Justus

1. Justus, my age alone would inform a dumber person I know at least one other rape victim. I say other because I was raped when I was 14. I've talked about it here. Do feel free to tell me that I haven't been because of how I word things, though

 

 

2. Just because you say something, or use the most extreme words possible doesn't make it true or accurate.

 

3. Let me just clear up my stance and bring this car back onto pavement; I did not downplay Clinton's accuser nor her experience-you read what I said the way you chose to. For the third time-I said what Trump said is about the worst thing a man can do to a woman-grabbing her by the genitals and then bragging about being able to do so because he thinks himself a star. This is my personal belief. You don't have to agree; nobody does, it's simply an opinion. I do see this as worse than exposing himself. (as Clinton did). I am not playing a game. (what *is* an 'ill-minded / don't give a damn / head-rammed-into-the-wall' game tho? Can you cram a few more ultimate adjectives into that? I can wait...it certainly makes me question my stance and all I know.) My 'Trump Rant of the Hour'? I'm responding to your laughable comparison-I didn't fabricate this out of thin air. I'm beginning to see how you're getting it so wrong, though. The more you type, the more you add to what you think I'm saying. I'll let you know if you hit on anything.

 

Can I wallow in this a little bit more. It almost feels like the old Lyceum. GAWD.

Only if you play the part or REV ROSWELL or my Amanda

 

1. Why are you assuming I would know your age, or your personal experiences? Do you really believe everyone on this board knows your personal information? As an example, over the years, I've posted accounts of a few dark/gruesome events from my own past on this forum / as part of debates, but I am never going to assume everyone currently on this board remembered it, or cared to even browse it when originally posted. I--or anyone else would have no reason to assume that. So, when you think you're going to bark at anyone possibly inspired by something from your personal life, unless you are certain the person you're barking at knows your history (which might explain part of as position), you simply come off like those endless Twitter a-holes who think every discussion is an opportunity to scream at what you see as your opposition.

2. Mirror. While your private experiences were not known, I do remember a great number of your hyper-partisan posts having little relation to common sense. Yeah, that's you. You can post that crap in this echo-chamber, but it does not play in real life.

3. More of your tapdancing denial around your initial outburst. Like others of your mindset, you will remain chained to that sinking boulder called Left-Wing extremism, which allows you to pretend a relevant historical comparison in relation to what voters are willing to ignore is not relevant at all, just so you can all to get back to your ridiculous swinging at Trump. You speak of age, yet it is safe to assume many Americans over say...20...would have some experience either participating in or observing past presidential campaigns where the words or actions of a then-current candidate were compared to one who ran for, or held the office before them, and what effect it had in the positive or negative sense.

This is an undeniable part of American political dialogue as old as the nation, which is why anyone--not just you--who thinks referencing why Clinton's (frankly) criminal act meant nothing to his reelection chances is not relevant when wondering why the Access Hollywood tape did not sink Trump's run is playing a game lost before it started--one that had them scratching their heads four years ago, when it is clear sexual abuse or talk was and remains something never moving dedicated voters to make a different selection with men who actually ended up winning.

How about an explanation that doesn't involve the Clintons?

 

Despite people asking Trump by what he has done recently, people knew who Donald J Trump was. He cheated on his first wife with his second wife. He cheated on his second wife with his third wife. People knew he was a sleaze. When people saw the Access Hollywood tape most people were like "yeah and?"

 

Maybe you find this alarming. Why? Staying away from the C word, you have politicians like Marion Berry who get re elected after being caught smoking crack.

Well put.

 

 

But you definitely are Yulike. You are Kwan Lite

 

You are full of it. Kwan was a Right Winger. I am not. Time for you to jump off of your extremist POV that paints anyone not spewing your wild nonsense as someone from the ideological Right. Talk about a black and white worldview.

 

..and about this BS:

 

"Your disdain and apoplexy is palpable here: ... a laughable false narrative (it is neither)? Do you KNOW any women? Ask one how she felt about that ***** grabbing brag. To many, it truly is about the worst thing a man can say about a woman."

 

Notice the point being dodged... in order to sell Trump's comment as the worst thing a woman can experience.

 

Now, I'm going to break down the how and why you will go that low; i seriously doubt you know any woman--particularly one who has been raped. I--however--know women who have, and they would rightfully tell you to go f*** yourself for trying (ultimately) to downplay the experience of Clinton's accuser when you tap-shuffle-tap around it to go into your Trump Rant of the Hour. Yes, that is what you're doing, and I will tell you any expected hand-wringing denials and flames are rejected in advance.

 

What's despicable about your crap is that in dancing over the historically relevant answer to a question on a sexual abuse matter's effect on a candidate, you are engaging in the same selective memory/outrage that Trump voters were accused of doing regarding the Access Hollywood recording.

 

Grow up.

 

You're correct-you're not a Right Winger. I just meant in approach and rhetoric. so you can drop this "...extremist POV that paints anyone not spewing your wild nonsense as someone from the ideological Right. Talk about a black and white worldview." extremist? wild nonsense? Which part of what I typed was nonsense?

 

Notice the point being dodged? The whole thing was about 'the point'! ,..."about the Access Hollywood tape not ending Trump's presidential bid is easily answered and understood by Clinton's sexual assault allegation revealed during his 1st term not stopping his re-election." You are such the over-the-cliff's-edge extremist that you are trying (and failing) to dodge a relevant historical comparison in order to sell Trump's comment as the worst thing a woman can experience. GOOD ****ing LORD. WHAT did I DODGE? It is not a relevant comparison! You're the only one where who thinks it is! It's straight-up, painfully obvious whataboutism, nothing more. And I said it was "about the worst thing a man can SAY ABOUT a woman"-'the worst thing a woman can experience.' is QUITE different.

 

''m going to break down the how and why you will go that low" Why I will go how low? WTF are you talking about?

 

"i seriously doubt you know any woman--particularly one who has been raped. I--however--know women who have, and they would rightfully tell you to go f*** yourself for trying (ultimately) to downplay the experience of Clinton's accuser when you tap-shuffle-tap around it to go into your Trump Rant of the Hour. Yes, that is what you're doing, and I will tell you any expected hand-wringing denials and flames are rejected in advance."

 

Are you ****ing serious? You think I don't KNOW any woman who has been raped? **** YOU. You cannot be this stupid.

 

..and yes, for you to downplay the experience of Clinton's accuser, yet to go into your "Trump is the most damaging thing to women ever because he said..". rant strongly suggests you do not know women who were raped. As noted the other day, the women I know who have been would tell you to f*** yourself for playing this ill-minded / don't give a damn / head-rammed-into-the-wall political game...or its just another example of your gnat-like lack of awareness of the one and only place your position can dump you. I would ask you to think about it, but its you, so...no.

As I posted the other day--in full expectation your hand-wringing denials and flames--it is all rejected.

 

 

I feel like we need Justus so we can have that feel of the old Lyceum. Sometimes I miss it.

I take it you're implying i'm some version of the Kwan Yus, Alakinskys, et al., of yesteryear, and you would be..let's just say woefully incorrect, since I do not march to any party line, but I will call out sociopolitical zealots, hypocrisy and BS when its smeared against the wall as honesty or truth. That's a problem in areas where the mantra is translated as one-thought-for-all. I do not buy into that intellectually dishonest crap.

But you definitely are Yulike. You are Kwan Lite

 

You are full of it. Kwan was a Right Winger. I am not. Time for you to jump off of your extremist POV that paints anyone not spewing your wild nonsense as someone from the ideological Right. Talk about a black and white worldview.

..and about this BS:

"Your disdain and apoplexy is palpable here: ... a laughable false narrative (it is neither)? Do you KNOW any women? Ask one how she felt about that ***** grabbing brag. To many, it truly is about the worst thing a man can say about a woman."

Notice the point being dodged, which was (as mentioned to Tank) addressing the specific question about the Access Hollywood tape not ending Trump's presidential bid is easily answered and understood by Clinton's sexual assault allegation revealed during his 1st term not stopping his re-election. You are such the over-the-cliff's-edge extremist that you are trying (and failing) to dodge a relevant historical comparison in order to sell Trump's comment as the worst thing a woman can experience.

Now, I'm going to break down the how and why you will go that low; i seriously doubt you know any woman--particularly one who has been raped. I--however--know women who have, and they would rightfully tell you to go f*** yourself for trying (ultimately) to downplay the experience of Clinton's accuser when you tap-shuffle-tap around it to go into your Trump Rant of the Hour. Yes, that is what you're doing, and I will tell you any expected hand-wringing denials and flames are rejected in advance.

What's despicable about your crap is that in dancing over the historically relevant answer to a question on a sexual abuse matter's effect on a candidate, you are engaging in the same selective memory/outrage that Trump voters were accused of doing regarding the Access Hollywood recording.

Grow up.

The early Beatles are sometimes interesting to look at, especially the albums. They were so popular that the record company obviously wanted to just keep pushing content out. They were releasing 2 albums and 4 singles a year. Their first 4 albums have tons of covers on them to fill them out, other than A Hard Days Night, which is really the pinnacle of the early Beatles "Merseybeat" kinda sound. The album is near perfection for the style. Just look at the track listing:

 

Things We Said Today, I'll Be Back.

 

 

 

 

For me, they were the standouts of A Hard Day's Night.

Simple version:

 

Somebody said WTF TRUMP IS A PREDATOR

 

Justus said: SO WAS CLINTON

 

I said: that is conservative deflection 101 to dodge the topic by citing a case of the opposition doing something similar

 

No one is denying Clinton was/is a creep. No one is saying it didn't happen.

 

Talking about the long history of men in power abusing their privilege is a legit conversation... if that was the topic. It is not.

 

There's a difference between a treatise on that topic versus trying to distract from calling out Trump's dirtbaggery by attempting to normalize it because it happened before.

Sigh.

It is clear you are exactly the kind of one-thought-for-all person I just mentioned to Spam--you are ever caught up in a storm of such ideological hatred that accurate historical comparisons are an alien language to you--deliberately so. Truth must be rejected (or something far darker at work) to paint a laughably false narrative spewed by some around here that one Donald Trump's comment is the worst thing ever uttered and should have been the equivalent of pulling the pins of the grenades on his own belt.

You are free to be as hostile as you choose, but addressing the specific question about the Access Hollywood tape not ending Trump's presidential bid is easily answered and understood by Clinton's sexual assault allegation revealed during his 1st term not stopping his re-election. There it is again, that pesky, ever-relevant historical comparison. Sorry if you're too caught-up in hatred to understand that, but your red-eyed, fanged ranting does not change the fact sexual scandal rarely sinks presidential candidates or incumbents. Also known as...The Point.

I feel like we need Justus so we can have that feel of the old Lyceum. Sometimes I miss it.

I take it you're implying i'm some version of the Kwan Yus, Alakinskys, et al., of yesteryear, and you would be..let's just say woefully incorrect, since I do not march to any party line, but I will call out sociopolitical zealots, hypocrisy and BS when its smeared against the wall as honesty or truth. That's a problem in areas where the mantra is translated as one-thought-for-all. I do not buy into that intellectually dishonest crap.

Compare:

 

Statement: The plane crashed.

Question: Why?

Answer: It ran out of fuel.

 

Statement: The plane crashed.

Question: Why?

 

Answer: A plane crashed last month, that plane ran out of fuel. But a plane crashed a month before that because it sucked up a bird into its engine. Planes can crash for a lot of reasons.

 

 

Both conversations answer a question-- one directly, one gets muddy due to trying change the questions from WHY DID THIS PLANE CRASH to WHY DO PLANES CRASH.

 

Both valid questions, but only one of them was asked. That's not to say one can't lead to the next, but when you answer the first question indirectly as the first answer, you're twisting the discussion.

 

Which is... Deflection 101.

 

Or you're just a know-it-all that doesn't like to answer questions within the parameters they were asked to either change the point or how off how much stuff you know.

 

That's ***hole 101.

More bull. Not a surprise when you deliberately ignore how relevant historical comparisons answers the question. Ahh, but that is crazy talk when you live n that aforementioned echo chamber where being ignorant of history and its effect is a substitute for facts. Some remind me of Charlamagne Tha God telling Biden, "I really wish Joe Biden would shut the eff up forever.." after the Democratic nominee claimed Trump was the "first racist president." Anyone knowing even one moment of American history knows that is absolute BS and an astoundingly offensive statement (yeah, he should look a part of my family in the face and repeat that), but history does not matter--its all about the "Trump = Satan" story, so facts be damned--exactly what is happening here.

Individuals are free to live in a fantasy world if they choose to, but that does not prevent anyone else from pointing out the ideological gymnastics performed to continue selling a story.

I see people putting down early Beatles stuff. I love that stuff. How can you not smile when you hear "She Loves You" or "I Saw Her Standing There" or "A Hard Day's Night" and a dozen others? Just all such fun songs.

Even some Beatles fans think the early work is simple, or too much a "prisoner" of their influences, as opposed to the latter half where their songwriting strengths / individuality flowered.

It's still deflection. We're not talking about Clinton. This thread isn't titled The Clinton Administration. We're talking about Donald Trump and the **** he's said and done. Bringing literally anyone else (aside from Trump's victims) into the conversation is a form of deflection. If you want to talk about the sexual assaults and other various wrongs that Clinton has done, start a thread for it.

Sorry, not buying that. Relevant historical comparisons is only a deflection to those who live in an echo chamber of only-one-side-committed-some-wrongdoing. Thankfully, the real world does not live in said echo chamber, so for anyone wondering why Trump's Access Hollywood recording did not hurt his chances, look to a serious charge of sexual assault not preventing a second Clinton term. All relevant about what voters are willing to ignore.

Okay, so pretty classic question really.. whom do you prefer?

 

I like em both, but I'm much more of a Beatles fan than a fan of the Rolling Stones. And this is why.

 

1. Beatles write better songs. That **** could be scientificly proven I'm sure, with the exception of the Ringo numbers, but even they have a very naive charm.

 

2. Beatles have more sophisticated harmonies and melody. I mean, their earlier songs were more simplistic but as they grew into their craft their songwriting became increasingly complex with complicated vocal harmonies. Where as the stones kind of kept on bashing out the same blues numbers their whole career...which leads me to

 

3... The Beatles went off the deep end with experimentation. Not only in LSD sense but I mean sonically. They invented so many little techniques, (like sampling and overdubs), interesting instrumentation, weird pentameters. They basically wrote Chemical Brothers tunes ("Tomorrow Never Knows") 40 or 50 years before the chemical brothers existed. And they nearly invented heavy metal with "Helter Skelter".

 

4. The Stones are a one trick band. Admittedly it's a very good trick, listening to old American blues, pillaging it for all it's worth and selling it back to American teenagers eager to gobble it up. If it weren't for the Stones Muddy Waters and a lot of those old blues guys wouldn't have half the recognition they got in their later "careers". (I use quote marks cause they'd not think of it in those terms). But they (the Stones) found their jam and flogged it for 60 years. Got lost in the 80s in a cloud of cocaine powder and white denim and have been trading on nostalgia ever since.

 

5. The Beatles had George Harrison. Probably one of the coolest humans to walk the face of the earth. Charlie Watts was pretty cool I admit, and Keith Richards as charming as he is doesn't have the introspection and grace of Georgie boy.

 

6. The stones have Mick Jagger. And that guy is a ****. Admittedly Paul McCartney is a bit of a plonker and John Lennon could be a c*** but Mick Jagger man... Next level hubris.

 

7. And finally this is something a lot of people get wrong. They think of the Rolling Stones as the tougher of the two bands, or the bad boys. But it was the Beatles who were the hard working class lads from Liverpool. Proper Scousers like. They were the hard ones. Paul was probably a bit soft but Ringo, John and George would definitely have been a handful if there were scuffles. Hell, someone broke into George's home in the 80s or 90s and he fought off the home invader, who stabbed him a few times on the way out, and lived to tell the tale. It was the Rolling Stones who were the polite, posh art school boys from Richmond. Basically if the stones and the Beatles were to have a fight the Beatles would totally throw down. Of course that is a ridiculous thing to say as they all turned into pacifists and got into spiritualism and that... Damn another reason I love the Beatles more.

 

 

Anyway. I still like the Stones music. They definitely have swagger. And the Beatles definitely sound distinctly more British. So again, I do like them both very much. But if I had to listen to only one album of either band for the rest of my life itd totally be Abbey Road.

 

Opinions?

1. Entirely subjective, and on that note, I found the Rolling Stones final two albums of the 60s (Beggars' Banquet and Let it Bleed)leaving them in generally better creative shape than the Beatles last two efforts.

3. The Beatles were far from the first rock band to step into the waters of experimentation. As early as 1964, The genesis of The Who creating the rock opera had its roots in 1965 with the early ideas that would become "A Quick One, While He's Away" in '66. We all know about groups like The Animals, The Yardbirds and The Moody Blues going off in very experimental (and creatively cohesive) directions of their own in the same era.

2. and 4. What? The 60s Rolling Stones started (by Brian Jones) as a serious blues band unlike any other in Europe (even that of his friend Alexis Korner and his influential Blues Incorporated). But their sound did not settle there; it was through Jones that the band had innumerable instruments rarely--if ever associated with rock--transforming many of the group's songs to become classics with a voice unmatched by any other 60s group--including the Beatles. One can argue that the Rolling Stones evolved more than any of the biggest rock acts by the end of the decade, with the possible exception of The Moody Blues.

5. Much of the alleged introspection attributed to Harrison is more associated with his 1970s solo years, where he was able to freely express himself as a person and artist more than being framed by being a Beatle.

6. Yes, Jagger was a manipulative, jealous ass, but Lennon had a number of unsavory behavioral problems, from habitually sidelining many of Harrison's efforts to get more songs on albums, to his physically abusing first wife Cynthia, barely having anything to do with Julian, to having low opinions about other acts with members who were supposed to be counted among his "friends." Let's not forget his jealousy of / being intimidated by McCartney, to the point where he had tantrums in the studio, started to back away from true collaborations sometime around 1968, and yes, there's the Yoko issue, which caused much friction between Lennon and the rest of the group.

7. All members of the Rolling Stones were not "posh art school boys." While Jones was reportedly highly intelligent, he did not pursue college and lived a very rough life from one temporary dwelling to another living in Germany and the UK while perfecting the guitar work that would form the Rolling Stones sound. Growing up, Wyman and his family suffered through World War II, living on rations, going to school in a gas mask, suffering the effects of bombing, with no stable housing. In fact, he has stated that they lived in extreme poverty. Both were far from pampered art school types.

 

 

I still don't get how "grab em by the *****" didn't end it all.

For the same reason voters ignored something as incredibly serious like Paula Jones' sexual harassment allegations against Bill Clinton revealed during his first term, yet voters skipped right over that to give him a second term.

 

Deflection 101.

 

Bull. The question was "I still don't get how "grab em by the *****" didn't end it all". A relevant example of negative sexual matters not hurting a candidate was posted. If some refuse to see how the examples point to voters not caring about negative sexual matters, then that is a case of some wanting to paint Trump as Satan who should have been hurt by the recording, when it did not work with him, nor did it work with Clinton, who had far worse accusation pinned on him.

1. ANH / ESB - Tie. ANH was still part of the early, "raw" and "real" GL, when his vision and messaging of his key themes were so sharp (continuing from what he established in THX-1138 and American Graffiti), while ESB was GL polish and myth making at its best.

2. ROTJ - The Luke arc alone leave the rest of the SW films looking like a dried-up corpse.

3. TPM. Despite the film wasting so much time on podracing and the embarrassing Jar-Jar, its a film that had the kind of film pacing that has not been in vogue since the early 80s. While the overall package was by no means perfect (and Jinn was an ass half of the time), unlike some SW fans, I appreciated GL world-building on the political side of that galaxy. In other words, its not all about getting to lightsaber fights and stunts.

4. ROTS. McGregor was the saving grace of the film, with his pitch perfect growth into a more Guinness-esque Obi-Wan. His performance captured all attention, and his last scene--contemplating his new duty and how his life would unfold was the one flawless PT scene pointing toward the OT.

5. AOTC. Anakin was irritating in ways not having anything to do with the plot to push the character toward the Dark Side. Yoda did not need to use a lightsaber, the franchise's eye roll-inducing Fett obsession finally poisoned the series with the unnecessary introduction of Jango / making him the source of the clones.

6. RO. Utterly unnecessary. All of the most relevant, lasting plot points of this film were addressed in the crawl of ANH. The rest--especially the main characters--did not serve any purpose or tell a story the audience needed to know (or rather, did not know already). Then again, Disney Wars hve been a textbook example of misguided / pointless films that lack the mythic heart of the OT.

7, 8 and 9 - The ST. Wrongheaded, uninteresting crap in SW dressing, all thanks to Kathleen Kennedy's 9and others') drive not being an honest exploration of / continuation of all that GL built, but messaging the series did not need. That, and Finn was an embarrassment with no purpose of his own. Star Wars as a film franchise is in a position worse than the Bond series in the wake of Moonraker; it earned money, but was so excessively cartoonish and lacked that which made the Eon films series relevant in the first place, that it took a major reset to keep Bond alive. In the case of the SW-ST, this was a bloated, expensive series of films, with each proving the new regime had no idea how to make a great SW film. It seems that was not their aim at the start of it all.

10. Solo. Oh, for... See the ST entry.

I still don't get how "grab em by the *****" didn't end it all.

For the same reason voters ignored something as incredibly serious like Paula Jones' sexual harassment allegations against Bill Clinton revealed during his first term, yet voters skipped right over that to give him a second term.

But then as a game upmanship thing, Trump commutes Roger Stones sentence.

 

So we just have to vote. It's up to us to right the United States of America.

It will not happen with Biden. You know Biden--he's the guy with a decades long history of targeting black people as an elected official, right up to his recent "you ain't black" crap (even in that statement, he stereotypes black people with an assumption he's "speaking their language" with slang), and rejection of reparations for ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) unless he can stitch every other group in the known galaxy to a uniquely black American issue / situation. Yeah, he's going to bring America together like no other....

1. Lack of leadership:

 

Too many cooks not enough chefs. I think that's the saying. Martin Luther King Jr was not the only voice of the civil rights movement, but he was arguably the face of it. He was a great speaker who could rally people both black and white. Who do we have now? Black Lives Matters? People know the term, they don't know the politics of it. Read the website. NBA and NFL players? That didn't work out before. CHOP? They can't settle on a name. The lack of a centralized figure leads to the next problem.

 

2. Lack of a real message:

 

If you ask 10 people involved in the protests what the goal is you'll get 6-7 different answers. Also if you want to implement change, you must have an attainable goal. Putting an end to racial injustice is a Miss America answer. There is a reason they don't say they wish for world peace anymore. Police reform and an end to police brutality is a reasonable goal. One that actually affects all people. Not just people of color. One protestor in Tampa actually told a reporter that they wanted free solar panels for the black community. Does that have anything to do with anything that's going on? You sound like you're reading off a Christmas list.

 

3. Everything is racist:

 

This is the one that has really divided people. Not everything is a matter of race. Rayshard Brooks was a black man shot by a white cop. Nothing in that body cam footage showed racism. Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Eric Garner, and some of the others often mentioned are cases that have yet to been proven that racism played a part in each tragedy. White people have taken offense to anything that happens against someone black being called racist. If you disagree, your racist. You can't keep calling people racist and get their support.

 

4. Cancel culture:

 

I will admit that the majority of this is coming from mostly white entities that are showing their wokeness. Uncle Ben's or Aunt Jemima have never offended me. I'm waiting for the Quakers to complain about oatmeal packaging. Gone With the Wind probably isn't offending those who have never seen it. Whoopi Goldberg said it best that if you're going to cancel GWTW, a movie that produced the first black female Oscar winner(Goldberg being the second, you have to get rid of the entire blaxploitation era. As those movies show blacks in mostly non flattering ways.

 

5. More statues coming down:

 

We're tearing down Abraham Lincoln statues now? Smh. Don't erect a statue to Colin Kaepernick because that won't last the night. Hell George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks don't pass these purity tests.

 

What did the Civil Rights movement have? Support from black, white, politicians alike. Many different people fighting for a common cause. MLK said he wanted people to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Now we've gone back to judging people by the color of their skin.

 

What would I do? I would have a realistic goal. I would work for police reform. I would talk to law enforcement heads about working to reduce police brutality. I would talk to them, not around them. I would steer clear of the systemic racism claims as the numbers don't support it. Now I'm sure that I would piss off the mob because I wouldn't be asking for a pound of flesh.

Rational post. You have pointed out--with stinging accuracy--why this latest round of unrest is not moving anything forward, and likely never will.

1./3. The problem with present day "leadership" (of any group) is that it starts from the position of accusation to outright hatred (Al Sharpton, for one example), and that is not going to inspire anyone walking in the middle to support the confused cause. Instead,those in the middle might end up standing in opposition to it because no normal person will support anyone accusing them--with blanket charges of generational racism, yet they're supposed to donate flesh, energy. etc. It does not work that way.

2. The message iand "movement" is not so genuine, as BLM has been long co-opted by other groups among its leadership, including gay rights groups, immigrant groups, etc, which robs the unique experience and plight of black Americans from the conversation, and any legislation that might come from said conversation.

For kneejerk white liberals who love virtue signalling their support of BLM, they would do themselves a favor and listen to black activists and entertainers who reject this "movement" and many of its goals hardly apply to them at all--

@ 3:35 - Lord Jamar: I don't Support Black Lives Matter, it's Not Our Movement.

@ 9:38 - LGBT Is the New Black, and So Is People of Color.

@ 9:17 - Tariq Nasheed: Undermining Black Movements.

You will never hear any of the most vocal, "we support BLM!!" white liberals ever acknowledge what people like the three in the links continue to observe and expose. The same applies to the mainstream, left-leaning news media, and its not due to a lack of knowledge, as there is a relationship--a shared agenda between the media and those who have attached themselves and their own causes to BLM. the biggest reason why there will never be a modern day sociopolitical "black" movement that is only focused on the history, life and legacy of black Americans. Infiltrators will never let that happen.

4. Cancel Culture has never been populated by the exceptionally bright. Scream, ban, censor and tear down everything that they consider offensive--that's the answer. Historical context / educational value be damned. For once, Goldberg is correct--if Gone With the Wind is ripped from history, so too must every Blaxploitation film,as most were not at all "empowering", but mass marketed a wealth of vile stereotypes that are still celebrated / used to this day, to the point where random people on the street (and a hack filmmaker I will leave nameless) will use, quote lines and/or mimic behavior from those films as if they took it was sourced from real black culture. Robert Townsend's brilliant Hollywood Shuffle (1987) was a teaching tour de force on just how destructive the entertainment industry had been in rewriting black people and their history into a sea of the very kind of offensive stereotypes found in the Blaxploitation genre. One must remember that this genre ran its course in the post American Civil Rights Movement 1970s, yet after all of the movement's fight for dignity as well as rights under the law, this film genre often turned black people into shameless caricatures with very few exceptions.

Where is the outcry to ban those films? Nowhere, and the fact no one--specifically white liberals in the seat of political and social influencing power--is calling for that genre to be wiped from the face of the earth illustrates selective outrage, and a misconception that somehow, Hattie McDaniel's character is more damaging than endless portrayals of pimps, hookers, drug addicts, random criminal types, prison populations and barely literate jive types. To the offended--specifically white liberals, one is tied to what they see as American Conservatism (therefore its evil incarnate), while the other is post-modern chic...part of a "cool" culture, which is absolute BS on their part.

5. A wealth of truth that would be ignored by those who think they know better than you.

 

Interested in seeing the film Snyder wanted to make, as opposed to the rushed crap that was "finished" by someone who had no clue about making a film with DC characters.

I am curious to see what it turns out to be. But I think it was rushed more because the suits wanted it a certain way, and the spreadsheets and focus groups said Joss Whedon was the guy to do it. And really, he should have been able to.

 

When it comes to film, there is little difference between DC and Marvel characters. It really depends on who's put in charge of making the film. If Kevin Feige was hired to do the Justice League instead of/in addition to the Marvel verse, I think it would be just as popular. Feige had done I think like 10+ non-MCU Marvel films, before jumping into the MCU, so he perfected what worked and what didn't. Had the same care been given to the DCEU, it could have been a lot better.

 

Whedon going in and trying to "Avengerize" the JL was one of the worst cases of the wrong person being attached to a film in memory. His approach to filmmaking was the polar opposite of all that the DCEU established, with its characters being born of fantasy, but wisely played it as if they really existed, rejecting the "they're all your favorites! They're like toys!" tone applied to so many MCU films.

Outside of the MCU's lone jewel--Captain America: The Winter Soldier--the "really existed" kind of development / handling is nowhere to be found in the MCU, so it should have come as no surprise that anyone who worked on MCU films would have been completely out of their element on Justice League.

This is not predicting the Snyder cut will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, or that it will take its intended narrative place alongside Man of Steel. Batman v. Superman and Wonder Woman, but I cannot imagine Snyder's own original vision coming close to the misguided cartoon that was the theatrical version.

The ST is completely superfluous and unnecessary by comparison, in retrospect.

QFT.

So in the Mando thread, I mentioned I have lost interest in Star Wars, ever since TROS. Now that the ST and Skywalker saga are over, and we are in between seasons of The Mandalorian, of which I am only mildly interested in (I have seen about 2/3s of the episodes and I'm spoiled on the rest), as well as only a fair interest in the final Clone Wars season, and Obi Wan is now back in development hell apparently, I find myself very disinterested in new Star Wars projects. When it was recently announced the Thor Ragnarok guy is doing a Star Wars film, my response wasn't even a "meh." I just don't care.

 

The OT, or more properly, ANH and TESB, will always be in my top favorite movies of all time, but the rest of Episodes 1-6 are just blu ray movies that sit on my shelf, now. I am not going to rehash my distaste for the ST, or debate about why they didn't work for me, just suffice it to say, they just aren't my thing, and I think except for Rogue One, none of the Disney Star Wars films have any kind of rewatch-ability for me, and I don't own any of them on disc, except R1. But beginning with TFA, while the Disney era Star Wars films were all in development, I was always looking forward to the next film. Even TROS, which is probably my least favorite (with TLJ a razor thin close second), I still wanted to see the movie before it was released.

 

But now that TROS has been and gone, I just don't care about Star Wars, really outside of the OT.

 

Does anyone feel similarly about future Star Wars projects, either upcoming/in the works or in development?

I stopped caring while the PT was in theaters, and by care I mean investing any creative/intellectual interest in the films as something to absorb, revisit and analyze on any level for enjoyment. The Kennedy Era has poisoned the franchise well, to the point that its now as bad off as the Star Trek franchise after one "Berman-verse" show after another left it as a pile of creatively-challenged rubble, especially the horrid Voyager and Enterprise. The JJ films, Discovery and Picard only served to walk by that pile, and set it on fire, much like the Star Wars sequels have to done to its own franchise.

Current Star Wars is no longer relevant as a creation. Its an overused battery sloppily covered in Star Wars gift wrap, run by people who are as far removed from what Lucas intended / brought to the OT as one can imagine. Its clear they do not really care about carrying on GL's legacy (you know, what made SW a cultural phenomenon), so why would anyone else?

Interested in seeing the film Snyder wanted to make, as opposed to the rushed crap that was "finished" by someone who had no clue about making a film with DC characters.

Jesus Tami THERE IS A MULTIQUOTE BUTTON

 

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE IT OKAY.

 

CHAZ is also now CHOP. Seth's view is accurate. It's actually now becoming a little too gentrified but they say they're sitting there until demands are met. I'm with them.

 

And this city likes to do 'pop up parks' in which they'll block off streets and throw down some astroturf and stage chairs and tables, effectively doing the exact same thing this protest has but I'm the only person I know who complains about this

When people asked if George Floyd with less to change I was pessimistic. We all were on board at first, but then the looting and riots started. I thought that would turn people off. Then there was the defund the police movement. That turned more people off. Now you have what happened in Atlanta. I'm sorry but I can't see how you can justify more violence after the Rayshard Brooks video. I have to say that he deserved to get shot, but that was far from what happened to George Floyd. Now people are just going to see blacks as a violent community. Good job guys.

and what would YOU do

What would you do?

We are pretty damn weak right now with the useless tool that was elected to drain the swamp by a small minority. LOL. All I know is I just try to promote and underline Biden's best features so we can at least make Texas purple in November.

Biden's best features? Try his decades of aggressively working against black people, from his statements on how "they" might threaten his family in some phantom criminal encounter, to his "articulate" / "clean" comment about Obama, the 1994 crime bill, his fighting against desegregation in schools--all as an elected official. That's how he served the public. As civil rights attorney Leo Terrell recently observed, "Joe Biden has not earned the black vote. He has insulted the black vote." So, for all of those desperate while liberals out there who are all behind Biden, you're letting black America know your various agendas are more important than refusing to support a man who made a career out of legislating against them. Biden's best features.

Revealing as always.

Look at what's going on in Seattle right now and tell me this is has anything to do with George Floyd anymore.

Obviously it does not have a thing to do with Floyd--any honest, rational mind knows this, but the would-be "revolutionaries" (and their romanticizing media boosters with lips firmly panted on anarchist asses) will use Floyd's name and his family's loss to push their moronic agenda, knowing they can count on certain politicians to gag and cuff themselves rather than calling this crap out for what it is.

I've seen way, way too many videos of police assaulting peaceful protesters, forcing weapons into people's hands to justify attacking, committing assault, and what would be in any other circumstances attempted murder. My blood is ****ing boiling, constantly.

Man, I'm in the position of seeing this crap from one end of the country to the other, and it is a complete and utter myth that police are "forcing" weapons into the hands of the innumerable violent people destroying one city after another. What is not myth is what true black activists had warned the world long ago: white-led anarchist / terrorist groups (e.g., Antifa and their lackeys who fantasize that they are clones of Eldridge Cleaver) have hijacked the initial reaction to black protests of the recent past right up to the reaction to Floyd's death, traveling to towns & cities which would become a destructive, bloody hotspot to further their anarchist goals, then cry victim when they receive the expected response.

The problem is that most of the mainstream (read: Left Wing) media deliberately misinforms the public, selectively focusing on any police officer engaged with a rioting group, while completely ignoring the endless, innocent people who are being terrorized and having their livelihood stripped clean and/or burned to the ground. I was in Nashville yesterday to talk to several business owners who are among those who lost everything to armed mobs. Oh no...cannot show that, as it would expose this moment in time as one losing its original purpose of making racially-motivated police violence the true issue, and has moved on to the true aim--upending society,, and not for any legitimate support of black people. You won't hear that from the Left Wing media either (hence the reason true black activists who rail against the anarchists--people who have become parrots for their outlets--are never interviewed).

Its all so predictable that just weeks ago, this same Left Wing media attacked anyone protesting the lockdown as "dangerous" or "a threat to national security" by not adhering to the ever-shifting guidelines, yet say nothing about actual coast-to-coast violence (and social distancing going up in smoke) occurring right now. In fact, many of their mouthpieces are cheering them on as if they were reliving the early 70s all over again, watching the sickening exploits of Bernadine Dohrn, Jeffrey Jones, et al. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Our Nephew on my wife's side of the family quit his job at a local gym, after hearing about cases of the virus being in the Oregon area. WTF?!

Your nephew made a wise move. Some time ago, I built a home gym because I was disgusted at the habits of a good number of people at the gym where I had a membership (pulling, scratching, wiping, sneezing and never covering their faces, and next to never using the hand sanitizer dispensers). I did not care to complain to management, because in they would do the expected: promise that the equipment is thoroughly cleaned (it was not) and beg me to keep renewing the membership. Screw that. Too many people have no home training whatsoever and are just plain nasty when it comes to basic hygiene. It is no wonder disease (of many kinds) spread so quickly in this society.