illinilaw08

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Aug 22, 2017 -> 09:49 AM) As others have said, I think they really could have used another season. The pacing and timelines are a mess, they needed some space for background info to even things out. There were multiple episodes of build up to things like Blackwater and The Red Wedding so things were fleshed out better. Even season 4 where there was a ton of major events, things weren't rushed. To me, it reads like the writer's room starts with an idea for an epic moment (what if the Night King kills a dragon!) and then works backward to figure out how to get there. Feels like HBO got so much press out of IS JON SNOW DEAD that they are now prioritizing the headline grabbing moments over narrative consistency. The big moments are great. Some of the small moments are still great (I enjoyed the conversations between the magnificent seven). But we're clearly watching a blockbuster now, and it has been at the expense of the narrative.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 21, 2017 -> 09:05 AM) The banter between the Magnificent Seven was perfect. Agreed 100% here as well. Jenks is on fire today.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 21, 2017 -> 09:00 AM) I do agree that the rushed ending of these last 2 seasons is making characters like Bran wasted. He could be doing so much in the show to further plot lines, give history (and some really good stuff too) but instead every scene with him thus far has been wasted. Besides making Littlefinger uncomfortable, he's done nothing this season. Maybe that changes in the finale. I'm interested to see how this meet goes with Cersei. Even with the combined armies (like how much help does Cersei really provide anyways) I'm not sure how the army of the dead loses with the ability to take down dragons and now having a dragon. Sam, Qyburn, someone will probably come up with a just in time fix is my guess at this point. Yeah, I'm not entirely clear on the strategy with Cersei. Like, they need a cease fire so Dany + dragons can look North, but Dany could just do what Stannis did and, you know, go North. An actual battle with the army of the dead doesn't work unless and until you get to the Night King. Right now, any losses by the army of dead are offset by any losses in life on the side of men being raised as wights. What value does Cersei bring to the table (other than maybe the mad genius of Qyburn?).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 21, 2017 -> 08:20 AM) The post-book episodes have become a lot like Lost for me. At first the unknown was awesome and I couldn't wait to see what happened next. I tended to ignore and/or play down some of the details (like fast travel/time jumps) because it served the story. But now we're at the point where the wow factor is still awesome, but it's being seriously undercut by the ridiculousness of the plot devices to get us to the big set pieces. At the end of this I fear I'm going to think the same as Lost - the journey to the end was great, but man was the ending disappointing/underwhelming. Could not have written this any better. Sums up my thoughts perfectly.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 17, 2017 -> 11:49 AM) Yea greg, he loves statues just like he isn't racist Trump loves statues and monuments so much that he puts up monuments on his golf courses to Civil War battles that did not actually happen (as a reminder, this is a true story): http://theweek.com/speedreads/719014/remin...ent-golf-course

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Aug 17, 2017 -> 09:44 AM) It's shocking how many people still can't accept that they lost the Civil War. Nothing about it is American, what they're honoring is American traitors. We should get a Benedict Arnold statute to put with them, too. I thought this was a really interesting perspective about the lack of monuments celebrating the end of slavery in the South as compared to other countries in the Americas. Something I had never considered. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/8/16/...sville-virginia

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 08:13 PM) Winds of Winter will likely be out next year. Who knows if A Dream of Spring ever sees the light of day. G.R.R.M turns 69 next month and he may not be around if it takes him another seven years as cruel as that sounds. Regardless, I think the books will be radically different from the corresponding TV material. We've already seen a ton of differences and I think those will only get more pronounced as the stories approach their end games. We've been saying this for like 3 years. Put me in the camp that doesn't think we will ever see another book in the series...

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 16, 2017 -> 08:19 AM) Maybe, I think overall though people would agree that Youtube and Yahoo comment sections aren't worth much. This. Also, that's the type of thing that leads us to this (13 Alabama Conservatives' reactions to Charlottesville) https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...charlottesville

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 02:22 PM) Why don't we give him a chance to clarify his statement without five people jumping down his throat? Imagine trying to explain yourself when you have a half dozen people attacking you. That's my point here. The mob mentality doesn't add to the general discussion, it just creates unnecessary tension for the posters with opposing viewpoints. Rabbit literally just wrote this: "This isn't a socioeconomic argument. This was about genetics. Because of the behaviors of individuals in one isolated, desolate areas, their offsprings are genetically inferior." He's had ample opportunity to clarify. I've given him ample opportunity to clarify in my posts. He hasn't said, "You're right. It's a socioeconomic argument." He's argued - without any evidence to support the statement - that people in Appalachia are so inbred that they are genetically inferior.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 01:53 PM) I didn't say anything about financial circumstances. If you moved a grown up from appalachia to Chicago they would have trouble assimilating. Children are different. A lot of a factual arguments are "dangerous." We just have to think about who decides the parameters of what is dangerous for the people. This is what you said "Could a young person from the Ozarks or Appalachia leave and get raised by another family and turn into something? Yes of course. Is it likely? Probably not. They would be complete outliers."

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 01:44 PM) You were coming at me in caulfield's white privilege thread saying minorities don't have the same opportunities as whites. Now you're telling me the people in Appalachia, who are in a far worse situation than urban poor people, have just as much opportunity as Ivanka Trump. That kind of flies in the face of other opinons you've espoused. Nope. It doesn't. And a lot of people provided examples to you in that thread as to why it's an incorrect analogy. That's also not a road that we need to go down again. As to Ivanka Trump, I didn't say anything about opportunity. In fact, I have specifically stated that Ivanka Trump has greater opportunity than a poor person. It's just not because of genetics that she has greater opportunity.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 01:42 PM) Why don't you move your family there then? Where do you live? I am sure it's not a community where incest is normal and meth is passed around like beers on the south side. Socioeconomic issues breed issues that are perpetuated generation to generation. I may be blurring the lines between products of environment and genetics in parts of the diatribe but the point stands. I never said anyone was "better." Just more likely to have a productive and fruitful life or be a good mother or both. Of course, that's all subjective. Most posters I'd ask to defend their point but...yeah. Where does where I live have anything to do with this argument? I haven't for a second argued that Appalachia isn't a depressed area economically. You, however, stated that Ivanka Trump is genetically more likely to be a good mother than someone in Appalachia. You also stated that if you moved someone from Appalachia to better financial circumstances, if they succeeded they would be an outlier. I don't disagree with you that socioeconomic issues are perpetuated from generation to generation, and coming up with policy to break that cycle is difficult. And if you have, all along, been making an environment argument, I also don't disagree with you. There's a huge difference from someone being born into advantageous circumstances having a greater chance of achieving financial success, and them being genetically better than somebody else. My issue is with the continued argument that they are genetically superior. Again, that might sound like it's semantics, but that's been an argument that has historically been pretty dangerous.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 01:01 PM) The first paragraph is all fair and true. Second paragraph - spare me the holocaust/Hitler stuff. I was following you until then. It's absolutely ridiculous to make that leap and it's really embarrassing you guys think that is a proper forum of discourse. Not everybody you disagree with is racist or sexist or nazi. This is how the liberal base split because every normal person is tired of the everything is racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigot, etc. You personally are way too smart to argue on these type of cheap, intellectual-lightweight, low-hanging fruit talking points. I've seen enough of you to know that you can construct a proper argument on your own merit and intelligence - not that you need that clarification for me. "Slavery and Jim Crow were based on the idea that the black man was an inferior race." - Really? Not only is this irrelevant to the topic but doesn't everyone know this? That's like third grade history. Is it worth stating or do you need to state the obvious to virtue signal so everyone knows you're an awesome person. I made a convenient example. I said that the daughter of a model and billionaire real estate mogul has more potential in life and a better genetic pool than some young girl from the poorest, most neglected part of our country that is so removed from society that is riddled with incest, meth and crime. The fact that you guys have all aligned and grouped up together to dispute that is borderline lunacy. Could a young person from the Ozarks or Appalachia leave and get raised by another family and turn into something? Yes of course. Is it likely? Probably not. They would be complete outliers. These are the most removed and neglected people in our country. Yes, Ivanka Trump has more potential for a fruitful and productive life than all of them. Yes, she would be a better mother than all of them. That's common sense. If that makes me a dick, then I am a dick. I am not going to lie to show anonymous people on the internet that I am some moral beacon. Now if you said you wanted to change that and help those people change their lifestyle I would say great let's do it. I often wonder why there is no political movement to help those people. I guess they don't vote/fit into the identity politics game plan? Dude, I was trying to drill down on what your argument was. You clarified that it was the first part. The second paragraph pointed out that people have been using genetic superiority arguments for really, really bad means for centuries. The bolded is again just problematic language. Ivanka Trump doesn't have better genes than everybody in Appalachia. She was born into wealth and a world of connections. None of those are genetic. This might be semantics, and I understand (I think) what you are arguing, but the fact remains that the language of the argument has some bad connotations. There have been a lot of interesting policies in the West Virginia and other areas of Appalachia to try to engineer positive change. There is plenty of political movement in Appalachia. Like with a lot of poverty stricken areas of the country, the solutions to the problems aren't easy. Some examples can be found at the link below: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/...et-coal-country ETA: I just re-read your post. You are still making genetic superiority arguments. Why is Ivanka Trump likely to be a better mother than literally anyone from Appalachia? Why is it unlikely that someone born in Appalachia and moved to a world of wealth not likely to make something of themselves? There is literally no basis in science for those arguments. And those statements are where you completely lose me.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 12:03 PM) LOL. This ssubforum sucks. Given that I am a mod and I get all these DMs from posters bagging on the filibuster and telling me to keep fighting the good fight I would like to keep some balance around here but it's just not possible. I do wonder why these posters are afraid to post around here (hit me up and let me know, you guys know who you are, just cleared my inbox). It's certainly not that anybody would expect regulars in this subforum to be intolerant. But you guys got me. Just like the rest of them who have more discipline than me. It isn't worth explaining basic human interactions to grown men who ignore human nature so they can project their political platform of being self-righteous and holier-than-thou. Resume with the echo chamber. But you guys are right, Anna Nicole Smith really loved that oil tycoon prune and the duck dynasty guy will have a child that will go on to split the atom because we are all inherently equal and his father being a simpleton has no affect on his future. If you'd excuse me, I am going to go join the NBA to dethrone the Golden State Warriors because my mother's 5'1" height has no bearing on my future because we are all created equally and my lack of bone density that my genetics gave me isn't going to affect my future as an athlete. LeBron has no genetic advantage over me and implying such is racist or sexist depending on which filibuster regular you talk to. In parting, and in all seriousness, please don't let your masturbatory personal political beliefs invade your everyday life. There's a whole world out there that some seemingly haven't experience and perhaps experiencing some diversity and different types of people would do you well. We'd all love to live in a utopia world where everyone is exactly the same and dealt the same cards but that's not life. People aren't inherently flawless. People are inherently limited. People are self-driven. People are plagued by image. People are variable. I could go on all day. I just don't know where you guys spend your lives that you think stating otherwise is offensive. To be clear, none of this is personal to me - I would love to talk baseball with you guys where disagreements are settled with reason and this board is absolutely marvelous in its congregating. Rabbit, can I drill down on your argument here? If you are arguing that wealth and good looks make someone attractive to somebody else, that's probably not a particularly controversial statement. And on a person-to-person basis, genetics certainly play a role into whether, for example, I will ever be a professional athlete (given that I'm in my mid-30s and not particularly athletic, I would say I will not ever make that jump). If that's all your argument is - that genetics makes a person more attractive or more athletic, then I retract my earlier snark. Based on the response above, I think that's where you were going... If your argument is that Ivanka Trump has better genetics than a person in Appalachia because she's Ivanka Trump and they live in Appalachia, then you are arguing that the successful are genetically superior to the the non-successful. That's a pretty dangerous slope to get onto. I mean, not to Godwin this whole thing up, but the obvious example of why this is bad is that Hitler's platform was based on the idea that the pure blooded Aryan race was superior to that of the Jews or the Poles, etc. The holocaust was based, at least in part, on that idea of genetic superiority. Slavery and Jim Crow were based on the idea that the black man was an inferior race. To take your NBA example, there are thousands of athletes in this country with the athletic make-up to make the NBA. A finite number of them have the inner drive to refine their game, and the injury luck to get to that point. To take the Ivanka Trump vs. Appalachia example, Ivanka Trump was born with every advantage in the world - inherited wealth, a famous father. To argue that she is genetically superior to the person in Appalachia who was not born with those advantages implies that Ivanka's life has more value than the inferior person in Appalachia. That's why the statement drew a reaction.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) That's pretty common on a lot of dating websites. Therefore, as stated by Rabbit earlier, wealth is genetic!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 15, 2017 -> 09:57 AM) I was very surprised NK finally said something reasonable. I can't remembrer anything reasonable coming out of Kim's mouth before. Hopefully Trump's aggressive stance is, gulp, helping here? I really don't want to see nukes hitting Guam, South Korea, Hawaii and the US Mainland. It'll be the end of humanity. Greg, since the end of the Korean War, North Korea has, to some degree or another, threatened South Korea and the West with war. Since the end of the Korean War, we have avoided war with North Korea. Most foreign policy experts would attribute that to North Korea using threats to get concessions (lifting of sanctions, economic aid, etc.). And most foreign policy experts would tell you North Korea does not want all out war because that would be a surefire war for the Kim dynasty to be removed from power. In that light, it's not surprising that NK has backed off on their Guam threats. An all out war is literally the last thing they want...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 14, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) 62,984,825 Nazis, all of them. Even the African American and Jewish voters who voted Trump, Nazis. Statements like this seem to attempt to minimize the impact that Trump's anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric had in driving his support. No, there aren't 62M racists that voted for Trump, but there also aren't just 10,000 racists in the country (which was an argument made on Saturday in this thread). Ignoring the fact that Trump's early success in the primaries was built on his inflammatory rhetoric toward whole stretches of people is dangerous, IMO. Ignoring the fact that Trump remains popular amongst his Republican base - to the extent that 52% of Republican voters in a recent poll said they would be in favor of postponing the 2020 election if President Trump said so - is dangerous.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 14, 2017 -> 10:23 AM) Right. That's what I mean. The plan seemed uncontroversial when it's actually a really bad plan that risks losing your likely ally to the north all to get something that may, may get a temporary ceasefire that they are well positioned to get anyway. It's a stupid plan. By the time Jon gets north of the Wall, grabs a wight, and gets back to King's Landing, won't the army of the dead be at the Wall already? Wouldn't it be easier for Dany to just take King's Landing (something she's very well positioned to do) and then turn her attention North? Or to battle for King's Landing until Jon has a wight and then offer the ceasefire? Feels like a plan that exists exclusively to keep Cersei on the Iron Throne a little longer. Also, one of the many items of praise for early seasons of GOT was how it deconstructed fantasy tropes. I'm not sure there's anything more fantasy trope-y (real word) than a Fellowship of the Ring style quest north of the Wall. Fan service is, I think, the right word.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 12, 2017 -> 09:12 PM) Drawing the conclusion you just did in bold is just terrible of you. Almost as bad as saying 50 million + people are racists. How many racists do you know? I work with thousands of people every year in a very diverse field and I can't say I've ever met someone who I would characterize as racist. Not saying they aren't out there...but 50M strong? That's ridiculous. Most people are just trying to take care of their families and help out their neighbor. You made the 50M argument. No one else did. A white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters, and the President of the United States said both sides needed to cool down. Please continue to defend that.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 12, 2017 -> 08:16 PM) I bet there are less than 10,000 white supremicists in this country. Acting like 50 million people are white supremicists is a serious problem. A serious problem. The President of the United States both sides a white supremacist driving through a crowd of counter protesters. Don't try to defend that.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 12, 2017 -> 07:52 PM) My apologies. I took two months off the Buster because I was always wrong, I clicked again and the same s***. I'm out. Dude, in a recent poll, 52% of Republicans said they would support postponing the 2020 election because of all the illegals voting. But yeah, both sides. Also, after Trump's both sides statement today after a white supremacist ran through a crowd of people on the other side of the aisle... So... I'm not sure where SS is off base today.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 11, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) Your post makes it seem like this Guam thing is not a big deal. I am a little worried that Trump hasn't told all Americans who are not military to get out of Guam and South Korea. That's irresponsible to not get them to safety if at any minute Trump might order strikes that result in the decimation of South Korea and Guam. Everyone born in Guam is a United States citizen...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 01:33 PM) There is no chain of command. He tells somebody to fire the nuke at Guam and they fire a nuke at Guam. He tells them to fire a nuke at mainland USA, they fire a nuke at USA. If they don't, bullet to the head. SS's point is that this is the same system the US has. President Trump can unilaterally decide to fire off a nuke at North Korea at the drop of a hat. There is no chain of command.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 01:23 PM) According to this, they never really honored the deal, and the whole thing was based on Clinton and his admn believing that the NK regime would topple once Kim-Il Sung died. Proving once again we have, at best, an unreliable intelligence community or at worst, a poor one. So keep blaming Bush, Republicans in Congress or whomever, but that wasn't a deal that was going to last anyway. They were dead set on getting a nuclear weapon and we let them. They are currently dead set on building a global delivery system and we're letting them. I still tend to think that Jong-Un (and Jong-Il before him) want nukes as a deterrent. In 50+ years of tense standoffs with South Korea, they have never launched all their thousands of artillery at the South. If we expect Jong-Un to act rationally, then he wants the nukes to deter any idea of an invasion because he can create a ton of destruction with a push of a button. Whoever you want to blame, the US's options were diplomacy and sanctions, or war with North Korea. In light of the massive cost to rebuild the Korean peninsula, and the cost in lives lost, both in North and South Korea, I don't blame any American leaders for continuing to push a diplomatic solution over a military solution. And honestly, I think that's still the right course of action today, even though North Korea has a nuke. Using that nuclear weapon will destroy their standing with China, and it will lead to NK's immediate destruction. As a brief aside, American foreign policy since the Korean War makes a pretty compelling case for countries like North Korea to pursue nukes at all cost as a deterrent. Does the US invade Iraq if Iraq already has the bomb? What does our relationship with Pakistan look like if they did not have nukes?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) Unless you are Korean, but that's cool. They don't count. Apparently you don't consider South Koreans to be Koreans? Because they will bear the brunt of the immediate casualties in a war. You also haven't responded to whether you think that the US should be invading every country in which people are being killed by dictators. So... unless you think the US should currently be invading a dozen or more countries (at least), then forgive me for not taking your "won't someone think of the North Koreans" as a basis for invasion seriously. ETA: And when that war destroys the economy on the Korean peninsula, sure seems like millions of South Koreans will either die or have their lives ruined.