Y2HH

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 07:12 PM) Look in the mirror. Enjoy your s***ty movie. But at least it's dark. Yeah, you just got owned, now tuck tail and run, little boy. Or, back up your RT amazingness and explain Crystal Skulls astoundingly high consensus rating...or The Dark Piece of s*** Rises, for that matter, because in your own words, "LoL, it's a census of 100s of critics."

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 11:15 PM) Anybody worried about Zika virus? Problems in Florida but virus has been discovered in almost every state in the USA. Is this the big one? Or not. Worried? Or not. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/health/cdc-m...ning/index.html No.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 06:43 PM) LoL, it's a census of 100s of critics. Movies are subjective but it's a pretty good gauge. LOL, condescending asshats, I know exactly what it it's supposed to be and how it works. And at one time, it WAS considered a good gauge, but it's really not anymore. Of course, you and others can use that magical creation called Google and research why, but of course you won't. You can always tell when the problems are arising when fan rankings begin to differ so drastically from "the experts" on movie and video game review sites. Critics used to be actual experts like Roger Ebert...they're now just people who post enough on the internet to be called a "Top Critic". Here is how it's done: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what%27s+wrong+with+r...toes+reviews%3F Here is a DC based film highlighting everything wrong with Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/ The Dark Knight Rises is arguably the WORST of the trilogy. It's a flat out bad film. Every time you watch it, it gets worse. Yet somehow, that abomination is rated as 87% favorable. That CANNOT happen on accident. There is NO way that many "critics" reviewed that movie THAT favorably outside of a hive mind mentality. And that's just ONE example out of many. This horrendous Ghostbusters remake being another glaring example. So, please, let's s***can the condescension as if you're in on some grand Internet secret about how Rotten Tomatoes works, and pretend like you and Sqwert are going to "school me" on it. EDIT: Because I like to pile on, here's another great one: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jo..._crystal_skull/ 77% for Crystal Skull. In a movie where Indiana Jones survives a nuclear blast because he locked himself in a refrigerator and the monkeys in that one scene had the same "hair style" as Shia LaBoof or however you spell his name. Because that's amazing cinema according to the "consensus" of RT.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 12:36 PM) Not successful to the standards WB held it. It's still disingenuous in either regard. DCU printing money -- as in profits -- just not as much as their greedy asses wanted or estimated. That's like saying Google (DCU in this instance) isn't successful because it doesn't make as much money as Apple (Marvel in this instance). They're both very successful, one just more so.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 12:25 PM) So you don't want DC being...successful? The dark tone of Batman vs. Superman was dreadful. Wonder Woman and Justice League trailers looked like they'll have dark tones, but not so dark that you just get depressed watching it. It IS successful. You and others can keep crowing that it's not, but it is.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 12:20 PM) Seriously. They need to start over. Again. No, they don't. I don't want DC being another Marvel. As of late, I've disliked every Marvel film that's come out. I like the darker tone of DC movies and I hope they stay the course. These are the same critics that gave that piece of s*** Ghostbusters a near 80%. f*** Rotten Tomatoes.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 01:06 PM) I am late to this argument but I feel like basically everyone on the right completely and maybe deliberately missed the point of Michelle Obama bringing up slavery. That wasn't a pessimistic statement at all, it was the polar opposite. She said "this house was built by slaves and now I, a descendant of African slaves, live in this house with my two black daughters, look at how far America has come in two centuries." That's a statement that has real, tangible emotional impact on black viewers, and it was bewildering to see people questioning or criticizing it afterwards (this should be common knowledge!). This is what I got out of it. She was pointing out progress. Again, this goes back to something I said earlier...people will see what they want to see, not necessarily what is. If you have some reason to hate Michelle Obama, odds are you're going to take this in a negative way...same goes for those with a positive view of her, anything she says they'll look for the silver lining to defend it.

I'd just like to point out that Bill O'Reilly is innocent and the smear merchants on this website should be ashamed of themselves.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:21 AM) What liberal here pretends they're a centrist? For that matter, what conservative here does? I sure don't see myself or alpha trying to claim that label. Most of the people on this forum. You may not claim to be 'centrist', but you claim to be rational. And as far as I'm concerned, if you stand staunchly on the left OR right, you aren't rational. You're voting records would prove that, too. And I don't mean the bulls*** voting records people claim to have, but their real ones. As an example, I know plenty of people that claim Trump is a moron and they won't vote for him. They're going to tell people they voted for Johnson, but I know for a fact they're voting Trump. I also know quite a few secret Clinton supporters doing the same thing...after Sanders was out, they claimed Johnson or bust...but I know they'll vote for Clinton when it comes too it. And until the day they die, they'll deny it. As another example, anyone that claims Obama is a centrist, doesn't know what a centrist is. Obama isn't a centrist in any regard, not in his supreme court nominations thus far (mayyyyybe his last one, but he only did that because he knows it was his only minute shot at even getting it through, which didn't happen anyway...but sotomeyer couldn't be more leftist), and not in policy. The ONLY thing he's done that's centrist was the ACA and that wasn't because he wanted too...it's because he HAD to compromise it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:21 AM) Looking at a single sentence and whether or not that single sentence contains factual statements while ignoring all other context is the problem. Why Bill O'Reilly was trying to bring up that 'fact' (which is false) is just as important as whether or not he was even correct. There are lots and lots of facts someone can bring up in relation to any topic, and why they choose to bring up a specific fact (or non-fact in this case!) and when they choose to bring it up is also part of the question. What liberal here pretends they're a centrist? For that matter, what conservative here does? I sure don't see myself or alpha trying to claim that label. I won't refute this, however, I think it's you that's ignoring context here. You're seeing exactly what you want to see. I see the context as O'Reilly just stating what he believes is historical fact about a very specific thing. He's not the one stretching it to "all slavery", which is exactly what you're doing -- and THAT is what's out of context.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:09 AM) I think he also made those comments because Michelle Obama brought up a really ugly fact about America and O'Reilly is someone who thinks that America has never done anything wrong. So he has to be like "look it wasn't all that bad". Again, I don't think he feels America has never done anything wrong. This is another example of what I'm talking about. He defends America on a few things, so that obviously means he believes America never does anything wrong. Bulls***. He made a rather simple claim as far as I'm concerned, and all I care about is if what he said true or false? The question is this: Were THOSE specific slaves [those that built the white house] treated as he claimed? That's it. That's the only question. If yes, then he's not wrong. If no, then he is. Period. But stretching it beyond that to "making excuses of slavery" isn't what I see happening. It's the simple matter of, in that specific instance, is what he's saying true or not? Don't look beyond that question. This is the problem with this country today, it's all black and white, apples or oranges...there seems to be no room for shades of grey anymore. Anytime I see a leftist talk, they talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and as I've said many times, they aren't. Anytime I see a rightist talk, they also talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and the same holds true for them. IE, just because THOSE specific slaves under a very specific scope of work for the government were treated somewhat better, doesn't mean ALL slaves were treated somewhat better, or that slavery is suddenly ok. Why the f*** can't people just be rational anymore.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:00 AM) He was historically wrong about that specific group anyway, but why bring it up at all if he's not trying to lessen the impact of what Michelle Obama was talking about? He's a conservative political commentator attacking a political enemy, not a history professor trying to provide some (incorrect, as it turns out) subtle nuance to a complex scenario. Keep in mind that even if he was correct about the level of food and quality of housing they were provided, his statement still only serves to say "well, these people held in chattel slavery didn't have it as bad as these other people held in chattel slavery." That's downplaying it, full-stop. How is this incorrect? Posting a link to thinkprogress to back up your incorrect claim is like me posting a link to fox news to back up O'Reillys.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) If he's not trying to down play the horrors of slavery, what is he saying? What point is he trying to make? Looking at that video, I think he's just reporting on that specific circumstance and those specific slaves that Michelle Obama talked about. I don't think he's saying this applied to all slaves, or that he's even downplaying the horrors of slavery.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:53 AM) Listen I won't insult your intelligence by throwing around racist loosely. The guy is a bonafide f***ing racist. Do you want me to post links to his time he went to a black owned restaurant and said "I'm surprised they can be so civil?" Or the time he had a black professor on tv talking about the war on drugs and said to the scholar that he looked like a cocaine dealer? Yeah f*** him and everything he stands for. I think I've seen both of these. That doesn't make the label mean anything to me...people have abused that label to the point I just disregard it now. It may be true, it may not be...I wouldn't be surprised given he's a rich old man (isn't he nearly 80?) and comes from a bygone era, hence his audience is nearly all 60+.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:47 AM) You do realize Bill O is a giant racist turd? Sure his words might have been taken out of context but I don't really give him the benefit of the doubt when he's trying to make a statement about race. No, I don't know that. Especially today when the "racist" word is thrown around to the point it means nothing. If you're a white male that isn't a total left leaning snot, you're instantly labeled a racist. I don't know if Bill O'Reilly is a racist or not...if he is, f*** him, too. But I can tell you as a pretty anti-government (be it left or right), I've had the label applied to me simply because the leftists I know are very quick to judge others in this regard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:45 AM) I'm seeing a man downplaying the horrors of slavery by claiming, incorrectly, that they were "well-fed" and were given housing. It's what people trying to downplay the horrors of slavery frequently try to do. He's making basically the same argument as this guy. I'm sorry if you don't see it, but at least realize that if at any point in a discussion about slavery, you pipe in with "but at least they were well-fed!", you're going to look like a dumb asshole at best. No, you're seeing what you want to see. He's not claiming that "all slaves" were treated this way. He's also not downplaying the horrors of slavery, either. You also don't have to apologize to me for not seeing something that isn't there. You're a typical political ideologue. You'll see evil when and where you want to see it...so long as it's on the right side. (IE, not your side.) Just like the right often do with the left. You're part of a very dangerous issue in with this country right now. You're all or nothing left...you claim everything you think is centrist (it's not), and you claim everything your leftist party does is centrist (it's not). The retard right is guilty of this same s***, too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:36 AM) O'Reilly decided that doubling down on "but the slaves were well-fed!" was the best course of action (not only is it pretty disgusting standard slavery apologia, it's also factually wrong) You're taking what he's saying and drastically oversimplifying it. Again, wasn't his point at all. And Thinkprogress is doing the same thing you are. Edit: When I watched both of these videos, at no time did I think "he's defending slavery" or saying "it wasn't so bad". You're simply seeing what you want to see.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 07:09 AM) Greg, you nicely block trolls from this site thus fulfilling a vital roll. Your posts can unite liberals and conservatives, Cub fans and Sox fans. When you take an interest in a forum, reponses jump through the roof. You are not afraid to make the really incomprehensible, no basis in reality comment to keep the discussion moving. Four of you would make this unreadable, but you entertain. I just wish at some point you will drop the charade and post as yourself. I'm guessing you are really a very bright person because it would take someone really smart and clever to keep up this facade. I also believe you really are a liberal because you set up so many paper tigers which in the end make Obama, Hillary, and the rest of the Dems look good. I have tried to write this without any hint of sarcasm. It is my current assessment after reading so many of your posts. That is soooooo spot on. I've noticed this, too. He's like our Stephen Colbert (the character he plays, not the actual person).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) Bill O'Reilly, slavery apologist https://mobile.twitter.com/politico/status/...122869880659969 That's not at all what he was doing.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 05:44 PM) Madness. I don't know what to say or think anymore. I think it's obvious civilization is in a rapid decline. Whether we ultimately destroy ourselves is anybody's guess, but I think it's coming. There's going to be a massive poisoning of a drinking system or simply nuclear bombs being lofted all over the globe. Evil people are winning right now and must be stopped. Oh look, it's Mr. Positive giving us his positive thoughts of the day. These are new thoughts, mind you, not like yesterdays, or the day before that...or the day before that...or the day before that. These are completely new.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 09:17 AM) Gen Z. Of course... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z#..._range_defining Most define Gen Z stopping at 2010 -- only one person extends to to 2025, which is simply not realistic....that's wayyyyy to big of a date range for a single generation.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 08:58 AM) Maybe some were but the first round of boomers gave birth to Gen X. Boomers (1946 - 1964) --> Gen X (60s - 70s) --> Millennials (80s and 90s) My parents are boomers, I'm Gen X and my kids are millennials AKA Gen Y. Parents boomers, I'm Gen X, but my kids are both 5 and under, so they're beyond Z or something. I think Gen Z is defined as being born in the mid 90's to mid late 2000's...as both my kids were born after 2010, I'm not sure they have a generational definition yet.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 9, 2016 -> 11:21 PM) Minnesota police are tear-gassing people Sat night at 11 and trying to break up the protest which has marched to I-94. A Highway. Here's my stance about protests: The people are ON THE f***ING HIGHWAY. If you are gonna protest on a freeway and impede the lives of others who want to use the freeway, sorry protestors you deserve to be arrested. GO AHEAD and protest all you want ... in a safe spot. Do you soxtalkers agree with me on this?? Sitdown on a freeway?? I say you should be arrested if you are f***ing sitting on a freeway. Finally I also am against marching into the Taste of Chicago and yelling at people. I feel if you do that you SHOULD be arrested during the protest. Tourists and fellow Chicagoans alike are trying to enjoy an event like the Taste and should not be harassed during such an event!!!!! Comments? I agree simply because of the danger it poses to both the protesters and others. I fully understand they want to be heard, which is the point of protesting, but there has to be a time and a place, or consequences may be at stake. Forgive me for sounding callous, but if I get on that freeway expecting clear traffic in some sort of an emergency situation with no way out and my kid is in the back of my car bleeding to death, call me a selfish son of a b**** if you will, but a bunch of people are about to get run over.

These don't look at all related.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2016 -> 12:59 PM) Oh hello, you must be new to the Buster. Ok, ok...checkmate. Well played.