linked, there were lots of statements from the CDC and other medical institutions regarding the very high risk to seniors.  

    Fauci was the face person and point of contact for the govt on the pandemic.  He advised the governors who then advised the mayors and so forth.  According to most, everyone in the medical community, certainly including fauci, should have known in mid march that seniors needed extra protection.

    Yet, in late March/early April, several states (not just Cuomo and some R and some D) implemented directives to send infected people to nursing homes.  This is not just a matter of hindsight or second guessing and there was certainly panic and chaos.  Everyone makes mistakes and makes bad decisions but some are certainly worse than others.  

    In this case there really are only 2 plausible scenarios.  Either Fauci was derelict for not telling the various governors that sending infected people to nursing homes was the absolute worst thing they could do or the the worst plan of the limited options they had at the time or the governors completely disregarded the advice of the medical community and sent infected people to nursing homes anyway and ended up massively increasing the death toll.

    That is why it is important to know what happened.  In a vacuum the decision to send people to nursing homes made sense.  They had beds and quasi medical people already on staff etc.  But the medical world already knew that the elderly were the most vulnerable so, with that knowledge, the decision to send infected people to nursing homes was likely criminal.  It is not hindsight or a case of they did not know.  It was known in early march that elderly people were in deep shit.  We know fauci was advising the governors in february and that in the specific case of Cuomo was personally consulting with him daily.  

    Again, either Fauci didnt tell the governors that the elderly were the most vulnerable and that sending infected people to elderly centers was the stupidest idea he had ever heard, or, Fauci did tell them that and the governors did it anyway.  

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I can't google it because the interwebs are completely clogged with dogshit alt-right sites talking about how Fauci wouldn't criticize Cuomo after the fact.

    Are you and Jimmy the retard actually questioning whether or not Fauci was advising the nations’ governors?  This isn’t even really debatable. Here is the first article that came up when I googled.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5467859002

    From the article:

    “In this crisis, again and again, we’ve turned to these experts like Dr. Fauci for the hard facts and to be voices of reason within the sprawling federal bureaucracy. 

    The first time I met Dr. Fauci was in early February, when as chair of the National Governors Association, I convened a meeting with the nation’s governors and the federal government’s top health officials: Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Ken Cuccinelli, acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security; Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control; Jay Butler, CDC Deputy Director for Infectious Diseases; and Robert Kadlec, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services.

    At a time when other federal leaders — including President Donald Trump — were downplaying the threat, the briefing was a game changer for me and many of my colleagues. “
     

    again, there is nothing nefarious  about the governors relying on Fauci for guidance. It was the prudent thing to do.  
     

    This particular issue came up because the other poster said that it was widely known and discussed in the medical communities in March 2020 that the elderly people were much more susceptible to Covid and that all kinds of protections were put in place for those people.I questioned whether or not this was true. He linked many articles that appeared to show that there was discussion about this.I then questioned if anybody was really openly talking about the directives that he linked because fauci was advising the nations governors and many governors made the decision to send infected people to nursing homes. That would obviously be the absolute worst place to send infected people if everyone knew that elderly people were the most susceptible.  

    we are talking about Fauci‘s credibility at this point.  I am not even sure what you are arguing.it might have been you or another poster that suggested that nobody knew what Cuomo and some of the other governors were doing regarding the nursing homes.  That is just patently false.The nursing home operators were on TV and in the newspapers every day saying that while the state was mandating that they accept Covid patients that their residents were dying in huge numbers.  It is impossible that Fauci did not see any of these claims and itis beyond unbelievable that when he did hear about it that he did not immediately go public and say sending infected people to nursing homes is a horrible idea and needs to be stopped immediately.  

     

  5. 17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Where do you get the idea that Fauci was directly advising governors?

    You can google it also but there was a meeting in early February 2020 of the nations governors and Fauci and his team.  They established a “hotline “ for advice and counsel on how to deal with the virus.  In fact , many of the governors used those meetings to criticize Trump as they said they were getting all of their information from Fauci.  Cuomo made a big deal about calling Fauci at all times of the night for advice. This was in early March 2020.
     

    obviously, it would be prudent for governors dealing with a new problem like covid to consult with someone like Fauci.  Again, this is why I suspect that Fauci was downplaying the effects on the elderly. It was either that or he told the governors that elderly people were the absolute most vulnerable and the governors still made the decision to send infected people to nursing homes.
     

    You really should go back to late March early April 2020 and look at all of the nursing home operators that were questioning the decision to send infected people to their facilities. It was all over the country. They were literally telling anyone that would listen that people were dying in their nursing homes. Yet there was no criticism of this practice by Fauci until late spring/early summer.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 5 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    Assuming the shit salad you typed above was even close to correct, why did we not have a competent CEO in place, you know, like a president, who could fix these sort of fuck ups by people like Reagan who appointed Fauci?   You should have demanded to speak to the manager, Karen!

    Are you drunk again!  Reagan?  
     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  7. 19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Putting aside your irrelevant bullshit on Cuomo, you want to take a minute and apologize? Because, I clearly did not lie. I provided a variety of links, not only from the government and the CDC, but from main stream news and major hospitals showing that the medical community was well aware that covid had a greater risk profile for the elderly as of mid March 2020. In fact, if you'd like, I can also pull posts from this website, including from me, that show we were discussing that fact in March and probably in February as well. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you responded to some of those posts. 

    As to Cuomo, I have no idea why New York did what it did. I'd guess largely incompetence and panic. But it wasn't because Fauci or any medical authority told them the disease wasn't worse for the elderly.  

    Sure. Sorry for the word choice.  
     

    But the Cuomo stuff is not irrelevant. In fact it is incredibly relevant because it is where the theoretical and the actual met up.  
     

    We are specifically talking about Fauci here. What you are suggesting simply just does not add up. I am happy to stipulate that the CDC and parts of the medical community were aware that the disease was far more deadly to elderly people in mid March. Presumably Fauci was also aware of that. Cuomo, and other governors, have used the defense that they were following federal guidelines when they made the decision to send people to nursing homes and Cuomo said he personally spoke about it to Fauci on numerous occasions.

    I am having an extremely hard time agreeing that Fauci counseled Cuomo and other governors to not send infected people to nursing homes in mid March. I feel this way because Fauci was the main contact for the Governors in their efforts to control the virus and many of them did, in fact, direct their states to send infected people to nursing homes.  I suppose it is possible that Fauci told them that doing that would be the absolute worst thing that they could do and they just did it anyway on their own. However, if that were the case, then why didn’t Fauci come out and publicly tell them that what they were doing was going to get lots of old people killed? And further, once it was very public that many states were sending infected people to nursing homes, Fauci still went on record and said that New York’s response was one of the best in the country. It is just not plausible at all that Fauci gave them the direction that sending people to nursing homes was a horrible idea.  I think it is much more likely that Fauci downplayed the significance of sending people to nursing homes in mid March.  Because he was the one advising the governors, they did send people to nursing homes, Fauci did not publicly tell them this was a bad move and, ultimately, he praised the very governor that did this by saying his response was proper.
     

     

  8. 8 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

    Viruses are insanely complex and I'd be shocked if they were able to track them all.  Bacteria and virus are two very different beasts when it comes to treatment/studying.  Definitely good questions though and I'm giving a half ass explanation - a virologist could explain what I'm trying to say much more clearly, I'm assuming. 

    Understood and appreciate your insights.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. It really does amaze me that there are some people who I consider to be fairly stable and quite smart that buy into this nonsense that Trump is somehow going to be reinstated.  I have talked with a few of them and asked them to articulate how exactly this is all going to happen.  They really don’t have much of an answer.

    regarding the military, the only possible way that the military gets involved is if the courts somehow legally determined that Trump should be reinstated. I cannot see any possible scenario in which that happens.

    I suppose that there is an incredibly small chance that the election audits find substantial fraud of some sort.  But even in that amazingly tiny Instance, I would think the resolution would be a new election and not trump being reinstated. Biden is the president and we will go back to the polls in 2024 And see what happens. I for one will be extremely disappointed if Trump runs.

  10. 12 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

    No - absolutely not.  You think we have a much better handle on viruses than we do.  They didn't use some 'recipe' to make this virus from scratch.  They played around with a virus that was in existence.  It's incredibly hard to have any virus spread like this - giving humans way too much credit to think we built this sucker from scratch.  They studied what was there - maybe they modified it...99% of the time when we, as humans, try to modify a virus, we'll fuck it up...meaning it may end up more or less deadly but it will lose it's ability to spread like crazy.  When a virus in the 'wild' starts to spread the most virulent strains win out...there's millions...more like billions of different mutations that may fail before one or two catch on and spread.  We simply can't modify that quickly/efficiently. 

    I may not have been clear but I never meant to suggest that they created a new virus. My understanding is that they looked at existing viruses and made some sort of modification to them to see what would happen.  
     

    Is that not correct?  Surely there is some type of record keeping on the ways in which the existing viruses were modified?  There had to of been all kinds of experiments and results of how the virus mutated and infected.

    I get it that once it is out it is extremely hard to contain. However, if the exact genome (if that is the correct term) of the virus was made public by the lab as soon as it was known that it had leaked, I have to believe that the disaster could have been significantly reduced. 

  11. 5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Not at all.  Either Fauci lied to Cuomo or Cuomo should go to jail.   If all of the articles that you linked to were out there in the main stream conversations regarding Covid, then how is it even possible that Cuomo and other governors sent infected people to nursing homes?

    do you think that it is realistic that Cuomo asked Fauci what should be done and that Fauci said we should keep the disease as far away as possible from elderly people as they are the most likely to suffer from it and then Cuomo made a directive one week later to send infected people to nursing homes?

    Fauci said NY handled the crisis “properly” and “correctly”.  
     

    I can obviously read your links and they actually make Fauci look more like an inept person.  Again, if all of this was very common knowledge at the time, why in the hell would Fauci give advice to Cuomo that resulted in Cuomo directing infected people to go to nursing homes?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 13 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

    In the end whether it came from a lab or from the cave...there was no stopping it right away and the way you react was going to be pretty much the same.  I personally didn't buy what the Chinese were selling and still don't - but in the end, how did any of that change how we were treating the virus, or how we should have treated it?  Not too big a difference.  

    I am curious about this. You are the doctor so I am just going to assume that you know more about this stuff than I do. But if, in fact, this was a virus that had been genetically engineered/modified in a lab, then when it first got out wouldn’t it have been unbelievably helpful in the fight against it if we knew the “recipe“ that went into making the virus?  I have to believe it would have been incredibly helpful in the making of the vaccines.  I also have no idea but I would have to assume that the lab ran all kinds of tests on the virus and how it might affect people.  Would the lab scientists have known that it would have a devastating impact on respiratory systems?  Wouldn’t that kind of knowledge have been extremely helpful in mitigating the disaster that it became?

  13. For the record, I don’t think Fauci is some bad guy or did anything on purpose. He had an extremely cushy government job with the ability to distribute massive amounts of money.I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that he is a very bright guy and probably knows his science. He is in a very, very tiny group of medical people and scientists that study these types of viruses. It really is impossible to know if he understands it better than any of the other people that are in the same sector.  He is basically an administrator.

    however, our completely spineless government who refuse to take responsibility for anything (Trump, Biden, Senate etc) just completely defaulted to Fauci and thrust him into a position that he was wholly  incapable  of handling. I think he worked hard and I think he tried to do his best but he just did not have the skill set to be the point person for the crisis.

    • Like 1
  14. 18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    You're literally just making things up. From pretty early on we understood the virus hit the elderly harder. Most states and recommendations included extra precautions for the elderly. It was never one size fits all. You just think the baseline restrictions applicable to everyone were too strenuous. But that's different than saying there was no differentiation or appreciation of that certain populations were more vulnerable to serious illness. 

    Talk about revisionist history. You are such an unbelievably dishonest poster.

    The email in question came out March 17. According to you, by that point everyone knew that elderly people were much more susceptible to the virus.  You seem to be trying to say that by that point special guidance had been given regarding the elderly population.

    Yet, Cuomo sent out his directive to have infected people transferred to nursing homes on March 25.  further, on March 26 Cuomo told the media that he had been consulting with Fauci daily on the best way to handle the response.

    So how is it possible that, according to you, Fauci knew that the virus was extremely dangerous to elderly people in mid March and was consulting with Cuomo and Cuomo sent out a directive to have elderly infected people put into nursing homes with other elderly people, the absolute most vulnerable group of people to the virus, in late March?

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  15. I fucking love it that this topic has garnered so much attention. If you really want to get into what I was trying to do, watch some of these movies when you are stoned. It makes the wooden actors stand out like sore thumbs.

    On someone like Clint Eastwood, he certainly has played a ton of roles that are similar. However, the criteria for this particular thread is famous actors that can’t really act.  The only way we really know that they can’t act is when they take on a roll and they’re acting is poor in it. I don’t think I have ever seen a Clint Eastwood film where I thought, wow he really just doesn’t have the ability to pull off this particular role. Based on that, I don’t think he is a good fit for this topic.
     

    we have all seen movies where the acting is cringe worthy. And I’m not talking about bad movies or bad screenwriting or bad directing or anything else. You can just tell when someone can’t act in a particular role. but the great ones can be in bad movies with bad directing and bad screenwriting and yet their performance is still solid.

    I keep going back to Mark Wahlberg and I apologize to him and his family for it, but he was in a movie called the Gambler.  It is actually a pretty solid movie but he is just fucking awful in it. Go watch a clip of it. There is a scene where he is a college professor talking to his class that is dialogue heavy and it is absolutely cringe worthy.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  16. 44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    Can't wait for more referees to come be mad at me for saying the word "racism" and ignoring open racism in front of their faces.

    If anyone wants to really see who the racist is here, all they have to do is go back to the eyes of Texas thread.  in that thread, our man BT, has the following:

    1) Started off by saying that the eyes of Texas was racist because our black football players thought it was.

    2) Said that the singing of the eyes was white people forcing a black players to stand and listen to them sing a racist song.
    3) Then, after being questioned, admitted that he personally did not think that the song was racist but that he could understand how someone might think that way and so we shouldn’t be singing it.

    4) Then after further being pressed, he admitted that he still sings the song at birthday parties and gatherings with his friends. He said he sings it at weddings and that it will be played at his funeral. I think he even admitted that if and when it is played next season he will sing along.
     

    So who exactly is the racist? I would contend that someone like BT is the actual racist and even more sinister.  He has absolutely no character or conviction. What a fabulous generalization. He says that our black players have every right to be offended by the song and that we must acknowledge that if they think this song is racist then it must be while at the same time fully admitting that he is going to continue singing the song any chance he gets with his friends.  Closeted racists are way more troublesome and sinister than the open ones.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  17. 3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


    I think there’s also some thinking and effort to overcompensate in comparison. The biggest, most marketable star in the history of the game - Jordan - purposefully did NOT use his voice (he said something to the effect of “white people buy shoes too”), and got significant criticism for it (which was understandable). So, now the biggest name in the game is going the other direction. But that too is fraught with peril, especially if he isn’t thoughtful or deliberate (which he sure hasn’t been in this episode).

    I think Jordan got it wrong. I think that Lebron got it wrong here and in other contexts (and trying to walk the line between what’s morally right and what’s good for business put him in the pinch of his shitty position on Hong Kong, for example).

    The quote attributed to Jordan is actually that he said “Republicans buy sneakers too”.  Like everything in our world of soundbites, no one actually took the time to listen to his actual answer. The writer who claimed that Jordan said that to him now admits that Jordan said it completely in jest and that his actual statement was actually pretty damn smart. Essentially, Jordan said that he was singularly focused on his career and that he didn’t endorse particular candidates or weigh in on particular political issues because he had not personally studied the issues so he wasn’t going to give an opinion on some thing that he didn’t really know anything about. Our world would be so much better if other people would refrain from speaking out on issues that they do not actually know the truth about.
     

    You seem to think it was a mistake for Jordan not to become more political. I would say that by him not becoming political that he was able to do incredibly well in business and allow him the opportunity to be the majority owner of an NBA franchise.  It would be extremely difficult for him to have become the owner of that team if he was more of a political activist. But now that he is the owner he has hired many, many poc in positions of leader ship within the organization  and he has mandated that many poc be on his Jordan brand team with Nike.  He has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to black causes over the last 10 years or so. In the end, I think his efforts have done way more for the advancement of blacks than those people that just spouted off nonsense.

    Tiger Woods is another example of this. He is notoriously guarded about making any type of political statements and he is often criticized for it. However, he realized early on that being a loudmouth doesn’t really get anything done. The majority of the time those people that spout off frequently are just being purely self-indulgent and not really advancing the cause. Tiger worked with all kinds of companies that might not have worked with him if he was more political and, as a result, was able to fund his Tiger Woods foundation which has helped tens of thousands of poc all around the world.  
     

    obviously those guys also became personally fabulously wealthy. But they are adults that realized that ultimately they could do way more actual good if they resisted the temptation to knee jerk react.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. I agree that this is a tough issue and states are really over reacting. It is brutal enough being trans And we should all be mindful of making their lives easier not harder.
     

    I also can see the argument purely from a girl athletes perspective.   No amount of training and hard work and dedication can overcome the inherent physical advantages a trans woman has.   The science on this is still rather new but, at least preliminarily, the studies show that trans Women on average are taller and have much more muscle mass than cis women. Much of the solution, like that of the NCAA, is to allow trans women to participate after a year of testosterone suppression therapy. The problem with this, again at least preliminarily, is that the science says that even with testosterone suppression, trans women have a physical advantage over cis women.  The thing that we don’t know at this point is how big is the advantage.
     

    I have seen a lot of people here making an argument that more people playing sports is better and I agree.  The thing that I have trouble agreeing on is why is it so important for a trans woman to compete against other women as opposed to competing against men? Is it a potential bullying situation that people are worried about?  Because if it is just a spirit of competition argument then I see no difference in a trans woman finishing ninth in the men’s division versus first in the women’s.

    • Like 1
  19. 1 hour ago, UncleSonny said:

    Ha, well you conveniently cut off the part where I said he is an amazing actor. I was just speaking to his range and how it's not necessary to being great. 

    Think of your top 3 or 5 favorite Denzel performances. No matter what you choose I bet you can describe the character he plays using adjectives like "intense, confidant, charming, determined, hypercompetent...". He kind of does what he does and he's literally the best at it.

    You can't really do the same exercise with someone like Philip Seymour Hoffman. He has way more range than Denzel but that doesn't necessarily make him a better actor, it's just different. Any list of the best actors in the last 30 years would have to include them both.

     

    A better way to look at this is to ask yourself if you have ever seen Denzel in a movie and thought boy his acting was really not up to par for that role. I would say that I have never seen him in some thing where I thought his acting was poor. He has been in some movies that I thought were clunkers but it certainly wasn’t because of his performance. I never cringed when watching him on screen because he just can’t handle what is required of the role.

    Plus, as I have mentioned about many of the other actors we are talking about, Denzel has actually played a lot of different types of roles and played them all very well. Movies ike Fences or Philadelphia or even the Great Debaters showed tremendous range.   You put Stallone or Wahlberg in any of those roles and it would be comical. But you could put Gary Oldman or Cruise or Hanks or any number of great actors in them and they would do a fantastic job. And we know that because all of those other actors have actually been in similar type movies and similar type roles and done well.

    • Like 1
  20. 3 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

    Go fuck yourself.  I get why showing range is evidence of talent.  I don't get why not showing range is a demerit.

    Tom Brady would definitely be a better football player if he could return punts and play defense, but Tom Brady not returning punts does not change his status as one of the greatest football players ever. 

    I will apologize for the snarky comment but based on your latest post it really is clear that you are not understanding the discussion here.  

    Your Tom Brady analogy is silly and actually kind of proves the point that I am making.Brady is one of the all-time great football players because he is arguably the greatest quarterback. We compare what he does to his peers, other quarterbacks, not positions that he doesn’t play.  But as a quarterback he has amazing “range“in that he has a good arm strength great accuracy, great reading defenses, great at preparation, great at inspiring his teammates to work hard, mentally tough etc. He has all of the tools required to be a great quarterback.

    The actors we are talking about here, like Mark Wahlberg or Stallone, Have very specific roles that they can play and they play those roles well. If Stallone had never acted in another movie after Rocky then we might all think he is a very good actor. He was really good in that role. But he did make other movies and in those movies where he had to play a different type of role it was obvious that he wasn’t very good at it. You put Stallone and Wahlberg in movies where there is heavy dialogue and they are quickly out of their depth.
     

    An actors range is really what we use to distinguish them from their peers. The whole point of this topic is that there are huge movie stars that are not great actors just like there are great actors that are not movie stars. There are also movie stars that are great actors. All we are doing is picking apart the movie stars that we actually do not think are very good actors But that we fully admit are movie stars and we enjoy some of the films that they have been in.
     

     

     

  21. 2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    "I AM MAD AT THAT GUY FOR NOT CARING ABOUT THE LIVES OF PEOPLE HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT DON'T LOOK LIKE HIM!" I scream while not caring about the lives of other people I don't know that don't look like me.

    This whole argument about China with LeBron is the intellectual equivalent of, "You say you care about the environment, yet you use an iphone?? Checkmated with logic!"

    I think you might want to research this a bit more.   

  22. 8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    I really don't get this "range" argument.

    I almost think you're giving people credit for overcoming bad casting decisions. 

    There's a reason why you cast Danny Trejo in a movie.  If someone casts Danny Trejo in a musical and he doesn't bomb, that's nice, but that doesn't mean he's a better actor than Tom Cruise because Cruise has never shown "the range" to do musicals. 

    In every facet of life, it's advantageous for society for everyone to exploit his/her own comparative advantage.  You seem to want to throw that out the window?

    Do you also want AC/DC to put out a Tejano album to show that they possess range?

    I think this discussion might be over your head.   

  23. 4 minutes ago, MoJames said:

    Oh don't get me wrong, more power to Adam Sandler, but to decide someone is a bad actor based on the roles they take is a poor metric.

    Agreed.  Guys like Sandler have at least shown that hey do possess range as an actor but they often choose to take lucrative roles that require less effort.  The actors I am talking about are the ones that also have become big stars and made lots of money by taking safe/easy acting roles.   But unlike guys like Cruise and Sandler, these other guys have never shown any ability to act in difficult roles that require larger ranges.  They have tried and the results are bad.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...