Posts by Morgan Rodriguez57

Ashley Rogers4 said:Well, it really depends on how you define democracy. At its core, democracy can just be rule by the mob—and honestly, we've seen that play out far too many times already.

A constitutional democracy is all about the rule of law, where the rules apply equally to everyone. That is exactly what the USA is. It's just that the radicals and the local traitors are working overtime to spin it as some kind of sacrilege.

I totally get why they do it, though. It’s their way of trying to strip away the power of the system (even if it also strips away the strength of their own arguments).

You might want to brush up on your history a bit—in the US, the whole system is actually designed to keep the general public from having direct control over the government, basically ensuring that power stays within the hands of the elite... it’s not even a secret if you look into books about the American electoral and administrative systems...

The American setup actually shares a lot of DNA with the Roman Republic—and even then, it was arguably much more democratic back then (with the tribunes and the comitia)—though it’s a stretch to call Rome a true democracy by today's standards... 😉

Kudos to the actors, they really gave it their all, but honestly? The movie itself was just a mess—the script was weak and the directing left a lot to be desired... 👎

I mean, sending him to represent us at the Oscars would have been an absolute embarrassment... gosh...

Ashley Rogers4 said:Look, the way this system is DESIGNED, you just can't fix it from the inside using peaceful democratic ways. It’s just not happening.

The only real way out is a total overhaul of the Constitution—changing the entire structure of the government. We need to STRIP away the power of the POLITICAL PARTIES to rule OVER the people. We need something like what they have in the USA, where the PEOPLE actually hold every politician "by the throat" and make sure they're answerable to their local communities.

Complete privatization of all resources, slashing bureaucracy down to almost nothing, capping taxes at a level where we only pay off debts, implementing basic labor laws, setting up dedicated labor courts, passing laws that make private property absolutely untouchable, cutting social benefits to a bare minimum (so nobody's just living off someone else's hard work), total freedom of trade and labor, and some serious vetting... honestly, it sounds like science fiction.

It'll happen in New Jersey in a month.

OR—we go the violent route, which is really the only option left for Europe.

OR—we get displaced all across Earth, which, let's face it, is already starting to happen.

There just aren't any other solutions.

And you really picked *that* as your example... if there's anywhere lacking democracy, it's definitely the US... 🤣

nimblemarlin6 said:I look at "Odyssey" as some kind of... super-film. (Not sure if that’s actually a term, but you get what I mean) It’s one of those things where I honestly don't know how anyone could ever make anything better than "Odyssey" using the medium of film.
"Odyssey" is just fundamentally superior to any sci-fi shot after it—it's just a shame that instead of showing us a possible future, it feels like it's depicting a parallel universe that we were unfortunate enough to miss out on.

As for historical movies: I think they’re really just various genres where history serves as nothing more than a backdrop.

We have the romances or the action flicks where history is just a stage for adventures, vendettas, and all sorts of schemes. Think "Cleopatra," "Gladiator," "King Arthur," or "Shakespeare."
In those cases, I can tolerate inaccuracies—like all the stuff people point out regarding "Gladiator."
(Just like how you tolerate impossible physics in an action movie.)

Then you have the dramas set in the past. When they make those, they actually try to get everything right. Those are the "real" historical films. I’d put "Master and Commander" or, I don't know... "Spartacus" in that category. With those, historical inaccuracies are EXTREMELY annoying.
(Similar to how car chases or reloading errors would bother you in a standard modern drama.)

Finally, we have the historical fantasies—where all you need is a bit of magic for them to be full-blown fantasy—like "300," "Pathfinder," or "10,000 BC" and things like that. In those, historical errors can slide by easily. As long as it doesn't get totally ridiculous—you know, like Roman legionnaires showing up with muskets.

Wait a second here... 👍

I’d really love to finally sit down and watch a true historical film... 🙄

silentpilot6 said:I don't want to be nitpicky, but even the legendary Roman Empire (my all-time favorite series) is full of historical inaccuracies... though, on the flip side, they really did put effort into the big details, so I have to give them credit.
Gladiator 😂 — look, it's just a movie. It isn't bad, but its connection to actual history is about as strong as my late grandmother's understanding of computers 😁... does that take away from the experience? For some people, sure, but not for me. When I actually want to know how things truly happened, I’ll watch a documentary or pick up a book 👍; movies are primarily meant for entertainment, nothing more.

And honestly... I couldn't care less what someone who has zero interest in history thinks about Commodus or the Roman Empire after watching Gladiator... it doesn't matter.

In Rome, the timeline of events gets a bit scrambled at times—probably just for the sake of the drama...

there are those horrific massacres (Cleopatra), then there are the slightly less intense ones (Brutus and his crew), but seeing an old Roman stove or something colorful that looks more like cities in India with sewage cisterns, finally showing the true fighting style of a Roman legion, or seeing something that actually resembles the ancient Roman collegia for the first time... 🙏 👍

Joseph Lee3 said:...Woody! 😁

Thanks, goldeneagle2! 😍 (my absolute go-to when I need a deep dive into history, politics, social dynamics, or—most importantly—ancient Rome!)

I’d throw a few more critiques into the ring: first off, Commodus actually ruled for thirteen years and was considered a fairly decent, even popular, leader by many. The movie completely flips the script on that reality, shrinking his reign down to just a few months solely to manufacture a believable motive and turn Russell Crowe’s heroism and martyrdom into something legendary.

Then there’s the wardrobe; the court costumes feel like a messy, eclectic mashup of drapery from maybe three or four centuries later. Also, if we're being pedantic, statues during the Roman era were always vibrantly painted, not the colorless white marble we dig up from the ground today.

That’s probably all I can think of for now...

Let me keep going:

- There wasn't any doubt that Commodus would succeed Marcus Aurelius: the son was already a co-emperor...

- Commodus didn't kill the old emperor

- It was a crazy slave who killed Commodus

- They really messed up the whole situation with Lucilla and her supposedly late husband...

- The names: Gracchus, Cassius... they could have been way more creative...

- Stirrups? That's like two or three centuries too early...

- Cavalry using the gladius? No way... cavalry used the spatha, which the infantry didn't even start using until years later...

- The Senate fighting for the rights of the people? That's just laughable...

- Only the most clueless people would ever think an emperor would want to bring back a Republic... the Republic had been dead for ages and nobody wanted to revive it... Americans—well, the Romans—were already used to the Empire and had zero interest in the kind of anarchy that destroyed the Republic in the first place...

anti-Catholic propaganda 👎

I’m honestly kind of over him at this point—it feels like every new movie he does follows the exact same pattern, using those same old tropes and facial expressions... He and Al Pacino are basically the same story now... They just don't seem to push themselves anymore, they just go through the motions, do the job the old-fashioned way, and call it a day...

hollowsailor19 said:Blue Velvet is a perfectly serene movie right up until Frank Booth (Hopper) shows up and completely shatters the world. He’s easily one of the most depraved psychopaths ever put on screen, with a terrifying obsession for torture and violation.

Se7en – you've got this mysterious killer stalking people based on the seven deadly sins, but the sheer brutality of his methods—like hacking off a hand or delivering a severed head in a box—is just absolute madness.

Schindler's List features one of the most monstrous villains in cinematic history, Amon Goeth.
It’s honestly one of the best performances I've ever seen; in my opinion, Ralph Fiennes was robbed of an Oscar for this.
He tortures and kills with such calculated cruelty that you can't help but loathe him. A prime example is
when he orders the execution of an innocent woman, and even after realizing she wasn't actually guilty, he just shrugs and says: "Kill her anyway." Pure evil.

Unforgiven – watching Morgan Freeman get whipped to death is brutal.

Misery – what is there to say aboutAnnie Wilkes? Once you see that movie, that name is going to haunt your thoughts for a long time.

And I'm with you on Reservoir Dogs, Saw and Marathon Man.

oof, man... 🙏

wearytinker8 said:We're talking about "Collateral" here. "Collateral Damage" is the one with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Now, "Collateral" isn't actually bad—it's pretty tense and all... But as the movie starts winding down, Tom Cruise begins picking up some serious "The Terminator" vibes; he's just mowing through people like it's nothing, the militia can't touch him, he takes a bullet to the neck and still refuses to quit his mission, jumping over trains just to get to his target... It feels a bit silly...

P.S. That woman at the start of the movie isn't a business executive, she's actually a District Attorney.

Man, who can even remember all this stuff... 🤷

Collateral Damage

It starts out so promising—you've got this great little romance brewing between a business executive and her cab driver—but then everything just goes completely south once some guy like Jack Nicholson rolls up in the taxi... 🙄

A real woman's movie... but in the best way possible... 🙂

Man, I can never bring myself to watch a movie from start to finish—I always end up jumping in somewhere around the middle... 😠

Just a total flop... 👍 🙏

You're a Southerner!
You are from the most beautiful part of the US, have an amazing culture, everyone in the world tried to take you over somehow, you have the most beautiful ocean in the world right in front of you and you love it so much!

well... 🙂 😎

Jacob Allen said:..honestly, I feel like the Vatican Secret Archives or some high-security government files are easier to get into than this politics subforum... and the moderators? They're like.. Marines? Semper Fi? ..is there some kind of secret initiation ritual involved over there, maybe some fancy wine or something..? do they at least get a pension and a company car when they finally retire from moderating? 😁

no company car, I guess I'll have to buy my own... 🙄 😁

Michael Adams2 is just a desperate forum dweller first and foremost—everything else comes after... and honestly, someone like him shouldn't have been given any moderator duties to begin with... ☕

Jacob Allen said:..I mean, how can you not look back and compare this Forum to how things used to be? Especially when you think about how people like vienna, pollux, or even Maria Barnes used to moderate things—plus a bunch of other names I can't quite pull up right now... It’s actually pretty fascinating to watch how a Forum evolves over time. There's something really interesting about comparing the old days to what we have now—especially when you look at the quality, the humor, the coherence (which, let's face it, is one of the most common things people nitpick here), and just how clearly thoughts are expressed.

Regarding the whole thing about coherence and how people express themselves... honestly, it doesn't have all that much to do with the specific moderators... see, there was a time when places like Newsy were actual hubs for high-level discussion and swapping ideas—almost like the digital successors to those old-school BBS boards—but nowadays, you mostly just run into the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel content... new era, new crowd, I guess... I'm not trying to bash anyone specifically, but just a few years ago, the internet felt like it was reserved for an "elite class"... today, everyone and their mother is online... and I don't think if 😎 and 🙂 were the mods, they could really change the fundamental DNA of the Forum...

So, I was just wondering... is there any way I can get those unattached posts to actually show up for me? 🙂