Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - honk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13  Next >
1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: July 25, 2017, 04:33:48 AM »
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ben-afflecks-batman-future-doubt-as-warner-bros-plots-franchise-future-1023296

We've heard rumors like this before, but if THR is reporting it, it's almost certainly true. (Affleck has denied it, but of course he would.) It's a shame, as I liked Batfleck, but WB/DC were bound to run into this problem before too long, even if BvS had been well-received. What can you do with a Batman who's clearly at the end of his career? There's the Justice League, sure, but it's not the best jumping-off point for a solo Batman movie, let alone a new trilogy of them. It just goes to show how shortsighted it was to immediately jump to partially adapting TDKR for no better reason than it being the most famous and successful Batman story. It's interesting that the author speculates about legacy characters inheriting the name, because the idea that WB would make a Batman movie without Bruce Wayne being the man in the cowl is fucking insane. I'm not saying that there aren't any worthwhile stories about different Batmen, but for a big-budget, mainstream tentpole film - no, there's no way it'll happen, at least not any time in the next several years.

2
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: July 23, 2017, 04:17:15 AM »
I suppose we're expected to assume that Superman's death erased the (enormous) controversy surrounding him and turned him into a universally-beloved martyr. Cyborg's "Relax, Alfred..." moment was about as funny as cancer, and the scene with the Flash up on the rooftop takes what had the potential to be a decent joke and ruins it with a horrendously-written and horrendously-delivered punchline. I get that he's supposed to be awkward and have poor social skills, but there are ways to make that funny, and this isn't one of them. Alfred is the only one getting any laughs here.

My view of the action and general aesthetic hasn't really changed since the last trailer. It's ugly, incoherent, drowning in CGI, and the villain is looking to be yet another generic CGI nothing who'll have another destructive DBZ-style beatdown with the heroes in the end. And speaking of Steppenwolf, he's so obviously just going to be a prelude to Darkseid for a sequel that it's tiring. I'd say that they should drop the pretense and just go straight to Darkseid, but they won't do that simply because Marvel is using Thanos right now.

Also, on the notion of an extremely gratuitous ass-shot.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:26:50 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html

If Trump actually pardons himself, I will laugh and laugh until I die.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:55:36 PM »
All right, it's obvious at this point that neither of us are going to budge on this, so we might as well agree to disagree and move on.

]www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/]

Fucking LOL. Mueller has been around the block, he understands what it means when a criminal tells him not to investigate something.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Not for what's in my trunk so you better not look in there!"

To be fair, they basically goaded him into saying that, and they did specify that the hypothetical investigation would be "unrelated to Russia." And it's true, Mueller shouldn't be looking at things that aren't directly connected to the Russian angle, although it would be nuts for Trump to actually fire him.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 21, 2017, 03:53:21 AM »
That's just, like, your opinion, man. But can I see those examples of Republicans Congressmen trying to shut down government over Benghazi? I'm not too familiar with that time period.

But let's say you're right. A bad thing happened in the past and Republicans were doing evil shit with it. I think that's terrible, the worst, believe me; but it also seems that it's firmly in the past. Even if what they were doing was worse, how does that affect the fact that what the Democrats are doing right now is shit?

Do we have to talk about every bad thing in the past before we're allowed to complain about the present? If so, you're no longer allowed to complain about Trump, because the Holocaust happened.

This question is related, but distinct from my previous one. If you wouldn't mind answering both, that'd be great
And what is it with the constant "Oh boo-hoo but the other meanies did it too" mentality, anyway? Are you unable to discuss the criticism of your own camp for a few minutes without making it about someone else?

I'm only bringing this up as a criticism of your judgment and supposed objectivity, not a rebuttal of your claims here. And on that note, let's see here...one Democratic congressman called for Trump's impeachment, and another called for his legislation to be stalled pending the results of the investigation. Neither of these things have happened, and there's no indication that either of them are going to happen anytime soon. And that's the cause of all this melodrama about "vigilante justice," "presumption of guilt," and "the sewers of morality." How compelling.

Quote
Saddam, take a deep breath and think about the things you're saying about me. When I'm pointing out that you were wrong in the past, I'm not just doing that. I'm "gaslighting" you. When I argue that the Democrats' actions are hugely hurting their popularity (we've observed this in recent elections, we know it's happening) while simultaneously agreeing that Republicans fucked up similarly in the past, I'm just creating "escape hatches". Nothing I say has a simple meaning. It's clearly all a conspiracy, and one only you can crack.

Saddam, do you really think I'm some sort of shady schemer, devising intricate plans to "win" the Trump thread on FES? Could it be that I'm just a foreign guy with perspectives on politics which are vastly different from yours? Could it be that while I don't support Trump, I'm also strongly opposed to how the Democrats are trying (and failing - again, we've observed this!) to deal with him?

Could it be that the things I'm saying are just that? No hidden layers, no mystical secrets, no long-term planning? Because, honestly, that is exactly what it is - casual opinions without too much thought going into them. Try to be less paranoid. You'll feel better about things then.

More melodrama, and yet another obvious strawman. All I'm saying about you is that you frequently use logical fallacies, and yeah, that you're egotistical enough to want to always be seen as "winning" any discussion you take part in. There are millions of people like that on the Internet. You could write a lengthy, sarcastic spiel like the one above about anything. If I said to you, "SexWarrior, today you ate a bowl of cereal of breakfast," you'd respond with, "Yeah, right. So, let me get this straight, you think that I have access to some kind of container in the shape of a hemisphere, fashioned out of china, metal, or some other material? And you think that I also have access to a large quantity of toasted flakes or grains of certain crops, and that I would put those in the container? And then that I'd pour the white liquid that comes out of the udders of cows on top of it all? And then that I'd actually eat this toxic waste dump, using yet another metal container to scoop it out, just one smaller than the first? Saddam, do you have any idea how insane you sound?"

That's you. And you know that's you, because you're perfectly aware of the strawman fallacy, and you'd be merciless if someone pulled such a blatant one on you - just like you'd be the first to mock anyone arguing that one political party is destroying both democracy and justice because two congressmen called for things that didn't happen and won't happen.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:28:51 AM »
Go on? I don't know what you're alluding to

I'm making a very witty reference to the neverending Benghazi "hearings" and investigations, which interestingly fit your complaints far more than the current situation does. It was a cynical partisan stunt designed to serve the interests of the Republican Party rather than the country, it catered to insane conspiracy theorists, and after not one, not two, but seven separate investigations, each one going over the exact same ground as the last, only in angrier, more accusatory terms, there's no doubt that guilt wasn't just presumed, it was pre-guaranteed.

Quote
but I'm guessing my recent condemnation of Republican obstructionism was somehow not enough for you.

No, not when it's accompanied by comments about this being "the reason Democrats are tumbling into obscurity" and the like. You're just tossing quick disclaimers into your posts again so you have an escape hatch if someone raises a point you're not willing to argue based on its merits. It's the coward's debate method.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:02:26 PM »
deliberately disrupting the political process because of an unproven criminal allegation? Shitty, opportunistic...

This sounds familiar.


8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 14, 2017, 03:25:14 PM »
So you just quoted me saying that I oppose the presumption of guilt prior to evidence emerging, and that I staunchly oppose attempts to destabilise the government based on unsubstantiated rumour. Yeah, that's totally what you were asked to back up.

That's not what we were talking about, as the context makes clear. Nobody was in favor of skipping the investigation and convicting Trump immediately. It was an irrelevant aside that you threw in to muddy the waters.

Quote
Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you.
Sorry, where have I said that?

it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it...That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.

It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction.

If I had said "There may have been undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof), don't you think?" you would have relentlessly mocked that too and strawmanned it into "So you think Trump is the Manchurian candidate???"

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 14, 2017, 02:53:56 PM »
If you're just going to keep denying what's clearly in your own posts, there's no point in this discussion continuing.

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.
Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.
It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

This is what you said. You were very clear. Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you. And now not only are you changing your story, but trying to pretend that it was always your story.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM »
hehe I'll deliberately omit the part of his response that clarifies what he just said so he looks retarded

I would say "nice try," but it's not a nice try, it's a very weak and lazy try. Up your game. And on the off chance that you genuinely didn't understand me, I'm just saying that while you didn't dismiss concerns about Russia for being "unreasonable," you did dismiss them for being trivial. To put it another way, the premise was true, but the conclusion was false.

Quote
Perhaps my posts here are also part of the meme-conspiracy? Maybe it's not me actually saying things, maybe it's TRUMP? Or worse, PUTIN?! Save me, Saddam, the world must know what I really think and you're the only person who knows!

I can shitpost too. I just had ginormous knobbly poo. Its the type of poo you might only have once or twice a year. It was of good length but it was the shear girth I had trouble with. It feels as though my hole has been rubbed with a scouring brush and soaked in whiskey. Its in tatters.  A cool, refreshing, yet unsettlingly alien wind is now soothing my gaping chasm. My knees are quivering as I type and I feel a combination of exhaustion, relief and pride.

Quote
The closest thing that I actually believe (but have not discussed in your quote at all) is that what we know Russia has done to date is trivial, and what we know Trump has done to date is non-existent from a legal standpoint. I support a proper investigation because I'd like to know more, act upon that knowledge in whatever way is appropriate, and move on.

And now you're trying to move the goalposts again by slipping in a "to date," as if your position was nothing more than counseling patience. Several of us raised the possibility, not an ironclad conclusion that we could just skip the trial and execute Trump, but a hypothetical, something that could be true, might be true, that there may have been some collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - and you came down on that suggestion in the strongest possible terms. You called it insane, retarded, a meme, and compared it to Pizzagate. Your language wasn't even slightly vague or ambiguous. You weren't saying we were stretching, you weren't saying we were being hasty, you weren't saying we were wrong, you were saying we were out of our minds.

Quote
Saddam, I have no idea what you're even talking about, but it sounds like you're under the impression that I don't want Trump to be investigated. I don't know how you reached that conclusion, since I've previously said that I do want for him and his campaign to be investigated.

I reached that conclusion from your last post:

What reasonable claims, specifically?
That Russia may have unduly interfered with the election. Y'know, the thing that's being seriously investigated.

The obvious implication here is "as opposed to investigating Trump," given the context. If that's not what you meant, then you were being very unclear. But in any case - fine, let's try again. What reasonable claims, focusing on Trump's campaign and Russia, would you be supportive of investigating? Like I said, I don't believe there's anything you could say here that wouldn't fall into the very, very broad category of lol-memes that you previously dismissed.

Quote
Let me guess: that, too, is only a thing I've technically said?

Okay, so we're shitposting again. I don't drink whiskey at all. It gives me a sore arse. I remember drinking a load in a bar one night and I blacked out. Some guy had to give me a lift home. The next day I woke up and my bum hole was on fire.

I didn't learn my lesson, went to the same bar that week, did it all over again and blacked out again. Fortunately the same good samaritan was on hand to give me a lift home. But yet again I woke up with a raging ring piece.

Quote
Don't worry, I've adblocked it to make the thread readable without having to scroll for hours. What I was wondering about is why you're posting it? Do you find still photos of people talking funny? This could be great insight into your... peculiarities.

I do find the picture very funny, yes.

11
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 13, 2017, 04:16:08 AM »
I beg to differ:

3 Dev Adam [3 Giant Men] (T. Fikret U├žak, 1973)

This was both amazing and baffling.  Captain America and Santo travel to Turkey to take down the gangster "Spider," who's into stealing rare artifacts and counterfeiting money.  The movie has a couple of sex/nude scenes, some very violent deaths, and of course almost nothing in common with the source material for these characters beyond some really shitty costumes:



It's objectively terrible, of course, but I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't thoroughly entertained by the spectacle.  Forget Civil War, this is the real capeshit throwdown you need to see.

Well, I don't know if this guy's real name is Peter. But he's still the best Spider-Man...uh, Spider.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 13, 2017, 03:14:59 AM »
That's technically true, but only because of the specific wording. You dismissed concerns about Russian tampering too, just for a different reason:

Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

So, yes, one can make a reasonable claim that Russia tried to influence the election, that Macedonian NEETs tried to influence the election, that Fox News tried to influence the election, that CNN did it, or even that garygreen did it. The reason why I don't find that notable is that while these claims are likely completely true, they're also simply business as usual.

So, you're hopping between the two extremes, then? What Russia might have done is too trivial to be concerned about, and what Trump might have done is too farcical to be concerned about. But you still support an investigation anyway. And in any case, Trump's potential culpability is and always has been a big part of Mueller's investigation, as you well know. There's no way you'd be so careless as to say that you support the investigation and take it for granted that we'd know that you only meant the part of the investigation that didn't focus on Trump.

In other news, lol:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/11/trump-junior-white-house-scandal-russia-240433
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html

I'll post the picture again, seeing how you're so fond of it. I even scaled it down, just for you:



13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 12, 2017, 11:45:26 PM »
What reasonable claims, specifically? I don't believe there's any potential theory or narrative that you wouldn't immediately dismiss as lol-memes, at least not if you're being intellectually honest.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 12, 2017, 09:39:14 PM »
You're claiming to support the investigation while also insisting that any potential way Trump could be implicated on this, no matter how grounded or plausible, is just memes and unworthy of anything but mockery. How is that possible? Do you not know what "collusion" means? What do you think the investigation you claim to support is even doing, if not looking into the possibility that the Trump campaign was complicit in what Russia did?

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 12, 2017, 07:00:34 PM »
I mostly agree, although as one of the people who mocked the conspiracy theory, I feel there's an element of a misunderstanding there. Many of us were in favour of investigating potential Trump-Russia collusion, but we did (and still do) dismiss the actual left-wing conspiracy theory under which Trump is nothing but Putin's puppet under some weird reverse Soviet Union situation.

Bullshit. It was made clear to you several times that nobody here advocated anything that silly, and each time you responded by ramping up your "lol it's just memes" mockery and refusing to consider or discuss any theory of collusion less melodramatic than that. And because I know you'll deny this, I'll provide quotes:

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.
Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.
It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

(I included your entire response in that last line so you don't accuse me of taking your words out of context, but your sudden lurch onto the subject of assuming guilt without evidence was utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing. There's no more assumption of guilt here than there is any criminal investigation.)

It's an ongoing investigation based on the multiple undisclosed contacts between Russian and members of Trump's campaign/administration, compounded by Trump's many lies and efforts at obstruction. That's more than enough to warrant an investigation - which you apparently agree should happen
Correct.

an idea that seems somewhat at odds with your belief that it's all nonsense.
No, your beliefs are nonsense. They also have diddly squat to do with the investigation.

If you disagree with what I'm saying, then actually rebut me. Explain what it is I've said that's wrong and point out what's right. Just repeating the word "meme" doesn't help anybody.
We've gone through this at great length. I believe I've responded to most your posts where you've invoked the meme-conspiracy or the "b-b-b-but the emails" meme. On other occasions, Rushy tried and I didn't chime in because I didn't have much to add. We've tried reasoning with you, but you were having none of it, much as you would expect from a die-hard conspiracy theorist.

And that's just me - I know you've said similar things to a couple of other people here, like Roundy. You rejected the possibility of any form of collusion from Trump, no matter how plausible or grounded, and offered no arguments to support your position but obnoxious jeering and dishonest attempts to move the goalposts. It's true that you claimed to be in support of an investigation, which I regret not calling you out on earlier, because it's wholly incongruent with your "None of this is true, don't even ask" position and an obvious attempt at hedging your bets in case you were wrong. Why would you support wasting the government's time and money on a theory so obviously without merit that it didn't even deserve a serious response on a message board? You can't wriggle your way onto the other side now that it's looking more and more likely that the collusion was real. You've come down very firmly on Trump's side, and you've been such an arrogant prick this whole time that you deserve to have your face rubbed in the fact that you were wrong.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 12, 2017, 01:21:04 PM »
How is it a major scandal if nothing illegal has occurred? A scandal implies that rules were broken.

It's yet to be seen if any laws were broken, and scandals can be simply ethical rather than legal. This is yet another undisclosed connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, something that Trump has vociferously denied from the beginning, so it's yet more evidence that he's been lying.

Your article is a source in the zerohedge article and backs up what the zerohedge article says exactly. It says that the quotes from the saudi prince were published by two agencies, one of which was taken down, and the other which still exists on the Institute for Gulf Affairs website. A link to the Institute for Gulf Affairs article with the saudi prince quotes that Saudi Arabia funded 20% of the Clinton campaign is provided in the fourth paragraph.

The Institute for Gulf Affairs got the "story" from the PNA to begin with. Repetition is not corroboration, and the original source isn't standing behind the story. If Saudi Arabia really funded so much of the Clinton campaign, there should be plenty of evidence for it. Show me something more concrete than a retracted article.

17
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 12, 2017, 05:14:05 AM »
Would also help if he was a little older. He gets treated like a scrub even though he'd wreck 90% of Marvel superheroes (including shitty Captain America, contrary to Tony Stark's assertion otherwise).

I haven't seen the movie yet, but it seems like you're glossing over the key dichotomy of the character - he has tremendous power, but he's still a young teenager struggling to sort out his life. It's why he's treated like a scrub, and it's also why Captain America, a trained soldier and experienced fighter, was able to get the better of him in their last encounter despite his lower power level. And for what it's worth, I actually really like that this movie (by all accounts, that is; again, I haven't seen it) prioritized appealing to teens rather than older capeshit fans, what with all the "modernizing" of Spidey and his environment. We had Raimi's movies. Let the youngsters have this one.

Quote
The Venom movie starts shooting in a couple months. Hopefully they're on a collision course and it is done properly this time.

lol

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 12, 2017, 02:43:18 AM »
the trump train is now fully derailed.  it's over.  his legislative agenda is done.  we get 3.5 years of lame duck presidency.

This is far from the first time Republicans have acted like they're about to abandon Trump. We know the pattern by now. A major scandal that would have destroyed any other politician emerges, members of both parties make disapproving noises, and Trump simply hunkers down and weathers the storm for a few days until the outrage fades away (or is replaced by yet another scandal). Trump will survive this. The worst case scenario for him is that he'll turn his son into a scapegoat and throw him under the bus.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 12, 2017, 12:08:42 AM »
In contrast, Hillary Clinton actually accepted money from a foreign power for her campaign, which IS a crime.

A crank website claiming this doesn't make it true.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 11, 2017, 06:01:34 PM »
It's not Jared, it's Donald Jr.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13  Next >