theone86's forum posts

Avatar image for theone86
#1 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@sonicare said:
@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.

Blazing ignorance and hatred spewing from you per usual.

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Avatar image for theone86
#2 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@Stevo_the_gamer said:
@theone86 said:

You seem to think the Constitution gives free reign to strip all the rights. The right to vote is a right, and nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly say criminals can be stripped of the right to vote. Your logic seems to be "We can strip people of the right to life, ergo we can strip them of other rights." It's completely arbitrary, and it is a completely reasonable jump to say you think the government can strip people of all rights. Fascistic.

And you can try to downplay your bullshit comparisons all you like, I'd expect nothing less from a fascist. But comparing humans to animals is by definition dehumanizing, and it's also a well-documented tactic of fascists going back to Goebbels comparing Jews to rats. Some of those who work forces are the same who burn crosses.

According to what post? As I stated, please quote the sentence and elaborate so I can see where I am off base. The 14th Amendment, section 2 allows such which the US Supreme Court upheld in Richardson v. Ramirez. Your assumption of "my logic" is not only off base, but it's not backed by any evidence, which I continually have requested.

Ah! We've reached Godwin's Law. Always a pleasure to see that get drummed up.

It's not Godwin's Law, you are blatantly using Nazi rhetoric in order to dehumanize people. You're just throwing out accusations of Godwin's Law in order to detract from the fact that you are, in fact, apeing Nazi rhetoric, fascist.

"I find no ill will towards the removal of rights of those who violate the laws of society."


Avatar image for theone86
#3 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@evilross said:


Wow. If that’s what you really believe and feel I truly feel sorry for you.

Don´t bother with Theone, he is one of those who hate everything American and who think we should give it all back to the indigenous people.

Also, let´s not factor in that some of what he mentioned had nothing to do with America other than Obama was stupid enough to publically support rebels who had no chance of ever winning and who gave room for ISIS.

"snip a lot of anger"

You know what the problem is here

You are so sure of your own position that you can´t fathom that anyone can´t see the same golden truth as you see it and those who are opposed to this golden truth must be "insane"

I wonder though with the hatred you show on this board and the anger, are you for or against physical assaulting people who are opposed to your side?

And you're so full of shit it's coming out your ears. You blather on and on about respecting all sides, civility, blah, blah, blah, but you're the one who completely cut my post in order to dismiss it out of hand. It's probably because you don't have the ability to honestly debate anything I've said, probably because you were raised in some safe space all your life. Awww, poor snowflake you are. Come back when you have, well, an actual comeback.

@mrbojangles25 said:

It's funny because Omar, along with a few others, is pretty much the Democratic equivalent of Trump, at least when it comes to demeanor. She says what is on her mind, doesn't really come off as a politician, and often appears insensitive.

However, unlike Trump, she is not a blatant asshole. So I guess that is why people hate her? Go figure...

@Miyomatic said:

She's clearly out of touch with the average American. Libs wanna pile on Trump instead of teaching their new mascot how to politic.

That's pretty funny in light of how Trump was elected for not being a politician. So it's OK for a lying, cheating, corrupt asshole to go "I'm not a politician, I am something different", but when a female and a muslim does it, suddenly it's "REMEMBER 9/11!!!"

Divide that country, folks. DIVIDE!

@theone86 said:
@whiskeystrike said:

Americans have really milked the hell out of 9/11 considering how much damage their foreign policies have inflicted on other countries.

About 50,000 Syrians killed per year since their war started, 12,000 Iraqis per year since we invaded them, not a peep from the average American. In fact, we're already gearing up for the next war. "Where will it be this time? Iran? North Korea? Palestine? Or maybe the dark horse, Canada? Tune in next week to find out!" 2,000 Americans killed in an attack, and eighteen years later it's all "never forget!"

I agree it's shitty what US foreign policy has done to the world, but you can't quantify suffering. It could be 1,000 Americans or 1 million Americans killed, whatever causes such terrible situation warrants a response.

Of course I can, I just did. Losing a loved one sucks, people losing 2,000 loved ones sucks, but it's nothing compared to living in a constant state of war where everyone you know has lost loved ones, where going about your daily routine is like playing Russian roulette. Literally, it changes your state of mind. It puts the population into a state of hyper-awareness that leads to depression and PTSD. There are entire countries that are chronically depressed because they're acutely aware that at any moment they could be killed by a war they have nothing to do with. That is objectively worse than living in a country with a high standard of living that suffered a terrible attack eighteen years ago.

The problem is that I shouldn't HAVE to quantify it. It shouldn't be a goddamned struggle to get people who have experienced something terrible to have empathy for people who have experienced something worse, yet here we are. Like I said before, we've been offering our sympathies to 9/11 victims non-stop since it happened, and what do we get for it? The moment we point out that anti-Muslim discrimination has increased or that our country has caused far worse just to satisfy our politicians' avarice we get labelled anti-American. Without fail, one word that they don't like and they go straight to accusations of treason. One day I hope you wake up and realize the truth of what I said, that people like Jac don't give a shit about 9/11 victims, they only use them as a bludgeon to shut up people whose opinions they disagree with.

Avatar image for theone86
#4 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@ad1x2 said:
@theone86 said:
@ad1x2 said:

I didn't say anything about them being vindicated, I told you that the idea that they would vote for someone that doesn't care about most of their concerns out of some moral obligation to go with the so-called "more qualified" candidate (Hillary Clinton) is completely overlooking their possible reasons for going with Trump instead. Your total disregard for the opinions of people with different political views as you is obvious, especially with you claiming that Hillary was only wrong with her deplorables comment because she only directed it at a fraction of Trump supporters rather than all Republicans. How in the hell do you expect any reasonable person to even entertain compromising with you when you already admitted that you don't care about their opinion because you view yourself as morally superior to them?

If Donald Trump loses in 2020, I will wish the new president-elect luck and support them just like I supported Barack Obama as my commander in chief for eight years. Will you do the same if Trump is reelected, or are you going to have a meltdown and go into a bunch of rants about how racist and wrong the people that reelected him are? If you want to talk about unhinged, look at how the media reacted to the Muller Report, with Rachel Maddow on the verge of tears over finding out that the most powerful elected man in the country wasn't compromised by Russia, or how they are demanding a completely unredacted report made public, grand jury and classified information be damned, while ridiculing the same thing being done with reports that targeted Democrats accused of wrongdoing.

I can look at Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as people I disagree with politically, but someone I genuinely believe is doing what they think is the morally right thing and the best thing for the country. How do you view Republicans that aren't in total agreement with the president but claim that they want the best for the country? I'm sure I already know the answer to that but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

"I didn't say they were vindicated, I'm only saying they're vindicated." What you just said is vindicating them, thank you for proving my point for me.

I didn't say I was morally superior to them. Stop building strawmen to knock down. I said that there was a perfectly competent centrist candidate in the 2016 election, and she lost to the fringe candidate who was openly divisive. YOU'RE the one who brought civility into this conversation in the first place. Don't lecture liberals about being civil and then act like we're being snobbish for pointing out that Trump is completely uncivil twenty four hours a day. Your hypocritical bullshit is seriously giving me a headache right now.

The Muller report didn't say Trump wasn't compromised, it said they didn't find enough evidence to prosecute him. In fact, we don't what the Muller report said because Trump's flunky won't release an unredacted version of it to the public. You would know this if you weren't living in a Fox News bubble, which is ironic considering you accused me of living in a bubble. Hypocritical bullshit.

You don't want what's best for the country, that's just the bullshit you feed yourself in order to justify your cynical power grabs and inhumane policies. Just because I don't kiss your ass and call it chocolate doesn't mean I'm intransigent or uncompromising. We liberals have been compromising for decades. I supported President Obama full on throughout his presidency. Every time he decided to adopt conservative policies in order to win over conservative support, every time he decided to have a beer with a cop who profiled a black man, every time he treated Republicans as trustworthy bargaining partners, and what did I get for it? I got absolutely no action on any of the policies I cared about because of intransigent Republicans, I got a massive shift in the court system towards conservative dogma because of Republicans gamesmanship, and I still got called a communist and socialist for advocating for even the most moderate of policies. I learned my lesson, you people are not to be trusted. Not one goddamn inch. You don't mean what you say, and you don't care about anything but getting your way. You can run your mouth all you want about respecting politicians you disagree with, but I don't buy it. Actions speak louder than words. When you actually start supporting moderate candidates ON BOTH SIDES I'll believe it. When you speak out against divisive figures like Donald Trump instead of offering up excuses for him I'll believe it. When you actually sacrifice your policy views in order to oppose an uncivil candidate I'll believe it. Until then, every word out of your mouth is. Just. Hypocritical. Bullshit.

And BS on you supporting President Obama. I was in this forum throughout most of his presidency. I remember what you said about him, I remember the way you treated him. You are a complete and utter hypocrite for spewing all the Fox News BS you could about him during that time, and then turning around and saying you supported him.

Your words betrays your feelings, you can say all day that you never said that you are morally superior but the way you reply to other posters reveals your outright disgust with Republicans. You said it yourself that Hillary Clinton was wrong because she called half of Trump’s supporters deplorables when in reality all Republicans (not just Trump supporters) are deplorable.

You may want to relax before you type, while I don’t agree with many of the other posters here most of them seem pretty civil in their answers. I can’t say the same about you.

Blah, blah, blah, absolutely nothing of substance, some bullshit about civility (old Nazi trope, BTW), blah, blah. Thanks for proving my point. And the whole bitching about the deplorables comment would be a lot more convincing if you didn't support a politician who spends 99% of his time insulting other people and trying to trigger the libs. Don't like the deplorable comment? Then go find a safe space, snowflake.

Avatar image for theone86
#5 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

Please, Canada, can you just assassinate the prick so we can be rid of him already?

Avatar image for theone86
Avatar image for theone86
#7 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

Do you mean favorite movie I had during my childhood? Because then Star Wars. Favorite movie during my childhood that came out during my childhood? Because then Toy Story. Favorite movie right now that I watched during my childhood? Probably Ghostbusters. I really didn't watch almost any good movies at all before I got into my teens. Favorite movie right now that came out during my childhood? There are almost too many to mention. Gangs of New York, A Beautiful Mind, The Royal Tenenbaums, Amelie, Memento, High Fidelity, The Matrix, American Beauty. The list could go on.

Avatar image for theone86
#8 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@jaydan said:
@migina said:

6/10, "A great ending, to a rather dull first two acts."

+ positive

  • The last hour is a lot of fun
  • Great CGI
  • A great ending for this Marvel franchise

- Negatives

  • First two hours felt boring
  • Overly melodramatic
  • The pacing was all over the place, messy

I honestly, was very disappointed. Infinity War for me was mind-blowing, probably my second favourite comic book film after The Dark Knight. But this one was a bit boring for me, except the last hour. Had they cut the runtime and taken away a lot of the crying (seriously, too much crying). I think the pacing would have been great.

I'm the opposite. Maybe you just wanted a pure action flick. I felt like the pacing was fantastic and better than Infinity War. Endgame takes a lot more out of the drama book but I don't think that's a bad thing at all and more a service for the movie. I loved how the film built up its momentum that leads up to the epic final parts of the film. You gotta understand post-snap all the characters were destroyed in their own ways, and most of them completely accepted their defeat and that there was no possible way to fix things. So they go from that to learning it might be possible to fix things to assembling their odds to the epic conclusion. It had a very steady buildup with great momentum.

I do love Infinity War for different reasons, but its pacing is choppy to say the least. The Russo's were definitely right when they said infinity War and Endgame will feel distinctively different from one another. While both are connected by the story, both have very different tones. I think that is for the best because we'll see a good balance of fans between the two.

I think you're both kind of right. Endgame dragged for me in the middle, but that's a typical complaint I have with time travel stories. They spend a bunch of time in the middle just going around and chatting up people from previous movies/revisiting scenes from past movies/visiting historical figures and it adds little to the plot (like Back to the Future II). The catch is you can't really tell a time travel movie without doing this (okay, Back to the Future III, but that did away with the whole revisiting past movies concept entirely). Unless you want to just have the characters zip to the past and come back in two seconds, you're going to need some of that filler. The only past sequence that pulled it off without filler is the Hawkeye/Widow thread, and they did it while doing away with the whole revisiting past movies concept entirely (like Back to the Future III). It didn't really take away from the story for me, and I don't see how they could have done away with it entirely.

Infinity War didn't necessarily drag, but it had a lot of setup scenes. Hulk and Tony meet Strange, Strange meets Spider-Man, the Avengers argue with Ross, the Avengers meet up with the Secret Avengers, Thor meets the Guardians, the Guardians meet Strange/Spider-Man/Tony, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There is a lot of introducing people to other people that just wouldn't fly in any other movie, but it works for Infinity War. Endgame suffers from this too, though. They honestly could have just saved Captain Marvel until the last battle and it would have made exactly zero difference to the plot, other than a couple of scenes of banter. I actually feel they work best when thought of as one movie. The ending of Infinity War would be unsatisfying without knowing there's a second part coming, and Endgame only really works when you've got the setup of Infinity War as a primer (like Back to the Future I+II). Man, these movies really are Back to the Future: Marvel Edition.

Anyway, am I the only one dissatisfied with their treatment of time travel? If it's impossible to go back in the past and change events, then shouldn't it also be impossible to go back in the past to take objects out of the past into the present? Because if they stole the Infinity Stones then they never would have been in the past to begin with, meaning Thanos never would have used them, meaning they never would have gone back to steal them. And don't say that they returned them, because if they had failed to return them they would have created a paradox.

Oh, speaking of time travel, have they confirmed whether or not Thanos' snap was random? Because if every action creates a different timeline, then when Thanos snapped his fingers he should have created TONS of timelines. Seriously, it's a giant ****ing number. Let's just relegate it to humans, because the number of lifeforms on earth is literally uncountable. There are 7.5 billion of us, Thanos wiped half of us out. That means he killed 3.75 billion humans. The number of possible combinations of humans he killed, then, is 3.75 billion! (not an exclamation point, that means factorial, or you keep multiplying the number by one less). I typed this into a calculator, and the answer it gave me is infinity. Literally, there are infinity timelines that Thanos could have created by snapping different combinations of people out of existence.

And this brings me to another point, how did Strange know that even if Tony was spared, he would have survived the snap? Was that something Thanos consciously did? And if it was, why didn't he consciously (or unconsciously for that matter) get rid of the heroes who end up saving the world? Seriously, aside from Tony, it seems like at least three other people HAD to survive the snap. Hulk had to in order to convince the Ancient One and in order to undo the snap, and Hawkeye and Black Widow had to in order to sacrifice one of themselves (because I don't see many other combinations of Avengers ending up with the person they love the most on Vormir). Heck, just the idea that those two happened to wind up on Vormir instead of, say, Nebula and Ant-Man, is hugely unlikely. Furthermore, some people had to not survive the snap. It seems like the whole thing wouldn't have been possible without both the Pyms and Hawkeye's family getting dusted (the former because then Scott never would have discovered time travel, the latter because Nat would no longer be the most important person to Hawkeye and he would no longer have a deathwish). So, discounting Tony, you have the odds that all three of the other essentials survive at 1/3.75 b(1/3.75b-1)(1/3.75b-2), and the odds that the other seven get dusted at (1/3.75b-3)(1/3.75b-4)(1/3.75b-5)(1/3.75b-6)(1/3.75b-7)(1/3.75b-8)(1/3.75b-9). That essentially puts their odds of succeeding at 1/3.75 billion to the tenth power, which is nothing. Dr. Strange said he saw 14 million possibilities? Hah! That's absolute peanuts compared to the number of possibilities he should've seen. It also makes me think that Strange somehow not only saved Tony, Hulk, Widow, and Hawkeye, but dusted the Pyms and the Bartons.

Avatar image for theone86
#9 Edited by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:
@theone86 said:

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.

Many of these "centuries-old building" are number 1 tourists spots, bringing in more money than they take up from visitors from around the world.

They also bolster properties. Coming from Scotland, a golf-core with a castle sitting inside or within view, will bring in significantly more money, as well as serving as a home in some cases once it's actually renovated.

Other countries do the exact same thing,. Anything humanly possible that can count as a tourist attraction will be used, France just happens to be steeped in rich history and incredible feats of engineering and art.

Bringing money to who? How many average Parisians really benefit from it? Some docents, a few local business owners, some of their employees, but who really benefits the most? Not average Parisians. Either the French Government or the Catholic church, I'm not entirely sure who gets the profits but it's one of them. And it's not like it's the only tourist attraction in Paris, the entire city is one big tourist attraction. Even if every museum in the city up and spontaneously combusted tomorrow, they'd still get millions of tourists each year just because of the city's history.

And I'm all fine with tourist attractions if they're not burdensome, but Notre Dame is the very definition of burdensome. Before the fire they were spending around six million dollars restoring it, now they're looking at a cost of hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions on a building that is almost a millennium old. Buildings get old, they deteriorate, they crumble. Spending so much money on a building that is falling apart naturally is insane, especially when there are so many issues of spending in France already. Invest more in our schools? Make reforms to address cost of living? Oh, we just don't have the money. Rebuild a thousand year old church? Sure, why not! Like I said, Europe is too obsessed with the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present.

Avatar image for theone86
#10 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.