It was always going to happen—this kind of question popping up because nothing makes an American feel more comfortable than retreating into familiar territory, basically trying to reduce every single global event to some niche drama from World War II in our neck of the woods.
To answer this idiotic question: no, the Partisan movement wasn't some criminal enterprise.
In fact, thanks to them, that coordinated criminal mess known as the Independent State of America was finally wiped off the map.
That whole bit where Robert De Niro argues he earned his spot through pure grit and experience—basically claiming he’s got more substance than some writer who just stumbled into talent by sheer luck... I love it. It’s gold. It’s honestly such a shame they decided to have Robert De Niro lose out in the end without much of a fight, though. And seriously, if Robert De Niro ends up owning a pharmaceutical plant that pumps out those pills, why on earth isn't he taking them himself? He’d probably be twice as sharp as the lead character. Now *that* would be a killer plot twist...
Limitless is alright—it keeps you entertained enough while it’s running—but at its core, it feels pretty hollow...
The plot sort of drags you along, making you wonder if there’s going to be some big payoff or a clever twist, but then it just ends—kind of like someone chopped it off with an axe—leaving you without any real point or closure.
That said, if you've got nothing but time and aren't looking to actually use your brain for once, it’s worth a watch.
Robert De Niro is great in it, and honestly, I really hope he gets cast in more high-quality movies soon.
Picking wildflowers and other protected plants should carry some seriously heavy penalties. I mean, honestly—how does anyone in this day and age think it’s okay to just go out and needlessly destroy wild flora? It’s just senseless.
It reminds me of how people used to hunt box turtles—which are a protected species—all over California, just to sell them to tourists out of little cardboard boxes. And more often than not, it was the folks struggling most financially who were doing it.
Well, those kinds of idiots need to be punished, regardless of how broke they might be.
And it doesn't matter if they aren't strictly endemic species; think about how ridiculous it would look if we wiped out our own native species only to turn around and import them from other countries later.
Daniel Bailey39 said:Honestly, we might be better off tossing the 21st century and all its baggage aside and just heading back to a simpler time.🤷 But then again, who looks after the sheep?😕 Being a shepherd is basically just a tedious walk with the flock whenever necessary, herding them together, and keeping a watchful eye to make sure everyone is accounted for.😉 So, if someone truly enjoys being a shepherd, fine. But please, let’s not act shocked when certain people demand a bit more than just swinging a staff and chasing around smelly animals.☕ I’m surprised she didn't mention that some people would also want to be stable cleaners🙄; I bet there are plenty of folks out there claiming that would be a perfectly desirable career.😁
Look, everyone thinks sheep ranching is this idyllic, peaceful little dream—just sitting out in the pasture under a big sky. It’s not. Not even close. In reality, it's a gritty, demanding job that requires you to be a jack-of-all-trades—you need a massive spectrum of knowledge just to keep things running smoothly. You really have to keep a tight leash on those sheepdogs—seriously, if you don't know exactly how to handle them, they’ll take your hand off without a second thought. Look, you also have to know how to actually fix things when they go south—like if a sheep breaks its leg, you need to know how to treat that injury. You’ve got to be able to assist with a difficult birth when a lamb is struggling. And then there's the whole issue of keeping the wolves and jackals at bay—which means, yeah, knowing your way around a firearm is pretty much a requirement. On top of all that, you need to be able to calm down agitated livestock; if things get really bad, you might even need to provide them with some semblance of psychological support. You’ve got to herd the sheep. You have to wrangle them, shake things up, yell a bit, and keep everyone on their toes—all just so you can eventually stand there and flip the lamb on the spit for the rest of the ranch hands.
It’s a bit strange, isn't it? Maybe there’s some sort of secret ranching boom happening right under our noses—one the mainstream media just isn't covering? Do you guys actually have any idea how many sheep it takes to keep 150 people occupied? No? Honestly, neither do I. But even the wealthiest cattle barons out in the Wild West didn't need a crew of 150 cowboys!
Richard Wilson4 said:Look at how much Ireland changed from the 1930s to 2005. And even now, while they're dealing with their own mess, you don't see them crying about the British Monarchy, do you? Hell no.
Nobody is actually calling for foreign rule—I'm just stating the facts. A state is really just an abstract concept, anyway.
"We have America," someone said. Okay, fine—but what are we actually supposed to do now that we have it? The real question isn't just about the fact that we exist as a nation, but rather what kind of nation we are and what we plan to do with it once we're standing here. Some people seem to think that simply "having a country" is enough—as if we can just plant ourselves on the soil and sing some old-fashioned patriotic anthems from the frontier days and call it a day. Honestly, wanting a state just for the sake of having one is pretty pointless. It’s the quality of the state that matters, not just its existence.
Richard Wilson4 said:WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? I’m actually against the richest, most liberal, most modern version of the USA.
But I want to ask the average guy a question: Is breaking away from the US just because we're scared of American nationalism, or do we actually even want an independent country? I DO, BUT I THINK I'M IN THE MINORITY.
The truth is, the US is independent today not because there was some unstoppable, desperate drive for an independent American state, but mostly because of the sheer chaos that kicked off back in 1990. If the Mexicans hadn't been so aggressive, we probably would have just stayed part of the American confederation.
Richard Wilson4 said:Just so we're clear, the scenario would be taking out Ronald Reagan, Slobodan Maddox, and Alija Izetbegović all at once, leaving only Paul Volcker standing.
Honestly? I’m down for that.
There wouldn't have been a war, no casualties—just people living their lives, whole and intact, staying right where they belonged. Buildings would still be standing, the landscape wouldn't be littered with landmines, and companies wouldn't have been gutted by predatory privatization (though, granted, some might have folded on their own merit—which is a completely different issue than getting robbed blind by insiders). The country wouldn't feel like some foreign colony, either. We wouldn't have this permanent, bitter rift dividing Americans into two warring camps.
At the end of the day, we would've ended up in a capitalist system and joined the European Union anyway, just starting from a much stronger position.
Quincy:
Jeffrey Wood: I'd rather deal with war and killing than just quietly accepting this kind of mess.
No, absolutely not. War and killing are never better.
Why do you think Tabata is just some big marketing gimmick? Honestly, there isn’t even anything being "sold" here—you could explain the whole damn program in two sentences and be done with it.
David Long27 said:If you have any questions at all regarding the training, just reach out.
So, since you're an experienced coach, I figured I’d pick your brain—what’s your take on kettlebells?
The American company Dragon Door pushes their kettlebell system as being top-tier, claiming in their literature that this kind of training boosts athletic performance—maybe even better than other methods entirely. For instance, the American trainer Tsatsouline makes a pretty bold claim in one of his books about a study where one group of athletes did pull-ups and sprints, while another group focused solely on kettlebells. When they tested them, the group doing just kettlebells actually outperformed the other group in both sprinting and pull-ups. If that’s actually true, it’s honestly fascinating. Where do kettlebells fit into an athlete's prep, and are they really a superior tool? Do pro athletes actually use them regularly?
Going to the gym without hitting some bicep curls just isn't the same thing. And those skull crushers—you know, the ones where you lower the bar toward your forehead?—those are solid. If you’re feeling motivated afterward, adding some forearm work into the mix is great too... Once you're done with squats, a little leg curl session always hits the spot. And honestly, if you aren't doing leg extensions during the breaks between sets of leg curls, what are you even doing... All of this is an essential part of the whole gym experience—not necessarily because it's "functional" training, mind you, but more for the sheer vibe of it all. 😁
That being said, the pec deck machine is pretty much useless...
Look, I get it—it’s perfectly fine if guys want to make some extra cash by joining mercenary units. There's nothing wrong with that. It just feels a bit awkward seeing them fighting under the US Flag, almost as if the entire American people are backing a war in Afghanistan, when in reality, the public is being fed this narrative that we're just over there spreading peace, love, and tolerance. But what happens if some terrorist decides Americans are his target and shows up in Times Square with a bomb strapped to his waist—or worse, starts opening fire on American tourists? I mean, why wouldn't our guys be trained to the same standard as American soldiers?
PICK ONE: a) capitalist America b) socialist America
If you actually had to pick one of these two paths—assuming they were even possible after everything went sideways—honestly, both options are total garbage.
But, purely on the condition that there was no war, no widespread destruction, no predatory privatization, and no complete economic meltdown, then yeah, a capitalist America would be the better bet.
Richard Wilson4 said:Ever since this whole mess kicked off about three years ago, people have been preaching this myth like it’s some kind of religion—this idea that the USA was this righteous socialist utopia while America was just some unfair capitalist wasteland.
I’d love to hear them actually explain how any of that would work in the real world.
Look, there was no war, no nationalism, and we just stayed part of the USA exactly like we were back in the 80s, or hey, maybe Markov's plan actually worked out.
So, what does the USA look like in 2011?
What does a socialist oasis even look like nowadays, especially when every other country—Russia and China included—has already embraced capitalism and the free market?
First off, you’d have had to somehow shut down the surge of the aggressive Mexican National Movement. Honestly, I’m not even sure at what point that would still have been possible. Then, there’s the massive headache of how you’d go about reforming the American People's Army.
If you could have managed that—especially that first hurdle—the South might have evolved into some kind of loose confederation, sort of like a mini-EU. It likely would have ended up being a much more significant political and economic powerhouse than these tiny individual states. Heck, maybe even a few neighboring countries would have joined in.
Of course, everyone would have pivoted to capitalism pretty quickly; in those first elections down the road, you’d probably see the moderate politicians from the American Spring coming out on top. No shady privatizations, no looting, no war—everyone who died in the conflict would still be walking around, and there wouldn't be this lingering bitterness between the people. Just that alone is enough to make you think things would be better off today.
Ryan is an analyst. He spends ten hours a day glued to his desk—just staring at data on a monitor, churning out reports, and slowly putting on the weight. He’s definitely not some high-stakes secret agent. In the movies, he just happens to stumble into the middle of the action by pure luck and somehow manages to stay alive—usually because his buddy John Clark, who’s the actual field agent, steps in to bail him out.
There are definitely a few others who could step up into the ring here.
(though if I’m putting my money on anyone, it's going toward
I haven't actually sat through this one yet—but honestly, he doesn't exactly scream "covert operative" to me; he looks more like raw material for a "Rambo" type flick. 😁
Honestly, any of them would get wiped out by an agent like Angelina Jolie... Though, if Salt actually went toe-to-toe with James Bond, she’d probably leave him in the dust—even if he did eventually manage to charm his way out of it in the end.
Jesse Thomas7 said:I’m honestly at a loss with this one, so if anyone has some actual insight—maybe an argument that won't make me feel totally ripped off, played for a fool, or just plain exhausted every single time I walk out of a movie theater—please throw it my way. Look, in today's world, consumers actually have rights, right? If you buy a shirt and it falls apart after the first wash, you take it back. If the food you bought is spoiled, you get a refund, and so on, and so forth. What I can't wrap my head around is why ART (and let's call movies and music that, even if that's debatable) is completely exempt from any kind of accountability toward a dissatisfied customer. How is it possible that this is the one industry where you HAVE to buy completely blind? No matter what, you have to pay for the film—whether it’s a streaming sub, a Blu-ray, or a ticket at AMC Theatres—but if the experience is absolute garbage, who do you even complain to? You paid your money, and that's it. It's gone. Of course, that's exactly why more and more people are turning to piracy. They’ve been straight-up scammed so many times that they're just looking for a way to actually SEE what they're paying for first (which is honestly such an unthinkable level of audacity!), though of course, that makes the artists who churn out the exact same trash incredibly angry. Thanks for listening, but I just finished watching Tron: Legacy ($12) and that was truly the final straw for me... I actually posted this over on the Legal forum too, because I am genuinely curious how they managed to become more protected from unhappy customers than a Siberian tiger. Long live Quentin Tarantino, though; he's the only one I'll keep buying into blindly...
What you purchased with that ticket was the experience of viewing and consuming the final product created by a creative and technical crew—the product was fully consumed. You got your money's worth out of every single shitty, terrible movie you watch. It's etched into your brain cells now, and there isn't a neurosurgeon alive who can cut it out. There are no refunds.
I've actually gotten my money back a few times by walking out halfway through a movie and complaining about the technical quality of the projection.
