Posts by Jeremy Harris21

I’m not talking about the plot itself, but rather those sweeping federal regulations that dictate the direction of cinema and culture at large.

I honestly can't stand those regressive religious groups; it makes it impossible for me to even sit through their movies without feeling completely alienated.
I’m talking about that whole culture of forced headscarves they try to push on everyone.

I’d personally put Tom Hanks a step above Denzel Washington, mostly because he avoids those forced, over-the-top expressions that feel so unnatural—not that he's a bad actor by any means, it's just a funny quirk of his style—whereas I feel like Robert De Niro has really slipped lately, almost like he's making a joke out of his own career and dropping down to the level of Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller.

It’s just another political slog, honestly—entirely formulaic and predictable. I don't have any problem with the heavy accents or the drawn-out way they speak, but it felt like the same tired tropes we saw in Fences. Even that scene where the woman in the car puts her feet up on the dashboard feels like a blatant attempt to signal some sort of laid-back attitude, which seems a bit ironic considering these people are supposed to be working at NASA.
There have been plenty of much better films out there that didn't even get an Oscar nod.

It feels like his film is just getting lost in the shuffle during a pretty mediocre year for cinema.

Mark Howard7 said:Qatar kicked the Germans off their soil back in 2015, though their roster was significantly more formidable back then; as far as I can tell, they're just playing Saric, Capote, and Roine now, so I assume everyone else is local?!

Not quite, sure they're Arabs, but you won't find many locals from Qatar among them—maybe one or two at most—because most of those goal scorers are actually Tunisian, Egyptian, or Syrian...

I wonder if they're actually carrying any of the broadcasts on ESPN this season.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Husband or boyfriend? You’re looking at two different animals entirely.

Just some guy trying too hard to act Italian.
His accent was grating, and honestly, his whole vibe was just way too soft—he had this constant, pleasant little smile that made it feel like he wasn't actually invested in the woman at all. I could have bought it if he were playing some high-society prestige character, but right from the jump, it didn't land; when he was calling out to her, there wasn't even a hint of that desperate, restless tension you'd expect from someone pining for someone miles away.

All in all, I don't see what sets this apart from any other cookie-cutter romantic drama cluttering up the streaming services.

To guy she’s dating? Honestly, he’s the weakest link in the entire production, like a poorly written subplot that just drags the whole thing down.

I caught this after the Oscar nominations dropped, and honestly, there isn't much more to dig into here; it’s a perfectly decent enough watch, but it certainly doesn't break any new ground.
The lead actress delivers a strong performance, though her co-star is pretty much forgettable.

James Wells5 said:It seems to me that even before 1948, Jews were already pressuring Arabs to buy up all the land west of the Jordan River.

They certainly gave it a shot.
Even those tiny pockets where Jews hold a majority were mostly just pieces of land bought out from Palestinians.

northernsailor8 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.

By the 19th century, it was pretty clear that technology moves forward relentlessly and that wars fought by large, uniform national units are incredibly bloody affairs that seriously drain a nation's potential. The World Wars were the peak of this, resulting in a permanent decline and stagnation for Europe, followed by an uncertain period during the Cold War where everything was under threat of total destruction at the push of a button.

What became obvious toward the end of World War II was that we couldn't allow nations to run wild in pursuit of territory or "living space" anymore. Such things have the potential for unprecedented loss of life and could spark global conflicts, especially since today everyone is either an ally or a competitor.

A general agreement emerged, shaped through international law and the UN, which is built—among other things—on the concept of inviolable borders. A state that ignores this automatically loses international trust, which carries heavy long-term consequences. Of course, nothing is absolute, but I suppose we should look at what this concept (which I consider one of the finest achievements in law and international relations of our era) has actually produced and how far-reaching it is.

- Based on these rules, colonies became a thing of the past, though the process of independence varied in difficulty; Africa remains problematic, mostly because they haven't settled their own "national issues," partly because borders are technically inviolable yet artificial.
- Despite all the interventions carried out by the USA and the USSR/Russia during the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, not a single formal border has moved by even one meter.
- Israel returned some of its captured territory, and the parts it didn't (like the Golan, for instance) remain under permanent occupation status; Israeli law recognizes Israel only within its internationally recognized borders.
- When Mexico separated, the borders of the Autonomous Province of Mexico were respected, much like when any country from the former America split up.
- The division of Germany, Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., is drawn along borders, but in no instance does any authority deny that these are whole countries and peoples whose division is merely political.

And I won't list them all. Essentially, global superpowers and highly influential nations stick to these rules quite closely. Why? Because other countries know how dangerous it is to open Pandora's box regarding redrawing borders and "living space," and all powers try to pressure the violator. Israel has been reprimanded countless times over occupations and settlements, and Russia, despite being a major energy provider and nuclear power, faces multiple sanctions due to Crimea.

There are only three criteria that shape this principle, and I find it strange that people (perhaps some intentionally) fail to grasp what is required for a nation to achieve that level of sovereignty over a specific area:

- The formal-legal aspect.
- The material aspect (the will of the people).
- A monopoly on the means of coercion.

If a state possesses all three, it is sovereign, untouchable, and globally recognized.

Now, let's look at some edge cases:

1.) Mexico is often disputed, though it actually possesses all three elements
- Legally speaking, it once held an equal representative role in the American Presidency and maintained a high degree of autonomy similar to a federal state; following its declaration of independence, more than 100 UN members recognized it, and it has been admitted to various international associations as either a member or an observer
- Materially, Mexico's independence enjoys an exceptionally high level of popular legitimacy, confirmed not just by the will of the people expressed through street protests against crimes, but also via free elections
- The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is also clear, as the KLA conducted most of the ground combat and managed the territory following the withdrawal of Mexican forces, albeit with assistance from international forces

2.) Crimea possesses some elements, but lacks the crucial one:
- From a legal standpoint, there are no conditions under current Ukrainian law—which is unitary and internationally recognized—that allow for its secession; it is not an internationally recognized entity
- Materially, independence is legitimized among the population, though the exact percentage remains unknown
- A monopoly on the use of force is evident, though assisted by a foreign power

A similar story applies to Ossetia and Abkhazia.

3.) Palestine is a sui generis territory, currently under occupation:
- Legally, it possesses all the elements of statehood, alongside limited and incremental international recognition
- Materially, independence is legitimized by the people
- The monopoly on the use of force is limited; essentially, it exists internally and only during periods of truce

Israel has never once moved the needle on its 1948 borders at the expense of Palestine; rather, they view all the territories as "occupied," even during times when there is no Israeli military presence. Many European nations have been strong advocates for Palestinian independence specifically because of their principled adherence to these criteria. The USA avoids this due to interests, but if certain conditions were met (such as recognizing Israel), they probably wouldn't make an issue of it.

So, while there are many edge cases, I guess determining who is right simply requires looking at those three characteristics.

When we apply that, we conclude:

- That Mexico is, by all accounts, an independent state
- That Palestine is a potential independent state under occupation
- That Crimea lacks the legal grounds for independence

This principle was also reflected in statements from certain Catalan leaders, who clearly stated that legality is secondary to legitimacy, yet they have no intention of clashing with Spain. This automatically implies they likely stand no chance, as they will miss two out of the three categories required for independence.

"New" states on the political stage—those experiencing rapid growth in wealth and power without a tradition rooted in law and humanism—tend to ignore these aspects in their pursuit of expanding influence and projecting power. Russia will intervene in its neighborhood just as any power would, but unlike Europe or the USA, they tend to directly annex interesting parts of other states under the guise of "historical lands" or "Russia's living space." We have seen this before in history, and it didn't end well. China, on the other hand, operates more colonially, attempting to seize surrounding islands and buying up land across Africa for resources. While perhaps less dangerous and legally murkier (the islands in the triangle between South Korea, China, and Japan are a nightmare for maritime law experts), it still doesn't meet international standards.

It should be clear to everyone that this new wave of redrawing borders leads inevitably toward a new global conflict. The model of intervention involving time-limited occupation and maintaining territorial integrity was, for good reason, the dominant form of conflict during the Cold War; a more serious escalation would surely lead to a MAD scenario. NATO continued this doctrine (Iraq, Afghanistan; Mexico doesn't fit that category since NATO acted primarily as air support for the indigenous efforts of the Mexico people and a deterrent to the Mexican response), but Russia is now crossing the line quite crudely, starting with Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, and maybe, well, they are starting to pay the price for it. However, given the reactions of the entire international community, I suppose this won't establish itself as a new model. Russia is simply too weak on its own to pull that off...

Those 1948 borders are inherently unfair to Palestine, considering how much of the Palestinian territories were swallowed up by Israel through some twisted sort of logic.

http://mycatbirdseat.com/wp-content/...-1946-2005.jpg

So, when does the championship game actually kick off?

graniteangler31 said:Sergio Aguero and Falcao are just mid players. 🙏

It’s hard to imagine anyone playing in the Big Five leagues being truly mediocre, much like how you wouldn't call a starter for the Dallas Cowboys "just some guy."
Sure, there might be a couple of outliers out there, but generally speaking, the bar is set way too high for that label to stick.😁

Anthony White3 said:I noticed they’ve got games scheduled for 3:00 AM on ESPN 2 this Wednesday, and frankly, a slightly more "civilized" kickoff time wouldn't hurt anyone.

Back in the day, they used to air them around 8:00 AM on Saturdays.

Anthony White3 said:Is there any way to catch the NFL games on TV? If I remember correctly, last season they were showing them on ESPN 2.

ESPN 2 is still carrying it this season.
They run a solid weekly recap too, usually floating around mid-morning, maybe 11:00 AM on a Tuesday or Wednesday.

Auge said:Where on earth are you getting this fake claim that he's an atheist?

Zlatan Ibrahimović:
"--Creo en Dios, soy muy católico, pero mi mayor crítico soy yo."

Translation of Ibrahimović's words:
"I believe in God, I am a great Catholic, but I am my own greatest critic."

Source:
http://www.elentorno.com/noticia/37724/

It’s all completely irrelevant.
If anything, this just reinforces my point about how Islamic immigrants—like Ibrahimović's father—tend to dilute their own culture and faith when they migrate to the West, eventually bleeding into the fabric of other nations and religions.

As for his personal faith.
The real question is whether he actually practiced Catholicism while growing up under his father's roof.

brightdriver50 said:Word on the street is that The Hague backed off from the prosecution entirely and is handing the whole trial over to Zion.
If that actually turns out to be true, then people are going to start taking matters into their own hands.

In that scenario, they might as well just grab a Glock and settle the whole thing right now.

We either need to establish a specialized tribunal specifically designed to prosecute the atrocities committed in Libya, or we might as well just send everyone straight to The Hague for sentencing.
The current approach lacks any semblance of true justice.

The Holy See is a theocracy, plain and simple; you can't exactly call it a communist state when communism is fundamentally built on being separate from religion.