Peter Thompson4 said:There's Brewbites over in the suburbs if you're planning on catching a bunch of games in a row.🤷
It gets pretty crowded there during the big matchups, I guess. Plus, they really tempt you with food, which isn't exactly cheap. Maybe it would be better to just grab a seat somewhere in downtown Chicago.
Jeremy Hall4 said:So, I guess all of Semenya's results could just be wiped out since the whole debate about testosterone levels isn't even settled yet?
That seems unlikely. I suspect they'll probably find some middle ground where everyone stays happy, though it might feel a bit hollow to the fans. Honestly, I'm not really sure why women are even competing in the 800 meters at major championships anymore.
I don't think these movies are even similar, so the comparisons and voting feel a bit off to me. I guess you could pick any two random films and start a thread like this if you wanted to.
lonebadger6 said:That’s somewhat accurate, which I guess is my main issue with doping. There seem to be so many gray areas and inconsistencies. It's obvious that those caught are often dodging the truth, but I always think about that young gymnast from Romania who got suspended just for using nasal drops for a cold. Sure, she might be telling the truth, or maybe she isn't, but the mere fact that a single drop could trigger a positive test suggests the system is a bit flawed.
When I say "somewhat," I also mean there is a massive amount of allowed chemistry out there. Honestly, everyone uses it. I have an example similar to yours, but much more high-profile involving two of the greatest American athletes ever; I actually know someone from their inner circle. They rely heavily on chemicals. Allowed ones.
But obviously, nobody reaches the top level on nothing but cheese and onions, no matter how much the media likes to claim our athletes are just naturally gifted.
That all makes sense, and anyone following sports closely knows that the money involved today is so huge that people will fight for victory by any means necessary. But honestly, if someone has been caught and sanctioned twice already, they shouldn't be in these competitions. Gatlin's first penalty was for amphetamines, where he claimed during his appeal that it was a prescription for "attention deficit disorder"—that made-up condition that the American pharmaceutical industry makes billions off of by targeting children. I mean, Gatlin, a grown man, claiming he has attention deficit disorder like he's in preschool? It seems unlikely. He strikes me as a real fraud and quite unscrupulous, regardless of the fact that he is naturally fast. A total liar. If they could strip Armstrong of everything, then they can certainly do the same to him.
rowdyorca92 said:Yeah, Gatlin ran a 9.70 on something, while Bolt did a natural 9.58. Honestly, let's not be sheep; anyone competing at a world-class level right now—whether they're doing the 10,000m, sprinting, shot put, javelin, or long jump—is likely using performance enhancers. It seems like everyone is involved, no exceptions. Professional sports just don't exist without doping anymore. 🤣 🤣 🤣
edit: I am actually really happy Gatlin won. You have to respect that kind of grit and willpower—coming back after a four-year suspension to dominate the scene for another decade... the celebration was just the icing on the cake.
Well, let's try to be realistic here. Even if we look past the fact that Gatlin was caught twice, and assume everyone is clean just to focus on the clock, the numbers tell a story. Bolt clocked a 9.95 yesterday, which is easily his worst 100m final time ever. Not just his worst, but a full 14 hundredths slower than his next worst. Last year during that mediocre run in Rio, he hit a 9.81. Gatlin took gold with a 9.92, which under normal circumstances might be enough for Bolt to be finishing his victory lap while the rest of them are still crossing the line. I guess this head-to-head loss is entirely on Bolt because he showed up half-prepared, assuming he even needed to compete at all after Rio. He probably pulled in millions from sponsors, and maybe even some under-the-table deals from organizers to ensure he made an appearance.
Maybe Usain Bolt shouldn't have even stepped on the track for this one. He only came to run the hundred, and honestly, he doesn't look ready at all. It’s kind of tough to watch him struggle like that, I guess. But I suppose that's just how it goes—in sports, nobody stays at the top forever...
It's a shame Coleman didn't take the gold. I can't wrap my head around that ridiculous decision, and I think he deserved every bit of the boos and heckling he's ever faced.
Paul Rogers94 said:even within those surreal fantasy creatures, there's more or less a classic drama about unrequited love (say, between members of rival species) blah blah. Basically, the movie consists of drama which is always the same or just variations on a theme in any film, set against various backdrops—whether it's some looming catastrophe (like a comet, war, or different historical or future scenarios). Plus, those surreal creatures are so heavily anthropomorphized that they don't really differ much, at least regarding their needs, from "real people" today. The drama is always existential and always the same; movies that truly break away from shallow, boring human nature and its usual clichés are actually quite rare.
That’s absolutely true; the core plots in movies are always the same. I guess silentridge3 is asking why filmmakers today pour massive amounts of money specifically into films that wrap those same old plots in fantasy worlds. Why does today's generation seem to prefer fantasy over the real world? Is it just a passing trend, or are there deeper reasons? You could also ask why previous generations mostly remember and use mafia movies or real war stories as their benchmarks. I think it's pretty clear that a movie like > wouldn't be made the same way it was 30 years ago. I don't mean the technical side, but just the acting, the publicity, and the overall impact on the audience. There isn't an investor today who would produce it that way; the film industry simply isn't that kind of medium anymore. Who goes to the theater for a four-hour drama these days? You might find some people, but there isn't a critical mass to make it an economically viable machine. That's why we have festivals or retro screenings; those are niche areas that are practically separated from the mainstream multiplex machine.
If you look at it strictly from a business perspective, movie theaters today are expensive to equip and aren't found in every small town. Also, the films shown in them are pricey to make and require expensive tickets. Anyone looking to make money through cinema has to offer a product specifically tailored for high-tech theaters. That's where fantasy films come in, as their production can offer that audio-visual "wow" factor. Back in the day, people could easily watch Westerns in small-town theaters because they were simple productions that an average viewer could enjoy anywhere just the same.
Hey guys. Thanks for the suggestion on what to watch next; it’s been a while since I sat down with "Waterworld." I remember back when I was a kid, people were totally bashing it in advance, mostly just talking about those massive production budgets (back then, $200 million was a huge deal for one movie, whereas nowadays it seems like every mediocre flick costs that much). From the last time I saw it, I recall it being a pretty interesting piece of work.
I agree, it feels a bit unfinished. I guess since the story spans so many years—with his kids growing all the way into puberty—it might just be a bit much to squeeze everything into a two-hour runtime.
ruggedjackal46 said:A nation is often a reflection of its public squares.🙏
I mean, really? Is there truly no figure in American history—local or national—worthy of having a plaza named after them? "Republic Square"? That’s the absolute peak of their creative intellect?
I guess Barcelona fans wouldn't mind much, since their city is graced by Plaza de Catalunya. It might have been a funny little joke if they’d named this one Plaza de Catalunya too, just to show how much our city follows La Liga.
I'm planning on heading to San Diego this summer. The area is great, though I guess it might be better to avoid the absolute peak of the season. It can get a bit crowded with all the tourist crowds. If anyone is looking for more of a wild, natural vibe, I suppose going to the islands or further south might be the way to go.
Dangerous in what way? I guess the current administration was just as problematic, if you think about it. It all feels like a bit of a circus, really—it’s basically whoever plays the game better. I actually voted for the Bridge Party, and their ministers seemed like decent people who would do a solid job during their term. But they tried to play politics, and now they're out of the picture. I don't think we should turn nothing into some big myth. The Bridge Party is just one party with its own members and representatives, all following their own goals and ambitions. If someone wants to actually change society, I suppose they need to hold positions where they can make an impact. Politics in democratic societies is a bit of a double-edged sword: on one hand, it's this endless battle full of low blows, but on the other, it's supposed to be a fair game where the people choose what they want (assuming there isn't any rigging, though it seems like things have been pretty straight since those first few elections). In the US, they spent months attacking Trump, but he ended up winning anyway. The campaign was almost a joke, and the debates weren't much better. Out of 300 million people, you end up with two deeply disliked figures left in the race. Is it really true that out of all the top talent in America across every field, only those two are competing for the throne? That's just how politics works, I guess. Anyone wanting to succeed in the political arena probably has to be ready for dirty tactics and compromises. In high-level politics, it's not necessarily the most moral person or the one with the purest ideals who wins. Maybe it's just whoever gets the most votes. As for where the Bridge Party stands now, and where they'll go next, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see at the next election.
Amanda Evans2 said:There you go again, shining with insight. So, I suppose it’s better that they quietly tolerated corruption just to stay in power? You really have a knack for using thief logic, don't you...
Just playing the "greater good" card again, are we? Typical...
Yeah, because this will definitely impact corruption—something they haven't even tried to prove or investigate. It's funny how the opposition handles things, though, with all those people who basically just sit around doing nothing.
They used to have four different departments and a Speaker of the House to manage, which should have kept them busy for four years, but now they've got nothing left to do. I guess the Bridge Party really pulled off quite a feat there.
I guess Milanović is someone who talks quite a bit. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be much of a results guy. He doesn't really acknowledge the issues facing America, which makes it pretty tough for him to actually find solutions for them. He isn't unintelligent—he probably understands the numbers okay—but maybe there's just too much mental resistance to seeing the bigger picture.
As for Bernardić, I'm speaking purely from memory based on his media appearances. I realize that sometimes, because of certain people within his own party, he might have to say things he doesn't truly believe. It seems similar for Plenković; he also has to walk on eggshells regarding certain topics.
Anyway, the Democratic Party seems like a group only really older folks would vote for, mostly because they lean into those collectivist social justice tropes. During the last election, I saw one of their posters over in Brooklyn featuring Stipe Mason. Stipe Mason in late 2016? That was a bit of a joke, I suppose. 🙂
James Anderson5 said:Look, let's be real—I think we're both right here. Both sides are acting pretty much the same way... though personally, I'm really not feeling either side...
A preferential interest rate isn't exactly a crime, but approving a $45 million loan through the Federal Reserve is another story entirely. Since he was the chairman of the board at the Federal Reserve, he would have been briefed on every single one of those disbursements. No sane American bank would have handed out a loan like that to any subsidiary of Walmart back then, especially when everyone already knew the money wouldn't be paid back...
It’s the exact same story with Dalić—it's a total conflict of interest. Her husband sits on the board at ExxonMobil, where his interests are basically the polar opposite of what's best for America... you can see it from the view up in an airplane...
Not to sound biased, but the whole situation with Vrdoljak, those contractors, his wife's company, and Duke Energy is just as terrible...
It's all just typical American business...
It seems hard to escape these kinds of situations. We're a relatively small country, so I guess it's quite easy to find someone's family member working at a firm, which then leads to accusations of a conflict of interest. I'm not trying to defend anyone, but that's just the reality. Besides, "conflict of interest" is a pretty flexible term, almost like the definition of bribery. At the end of the day, it all comes down to whether someone decides something is appropriate or not. I've actually taken courses on this, and you eventually realize it's entirely subjective. When you add politics into the mix, it becomes even more prone to manipulation. As soon as this happened, the man seemed to be very careful with his words, trying to handle the situation as best he could. But then you end up in the hot seat where people like Pernar and Morris, or any other figures looking to score political points, decide your fate. Whether someone belongs to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party doesn't really matter; I don't think institutions should be torn down just because someone thinks it's politically convenient right now. Maybe the Bridge party could have handled all of this behind closed doors, but they seemed to prefer the theatrics. I voted for them because I wanted them to do their jobs, and just a few weeks ago, I was actually writing on Offside Chat about how some ministers were doing a decent job. But it looks like playing to the crowd is more important than actual work, and as a voter, I guess I can't tolerate that, so I'll probably give my vote to someone else.
restlesssurfer97 said:I gotta admit, I spent way too much time yesterday watching what was going down in Congress (and honestly, no one’s giving me that time back), and even though it pains me to say it, that guy from the fringe party absolutely shredded them. Biden's performance was on a whole different level compared to everyone else, and he actually showed some backbone, proving he's got what it takes. The runner-up for me was definitely Yellen.
Look, sorry, but all those conspiracy theories floating around claiming Yellen is somehow related to Trump or that she was specifically put there just to bail out Walmart... man, that’s some straight-up lizard people nonsense right there.
Walmart has been expanding and dominating through pretty much every administration we've had in the US, and it just so happens that Yellen is exactly who the Treasury Department needs right now, serving as Secretary (because let's face it, that's the only way to actually pull the strings) to step in and save them. Yeah, sure, keep dreaming.
To me, Yellen seems like one of those rare, genuinely decent, level-headed, and capable people, and honestly, we could really use more folks like her.
As things stand, this administration is headed for a collapse, but I’m just not seeing what the Democratic Party stands to gain from all this since they were the ones who kicked the whole thing off—I don't see how they benefit from calling for snap elections.
I agree with everything you said. Some people are just too blinded by jealousy or preconceived notions to see the truth. Personally, I don't have any issue switching which party I vote for. Once the Democratic Party puts forward people that folks actually know and trust, they'll have my vote again. I have some colleagues who are members of that party, and when I see what they're posting on Facebook and the world they seem to live in, it's pretty clear I don't relate to that at all.