Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 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.

  2. 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. 

  3. 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
  4. 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?

  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
     

     

     

  13. 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.   

  14. 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.   

  15. 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
  16. 11 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    That's it.  She and JG are so good in that scene.  It didn't hit me quite so much as it did during my 4th rewatch.  Jaw was on the floor.

    Such an amazing scene.  "I'll pretend like I have a choice".

     

  17. I was recently on a very looooong multi day road trip and listened to a lot of talk radio and a lot of political talk radio.  I really never listened very much previously so I have no idea what these shows were like in the past or anything like that.  I just based my opinion on the few hours or so over a few days that I listened to a lot of it.

    1) Rush- Well he's dead and it appears his show is now guest hosts that are ultra conservative and they constantly play old clips of Rush.  Hardly listenable. D

    2) Hannity- Not very smart.  Relentless repeating.  I actually found some of his guests interesting but he is basically unlistenable. D

    3) Shapiro- I actually enjoyed a lot of his show.  He is certainly smart.  My guess is that he is often mis-quoted or mis-understood because nothing he said was too controversial but you have to listen carefully to what he actually says.  I'd give him a B.

    3) Glenn Beck- Hardly listenable.  I think he must be bipolar or something.  Not nearly as funny/witty as he thinks.  Did have a few guests that were interesting. C-

    4) Mark Levin- Brutally bad.  I honestly think guys like Glenn Beck are at least genuine in their beliefs but I can not believe this guy actually believes what he says.  F

    5) NPR- Pretty good mostly.  They seem to slant liberal but not too much from what I heard.  Hosts are smart and content pretty interesting.  B

    6) Al Sharpton- Had no idea he had a show and now I know why.  He is not very smart or very good at radio.  Unlistenable.  D

    7) Joe Pags- Another I had never heard of.  OK guests but he thinks he is very funny/witty and he is not.  C-

    😎 POTUS- Decent.  I liked Dan Abrams and Julie Mason.  Chris Cuomo is unlistenable.  B-

    9) Urban View- Pretty much unlistenable.  Not very smart.  Wildly hypocritical.  Someone named Joe Madison seemed to be on when we were driving a lot.  He was shockingly hypocritical and bad.  D

    10) Progress-  It actually had potential but just kept coming back to stupid, tired retread gotchas. C-

    I am sure there are many I missed.  I have decided that political talk radio is designed for stupid/idealogues on both sides of the aisle.  I am truly surprised they make any money.  Very, very few of them are smart.  Edit- I suppose they make money because it seems like 20 minutes out of every hour is commercials.  

  18. On 4/20/2021 at 2:06 PM, mdmost said:

    I think I spotted Nottingham Forest as their opponent in a match. Being in the Championship will be a fun bit as some think it's more competitive and has better action than the EPL. 

    Do you know how we know you are a soccer dork?  Kidding.  Great show and can not wait.

  19. 19 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    He crushed the Jessie's Girl scene.

    I noticed I messed up my post.  Was going to say that all of those other folks in Boogie Nights are better actors and it showed when they were in scenes together but he is arguably the biggest "star" of all of them.

    • Like 1
  20. 4 hours ago, PilotsError said:

    I'm not saying Stallone is Tom Hanks, but he showed his acting chops in Copland.  Maybe his most underrated movie.

    He just usually chooses the action role.

    This is also close to what I am using as a barometer of acting ability.  Stallone can be good in very, very simple roles with limited dialogue and limited range.  So when he is in those roles he does well.  But watch him in roles where he actually tries to act and he sucks.  Really sucks.  he is a bona fide movie star for certain but not a great actor by any stretch.

  21. 23 hours ago, South Austin said:

    Dollar for dollar he's one of the worst actors ever.

    Robert Redford is also bad.  Flatline personality with no range.  Fight me.

    Redford is a perfect example.  he is not a terrible actor and he has been in tons of great films.  But he just cant quite get there to the level of the greats.  

×
×
  • Create New...