15,951 Forum Posts by "aviewaskewed"
At 12/29/14 08:50 PM, TheMaster wrote: Then give us the American Dragon instead of smiley happy Bryan for a bit, he's super versatile. The loss of one of the best in ring talents on the planet, especially at his age, can't possibly be a good thing.
He's one of the few talents WWE hasn't completely ruined. Losing him would be a bad blow whether you like him or not.
Fingers crossed all the foreboding tweets and Edge retirement promo replays are just the set up to a swerve and he's entering the rumble instead.
I hope so too but all the reports I've been hearing since he went out are not encouraging.
In other news, that Ryback promo was boss. Fucking love the big guy.
It was a real good promo but I dunno that this guy can be the three dimensional character they're hoping for. Loved having BNB back though.
Nice to see people taking an interest in trying to improve the level of discourse in the poli forums. Been thinking of trying something like this myself but always shied away because I thought it would be doomed to just come off as me putting on the authority hat and everybody then thinking I was just going to dictate to them. That being said, I'd like to just do a couple of quick "housekeeping" notes on this because some concerns have reached me and then I'd like to share a few thoughts and concerns with you as I think this could actually turn into something more for the poli community as a whole and not just an attempt to create debating standards.
What this is NOT:
1. This is not some sort of drafting of poli forum specific rules. Only the mods and the admins can do that and we have absolutely no intent to do that at this time. So anyone coming in here and thinking "ZOMG! More rules I'll have to learn!" relax, no, it's not that in the least.
2. This is not an excuse, nor will it be tolerated for anyone to use this thread as some sort of "safe zone" where they think they'll be able to flame, harrass, or otherwise put down the debating skills, personal politics, etc. of individual users. You do that, as always, at your peril.
What I'd like to see this thread do for the community:
1. Address issues and things about the poli forum and it's members (be general, don't use names, let's stick to behaviors and bad habits without bringing individuals into it.) that people think are a problem.
2. Address perceptions of elitism of the poli boards to the rest of the BBS. Because I honestly think this has always been an issue for this board, it's always been tightly knit, always been kind of the "elite smart guys" and honestly? There's just not too many of them around these days and new blood is rare and we really should encourage that for the health of this section. We're sort of an odd ball on NG, kind of like C & C is.
3. Help mods and staff understand how best to serve the needs and interests of the regulars on this board. Because I gotta say, it is a tough line for me a lot of the time as to how best to be an effective moderator, and also to enjoy and just hang out in this community as a regular. I'm not always sure that I'm serving what you guys want and what the section needs. The feedback I get in that regard tends to be fairly extreme in either positive or negative poles. So hey, help us help you!
That's about all, I don't really have much to add to the debating section since I think that's all been pretty well taken care of above. I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions some people are bringing to me, and also try to helpfully and hopefully expand the scope of things so that maybe we can all benefit and have a better experience when we're in poli.
back on topic. Stop flameing SadisticMonkey and he'll stop flameing you. If either side doesn't do what I am sure you all can do, then I can always make it stop myself. This topic already probably could have been folded into the "let's talk about the police" or the "race relations" one but hey, it's Christmas time and I'm feeling generous. But my patience has limits. Get back on the topic or lose the topic.
At 12/25/14 11:24 AM, darkjam wrote: Ummm, reports say that TASM2 barely grossed profit for Sony.
Total or domestically?
Unless it was wrong, Spider man is useless to Sony right now,
Useless? You seem to be under the impression that the only value in the license or the films are what they do theatrically. You're forgetting ancillary rights like product spun off from, sales of television and other broadcast rights, distribution and foreign distribution rights. There's still a lot of money that comes from the films. Not to mention they are still in the process of making another 3 or more films.
but it's the only thing that's giving them profit in all fairness so I guess they will hold on to it for a while.
It's not the only thing making them a profit, but it is a big money maker and the public still loves super hero films. However if Sony continues to not have much success making these themselves then I think it might be time for them to get in touch with Marvel again and really try to hammer out some sort of sharing agreement where Marvel does the actual production and they somehow split the profits.
At 12/23/14 12:04 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Who or whom are you talking about?
Most of the people who've responded to this thread so far with nothing substantial. Just a lot of biased sources (if they source anything at all) reductions to "well, I'd talk about it if only the dick heads on the other side would too" and similar crap that just makes me despair at how the political process will play out for years to come.
At 12/22/14 08:02 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It takes two to fight a war. And only one side is fighting.
it's not even a "side". You have one guy with a history of violence who committed an extremely violent crime then tried to apparently justify himself and wrap his death in some imagined glory by killing two cops and saying "this was for Eric Garner". Anyone who actually gives a fuck about it is out there exercising their right to protest or doing other things to try and draw attention to the issue and spark a national conversation on race and try to change what they feel is unjust.
But yeah, why focus on that when we can just sling mud, point to radicals and idiots and say that's the norm, and just prove how shitty and immature we can be.
I've met Tom Fulp. He's amazing. Very wiley though....he cannot be pranked by your average mortal.
At 12/21/14 07:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Strange how people like you are oddly silent when black people routinely make comparable claims about the entirety of 'white people'.
So, two wrongs make a right? If others act badly, it's cool if I do the same? Seriously dude. Do you understand how immature and unproductive that sounds?
Stop with the flames guys or I'm locking this thread and handing out bans. Most of the last page is just two or three people ripping each other either completely off topic, or barely on topic. No more.
At 12/19/14 05:06 AM, Amaranthus wrote: So, they'll be showing Gotham here soon. And I was wondering if I should give it a shot. I didn't really like Agents of SHIELD. So I'm not sure if I'd enjoy this show.
I've enjoyed Gotham, it's not really a "comic book show" it's more about a good cop trying to navigate through a completely corrupt system. I also think Agents of SHIELD has been very good since The Winter Soldier turned it upside down.
At 12/18/14 08:53 PM, Shauna wrote: Just so everyone knows, it wasn't just Sony's move on canning the movie, it was movie theaters that backed out one after another, which then led to Sony scrapping it for good.
That's valid, if there's nowhere to show it, you clearly aren't going to recoup anywhere near as much sending it straight to DVD and VOD with the star power they involved.
I'm also going to be the devil's advocate here and say that this was just a really terrible idea right from the very beginning.
Probably.
A couple of clowns making fun of North Korea and depicting Kim Jong UN being killed on screen was quite possibly the last thing the world needed.
Nah, there's a lot of shit WAY higher on my list for "last thing the world needed" vs. a comedy that probably wasn't going to be very funny about how the CIA is kind of suck and the American media being opportunistic and stupid as well.
I think that's really the issue there, I think it would have been fine if they portrayed Kim Jong Un as a human being and at the end of the movie he sees the error of his ways, opens up his country, and has a big dance party with lots of weed and liquor with Seth Rogen and James Franco and Justin Bieber for some reason and all's well that ends well and South Korea's like "hey you got room for one more in this party of yours?" because it's a comedy.
No....the issue to me is that a backwards, failed dictatorship that hangs on by a fingernail and is ONLY taken even a little seriously because they bought nuclear tech and scientists to build a bomb or two that can only threaten their neighbors with the aid money the UN sent them and the incredibly dangerous "we'll work and sell for cheap!" mentality that's cropped up after the collapse of the USSR among it's satellite nations, is able to continually throw what amounts to a hissy fit and people still cave to their demands. THAT is the real issue here for me.
But instead they just kill him. That goes beyond being a simple comedy, that's a move on the political chessboard, especially when the State Department gave the movie a green light http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-sony-emails-allege-u-s-govt-official-ok-d-controversial-ending-to-the-interview.html
What? You mean to say that the same government who's openly condemned NK or years while simultaneously handing them money to shut up and not behave badly wouldn't have a problem with a film where it's leader is killed gave it the ok? I'm shocked, I'm disheartened, I'm....not surprised in the fucking least. Un is weak, Un is not loved by anyone in NK at all. This is the weakest that regime has ever been and I think that's the real reason for the attack and all else. Because Team America which was essentially the same thing was released without an eye blink from these guys....but Kim Jung Il was much more secure on the throne then Kim Jung Un is....so really, I think NK is a bit more telling in where they are in the political chess game then the US is here.
I know "1st amendment" and freedom of speech and all that, but just because you can say or do something doesn't mean that you should.
This isn't "1st amendment" as has been pointed out because it's nothing to do with the government. A corporation made a product, as you pointed out they ran into a problem with retailers who didn't want to sell it. The corporation also perhaps saw potential issues of liability if they continued to sell the product. So, the corporation decided to pull the product and no longer try to sell it. That's what happened. The only dimension you can reasonably add to this is the aspect of terrorism and giving in to terrositic threats.
You're free to draw offensive pictures of Mohammed and to yell "GOD HATES FAGS" outside of the funeral of soldiers, and it's all protected under freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that it's a positive contribution to the world.
The Mohammed thing was not as cut and dried as that. Especially since that didn't happen on American soil. The asswipes of the West Borrow Baptist Church are (fortunately, many of them are leaving and realizing the shit that church is). You need to be clear on what you're talking about and how to compare apples to apples.
At 12/18/14 11:28 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Why? That's stupid.
If it's so obviously stupid, perhaps you could explain that with more then a sentence?
Guys, let's play nice please and thank you. You're just making a bad situation worse if you antagonize each other.
Russia is a very worrying situation, about all they can do is sanctions and pray. I just don't see any easy way out of this mess for anyone, and Putin knows it.
At 12/17/14 02:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: My thread here and we are now on the topic of how America has transformed into a Welfare Bums paradise.
No, we don't get to just change a thread's discussion on a dime. You want to talk about that, you make a new thread. You also stop calling people trolls immediately, we've discussed that shit in the past. Locking this since you are saying you no longer are interested in discussing privatized policing. Please feel free to start a new thread about your new subject though.
Edit: Seems like some people DO want to continue discussing the main point, is that right? I'll leave this open as long as that is the case and just delete any off topicness from here on out. If you guys feel you're done with this, then I'll just lock it back up. Let me know, or just keep posting about privatized policing and that'll also inform me.
At 12/15/14 12:58 PM, NekoMika wrote: "Here, watch what made us great.... while, we continue to NOT do what made us great anymore."
What kills me is they're always quick to point out what WCW did wrong (and they're right on every thing they point out) but then THEY are doing that exact same stuff now. Vince needs to step away from the creative process, he really does. Just take a sabbatical from it for like 6 months and let Triple H try it. What's the worst that can happen? Oh right, maybe it'll turn into that terrible show down in Florida....
The old man needs the old heave ho.
At 12/16/14 01:48 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Who the fuck is jumping to conclusions.
You.
Obama's welfare state,
Explain what you're talking about, then prove it with legit sources.
his medicare disaster,
Same as above.
crime rate etc are all out of control.
Blaming the national crime rate (crime is actually down in most major cities by the way) on the President is stupid for about a thousand different reasons that should be obvious to anyone who can spare even a little bit of time to really think about the issue.
At 12/15/14 09:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: According to your ideal the USA does no harm and no president has ever violated anything. Take another sip of the government koolaid and have a seat while the free thinkers move forward.
lol. Took you a whole month to come up with that drivel huh? You also (again) didn't answer a direct question posed to you.
At 12/10/14 11:47 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: theres a thread for this
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1374877
I agree, this doesn't need to be by itself.
Is there anything actually political to discuss here? Or are we just going to discuss Russell Brand and why he does/or doesn't, suck ass an actor/human being?
At 12/10/14 09:23 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Funny how you don't say the same to camarohusky for his idiotic claim that I "blame black people for all the world's problems".
First off, don't use a reply to me to screw with cam or anyone else. Go do that in a reply to them. Thanks.
Next, you make a lot of statements about black people that are inflammatory and you seem to think they are somehow inherently inferior or defective as a group so....yeah, I don't all the way agree with what Cam says, but I don't think he's totally off the mark either.
No, it's not. Non-progressives largely are willing to talk about race. progressives believe that white people "don't get to decide what's racist or not" and other such garbage that excludes them from the discussion.
Thanks for proving my point. You are impossible to talk to about this like so many others because you make blanket statements that the other side is unwilling to talk and pre-suppose all their arguments and then dismiss them. The problem with such statements is what I pointed out earlier, if I can find even one person from that group that proves you wrong, the assertion falls apart. I'm progressive, I'm willing to have a serious discussion about race, but you don't seem to want to do that. You'd rather just insult those that disagree with you instead.
No, you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Enlighten me then, maybe without being an ass.
The fact that white people receive less jail times than blacks is literally claimed to be an example of white privilege (even though the gap is non-existent when you control for previous crimes).
Source for that being one of the claims, source for your gap is non-existent claim. I claim white privilege exists on the grounds of things like this: Caught a headline in the NY Post the other day where cops had to shoot a killer after trying to talk to him and get him to surrender. Eric Garner was choked to death because he was talking to some people after breaking up a fight and they alleged he was selling cigarettes. The difference here is not just the level of offense, but that the killer was white. Seems to me the fact that he was white entitled him to more of a chance then Mr. Garner on the surface. But it could also be those cops were better trained then the ones confronting Garner.
I mean, look at the example camaro gave. Blacks being racially profiled by police.
Because they are, all minorities are.
No, it's not. Women will be more scared of men walking behind them at night than women, which is clear example of anti-male bias.
Yeah, it is. Because the man represents a clear and realistic potential for threat based on factors that are easy to quantify. The example with blacks isn't so much because that is purely down to racial profiling and stereotyping. If you honestly don't understand that, I don't know how we'll find any common ground to work from.
Anecdotes are not evidence,
It is, it's just not considered reliable, but it exists.
and once again the same can be said about how women treat men.
No the fuck it isn't man! Men are physically stronger, men are more aggressive, men are more likely to be criminals. There are legit reasons for the woman to be nervous about the man, there's none that aren't based on prejudice for the white man to be afraid of a black man. It's apples to oranges.
And more importantly it doesn't explain how this affects black outcomes.
It doesn't? Then you clearly don't pay attention.
I'm talking about social interactions, not what some racist cops who may or may not exist do.
I was too. You seem to have just zeroed in on the cop example.
And once again, blacks commit more violent crime than anyone so receive more police attention, just like how males get more police attention than women for the same reason. Guess either the people crying about 'racism' or the prople crying about 'sexism' must be wrong because their narratives are colliding.
Source?
1. I don't have all day to refute everything he says so i refuted the most obviously false one.
Cop out. If you don't want to reply to the whole argument, why get into it to begin with?
2. Pointing out that i didn't address everything he said doesn't mean that my refutation was invalid.
It however does go towards the way you debate and how honest it is.
That's one hypothesis.
It's pretty well proven so....I'd say it graduated to "theory" by now.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable
u illiterate brah?
dictionary.com didn't have it. Guess I should have double checked. My bigger issue with is is that it cuts really close to proving a negative.
No, I don't mention my views on WHY because that's a different discussion. We're talking about white privilege, which is meaningless if the decisions aren't the same. The basis for decisions is a different topic.
We're talking about race relations in the US in this topic, so to me it shouldn't just be about whether or not white privilege exists or not. I see that as a very small (perhaps even insignificant) part of the larger discussion.
At 12/10/14 11:46 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: This describes billions of people in the world.
Thread isn't about the world, it's about Americans. So that's what I'm speaking on.
Nonsense to try and derail.
Let's stay on topic please. I'm happy to talk with you about on topic points, but I'm not helping you derail a thread.
At 12/10/14 10:47 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: As I said the people don't get a say on important political and social decisions rather they elect a pre approved regime to make all of the important choices for them.
Define "important political decision" because you just completely sidestepped what I said, especially the "public referendum" part. Unless it was a case of you just don't know what that means. Which was it?
If they had the time ... which they don't they cannot debate semantics and opinions with the people as that is not a part of their duties.
There are petitions, they have email addresses, regular mailing addresses. You can make a point if you want to try is my point. Hell, even just simply vote against them if you don't like their ideas.
At 12/10/14 12:31 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The US is not a participatory democracy it is a Republic. Unfortunately the masses do not get a say in any important Political or social matters.
Because remember kids, elections don't happen, public referendum doesn't exist either. Heck, you can't even simply contact politicians about issues that effect you! lean is right, I hate it here....
At 12/8/14 09:41 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Again you have turned this into an NGS vs leanlifter1 debacle.
Lol, I'd be flattered you think I have that kind of power if I wasn't completely sure it isn't true. Nobody is responding to anything I'm saying but you brother. Yes, some people are saying the same sorts of things I am, but that's only because as I keep saying, you read part of an article (or so I believe anyway) misunderstood what the rest of it was saying and drew a conclusion then said "hey this source backs me" but truth is, it doesn't. All I'm saying is "look, you made a mistake, we all do it, just own up and let's move on". But you don't seem to want to do that. I really don't know why.
At 12/8/14 08:11 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: "WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order intended to ensure that law enforcement agencies that receive military-style equipment from the federal government receive proper training, White House officials said Monday."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/ferguson-white-house_n_6249422.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
We can interpret the information given however we choose I presume.
No we can't, because if you read beyond that first paragraph, if you read the article they link to in that first paragraph about the executive order then you see that it's very specifically targeting equipping and training law enforcement on the body cameras. It mentions nothing else, and the executive order is about creating a funding program to help pay for a certain number of said cameras. This is the whole problem with you. Instead of saying "ok, I made a mistake, I should have read that more clearly, my bad", you just double down on your mistake and dig your heels in. You want this story to be about the unstoppable sinister hand of this President strengthening the police to take your freedom away and there's not even smoke let alone fire to that assertion. With all respect: You're just plain wrong on this one.
At 12/8/14 01:50 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Claiming that congress will not give the police more money for training and equipment upgrades is dubious at best. Saying that the Police won't take it is idiotic ...
Read your article guy. Because again, this is about giving them body cameras, body cameras are the ONLY thing being cited. The funding and training is for the body cameras. Police don't necessarily want them because they say it's distracting (but it can also make them have to do their job better, corrupt cops will hate this shit for obvious reasons). Congress may not fund it because it's predominantly conservative and has been obstructionist to pretty much any Obama policy. This is NOT about training them to be better cops, or give them better overall equipment. It is merely to ADD and TRAIN them on a SPECIFIC SINGLE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. So yeah, that is why I'm skeptical.
At 12/7/14 11:08 AM, NekoMika wrote: Who knows? I've not seen him on WWE since shortly after he stopped working with The Miz. Hopefully they give him a new gimmick to work with that suits him better.
I think he's a straight up announcer now.
At 12/7/14 08:35 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If they accidentally murder a criminal every once in a while, I am okay with that.
who decided this person was a criminal? The cop at the time? That's not how the justice system in this country works. One is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Even if a cop comes upon somebody in the act of committing a crime, their job is still to apprehend the individual, bring them before the court, and have them prosecuted. They do not get to skip to the sentencing phase and impose their own rules upon the person in the moment. There's a huge difference between an unavoidable killing in the act of performing their duty, and just flat out murdering somebody, or killing them accidentally due to poor training.
At 12/7/14 10:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Regardless of your opinion ... Personal opinion of me or what I state ... the fact is this order will get passed MARK MY WORDS !
Of course it will, executive orders are like that....the POINT I'm making is you didn't properly read what it says or what it does. It'll get passed, and then will probably amount to nothing because he still needs Congress involved. He also needs police departments to opt in. You're seeing the sinister overbearing hand of government where it isn't because you didn't read the article properly. That's all I'm saying. That's all I'm going to say lest this turns into another long drawn out thing where neither of us is satisfied with the outcome.
At 12/7/14 10:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.
Right....but the article that you linked, says that Congress still needs to approve the funding for it....it also states that Obama is simply ordering a reimbursement program should police departments CHOOSE to opt into the program. They still have the ability to say no. So here is what I think happened. I think you read the headline, you maybe read the first paragraph, assumed you then knew what the article was about, and posted. Because you are missing a LOT of relevant facts and again, nothing I'm saying here is from anything other then the article YOU linked to. You are now sitting here disputing your own source my man.
