Jump to content

RomaVicta

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12860
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by RomaVicta

  1. More from Texags Yes, that's why we're the ones looking under our beds and telling everyone that A&M is the Great Satan, Destroyer of Conference, King of Media, and Very Homosexual! Dildos, man! Dildos! And it shows on the field and in the amount of national respect you generate. Truly remarkable all that A&M has achieved in this century that's nearly a quarter over. tu launched their own network at huge cost to themselves and to the detriment of everybody; Disney is bailing the sips out and keeping them afloat. Why is this so hard to understand? Exactly how it happened. We should never have unilaterally launched our own network hoping it would make any money. How much did we lose on that deal again?
  2. Not for us, dumbass. And you passed on the opportunity, dumbass.
  3. It's the 2025 college football season. Do you know where your children are?
  4. I only browsed the article and responses. It seems the author is applying the usual lack of depth to his analysis typical of sportswriters. Only highly rated players can be busts. Does his simple percentage analysis allow for the notion that your chances of having a bust with two top 75 players are less than than having 10? Does it account for the fact that a highly ranked player will be more likely to at least start on a team with less overall talent thus making becoming a bust less likely? Players that might bust at Bama won't as likely bust at Ole Miss or Florida because their backups won't be as good. Three stars can't, by definition, be busts. If their development to NFL players is used only as a positive, how does that impact a team that has a relatively much lower proportion of 3 stars? As many have said or alluded to, imprecise ratings by sportswriting hacks, incomplete understanding by sportswriting hacks, and simplistic analysis by sportswriting hacks rarely produce a clear picture of anything.
  5. I used to refer to Nixon as the great villain in my memory of American politics. He's quaint by comparison to this new scourge. I don't think Nixon would have dreamed of interfering with election outcomes once the votes were in. Were he alive, he'd be as astonished as the rest of us that the country is being destroyed by a fucking clown. I take it he is destroying Trump in the cartoon above, but I'm not Star Wars savvy. If he is, the cartoon is very clever. Nixon would have slapped around this orange cunt with the same vigor and joy that Washington or Lincoln would have done.
  6. There is apparently only one other adjective in American usage, incredible. My favorite use of that one is by newsmedia: incredibly believable, incredible accuracy, incredibly reliable source. It's amazing how incredible it all is.
  7. Is my opinion forbidden? To me they were poor. I didn't give a shit about anything in them. Maybe it's an age thing. I don't go for much animated stuff.
  8. @BevoAbyss No no no. The problem is that we're politically polarized on both sides. And they're all the same. I hear it all the time on TV.
  9. I didn't get all the way through French Dispatch either. Anderson is best when making the real look like artifice or adding artifice. Full on artifice sucks. His animated films are poor. His totally unrealistic films are poor. He is a great filmmaker otherwise.
  10. Regarding his trial: Poor Donald. Wop-wawp. Regarding everything outside the trial: Donald ascendant! The crooked Biden-loving, Never-Trumper, slutty negress leads the witch hunt! Money pours in. Undecided dumbasses think, "maybe there is something to this being a witch hunt. We're so polarized now. Both parties are so bad. At least Trump had a great economy and worldwide respect." Captain Obvious sighs, "I guess I'm invisible."
  11. And it's still not criminal court. What's the new standard for officials elected to serve in D.C.? Decorum, decency, political philosophy, no criminal activity, solid hater
  12. From Atlantic Magazine written by a former federal judge and a Harvard constitutional scholar. I'm leaving out the legal arguments which I assume are formidable. I'm drawn to this because of the way the writers do not move the idea of a self-evident oath-breaking insurrectionist to an abstraction. They, for me, lift the clutter of details and definitions (they do address those, too) and obfuscations that seem to blind people to the reality of what the fuck is going on. This and the instances that @WhatTheBuck has mentioned where some frank language about the obvious are popping up, give me some hope that the paradigm shift from old politics to the current and huge story of the threat to the republic will be more widely seen and adopted. Anyways, I got something out of this.
  13. We watched the first four tonight. I was going to pass on this until somebody around here mentioned it was Ritchie. Loving it. Just loving it. I don't know how he does it, but he mixes Fargo and Breaking Bad with English crime fiction. Brilliant.
  14. I think it's mostly posturing. Makes a guy feel like a badass to say brutality leaves him unmoved.
  15. Wanting to make prisoners safe(r) from rape and brutalization is hardly the same thing as rehabilitation programs. Baby steps. I'll condescendingly grant that you're not being intentionally dishonest.
  16. Six or seven feet of space? That's like a fucking ranch! We're coddling these criminals!
  17. So rape, beatings, and gangs are ok for the non-violent?
×
×
  • Create New...