Posts by ruggedjackal46

In this video, you see these attackers waving around three different passports. They aren't exactly scaling perimeter fences or dodging security patrols; they’re just flying commercial in business class.

As for everything else, I'm in total agreement with what Matthew Anderson4 said.

It seems to me like the Bridge party is just this colorful patchwork quilt made up of every semi-successful local independent group you can find, regardless of their actual political ideology. Honestly, I have no idea how long they can actually stay under one roof.

I don't buy the idea that this is some GOP project either—they definitely don't have the bandwidth for something like that. Besides, the GOP has spent the last twenty years systematically dismantling every right-wing competitor just to maintain their own monopoly. Why on earth would they suddenly launch a movement that would snatch away a huge chunk of their voter base and give those people the option of cutting a deal with the Democrats?

Honestly, the timing for the Libertarian Party was just perfection. Right when the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents had completely burned themselves out in the media cycle, they swooped in right before the election as this viable third option. It was a photo finish. If the timing had been even slightly different, any one of those players could have snatched up 18 seats and held all the cards in deciding who runs the government. Brrrr...

That statement right there... honestly, it says everything that needs to be said. Hey, Eric Fox7, you don't even need to bother adding anything else to that sentence. Every single time you travel, just let that sink in. And let everyone hear it—the skeptics, the critics, the wall-builders, all of them. The voters? They’ll know exactly what it means.

Robin Fox2 said:Just looking at Mayor Bandic—according to Zokio, he’s easily the greatest mayor in the history of New York City... one can only imagine what he might achieve if they actually granted him more authority. 🙏
If the entire United States were run like New York, it would be absolutely wonderful...

Fountains and tents scattered all over the country. 🙏

James Anderson5 said:In the end, they won't even be able to bury him there because of the laws...🐔

Apparently, the issue was that they wouldn't put the interview on the front page, and he just had enough of it...

I highly doubt that was the only reason.

James Anderson5 said:Here’s that interview with Boban. I found the part where he mentions Berlusconi taking him to his private mausoleum right after he joined AC Milan pretty fascinating...

He actually wrote a column back in the day about Berlusconi where he laid out the whole bizarre saga. Picture this: a teenager from the States shows up to meet the big boss, Silvio, to negotiate a transfer, doesn't speak a lick of Italian or English, and instead of a boardroom meeting, "Dad" takes him on a tour of his personal tomb. What kind of trip is that? 🙏

Speaking of trips, ESPN published that same interview with Boban and then immediately fired him because of it. Talk about a total meltdown of common sense.

James Anderson5 said:Not really, people take all of this quite seriously. First off, like Jessica Gonzalez said when she was talking about how Israel is basically nothing without the military, financial, and political backing from the US—there just isn't a more powerful lobby in America, whether you're looking at politics, finance, or the media. Just try Googling how many famous Jewish actors there are and compare that to their actual percentage of the US population, which is only around 2-3%. Or look up what AIPAC actually is and how much influence they hold... Plus, you have Israel occupying prime territory while keeping Palestinians essentially trapped in a massive camp surrounded by walls and barbed wire. It’s funny because someone could make a similar argument about Americans being lazy, but then they come here and see the coffee shops packed tight all day long...

No matter how brutal things were under the regime in Iraq, everything just spiraled downhill once the Americans moved in. On top of that, you look at Libya and see a total collapse of normal life, all because those oil and gas concessions held by places like Italy and France were about to expire... Basically, under the guise of US and Western policy, any nation that poses a threat to Israel or holds energy resources outside of their control gets dismantled. That seems to be the common thread. It’s likely all just a setup for a potential showdown with Iran, which has been brewing for a long time now. Of course, I'm strictly talking politics here; personally, I couldn't care less if someone is Gambian, Jewish, American, or anything else...

When it comes to population numbers, we actually have a pretty good grasp on how many acres of farmland are needed to sustain a certain number of people, along with water requirements and environmental impacts... Honestly, I think the best way to manage population growth is through education. As people become more educated, they tend to focus on providing better opportunities for their kids, which usually means having fewer children to ensure stability. There’s an excellent documentary on this from the BBC—these aren't just my opinions, they're widely accepted facts... Now, does anyone else wonder if there are intentional efforts to limit population through things like water quality, food supply, pollution, or those infamous chemtrails? It's tough to say because it starts sounding like a conspiracy theory, though that doesn't mean it isn't true... 😁

I was also thinking about Americans who might blow an already precarious situation in that region just to serve some short-term interest.

When it comes to overpopulation, we actually know exactly how many hectares of arable land are needed to sustain a specific number of people, along with the water requirements, environmental impacts, and so on.

Right now, we produce enough food to feed the entire population, but the distribution is where things fall apart. The issue is that producers grow food to sell it, not to feed humanity, which leads to tons of food just rotting away.

The best solution for population control is actually education. As people become more educated, they tend to want to provide more for their children, which requires more money, so they naturally limit the number of kids they have. There’s an excellent documentary by the BBC on this; these aren't even my personal views, just established facts. Now, whether anyone else is intentionally limiting the population through degraded water quality, food shortages, pollution, those famous chemtrails, or whatever else—it’s hard to say because it leans so heavily into conspiracy territory. Not that it isn't true, of course. 😁

I don't think these catastrophes are the result of some grand conspiracy; rather, they stem from general systemic inertia, human shortsightedness, or just the selfish pursuit of profit.

I agree regarding education, though that seems to be the one area where we invest the least. Where are the actual centers for learning? And who actually has the cash to pay for school these days?

Robin Fox2 said:This number is negligible; the US could absorb all of Syria without even noticing, whether they turn out to be highly successful or complete failures, they would simply be swallowed up by the population. The real issue is that the populations in Africa and Asia are exploding like weeds, yet they lack any of the necessary infrastructure to support such numbers; instead of implementing population control, they just keep multiplying. Only the Chinese seemed to have a sensible policy. It’s easy to talk when we're discussing 10 million coming to the US, but what happens when it becomes 100, 200, or 300 million? Half a billion? Certain African nations could hit over 500 million people by the year 2100... 🤣they will overwhelm the entire West

I couldn't care less personally—I'll be dead soon enough—but it is certainly something worth considering in the long term...

I'd say that’s also the mindset of the people whose actual job it is to think about the long term.😁

Patrick Martin said:He’s probably talking about those "intellectuals" who basically bought their degrees through connections
and can be bribed with whatever you throw at them if you just act tough enough.

And honestly, those types make up about 90% of our beloved country. ☕

He doesn't know what he's talking about. He and his brother managed to rake in millions without a degree, any actual work experience, or even a shred of integrity. They’re protected like grizzly bears in the wild, and to top it all off, they've got a coach without a diploma, Zack, leading the club in the Champions League. He's really just mocking everyone who actually earned their credentials the honest way.

brightpilot6 said:It’s almost performative, isn't it? That desperate need to be contrarian just for the sake of it—embracing something purely because it stands in opposition to the mainstream, regardless of whether the actual quality holds any water.

It’s pure posturing, really—the kind of performative intellectualism where someone pushes a narrative they know is false just to cultivate that certain "expert" persona. Is there anything more transparent than someone sacrificing the truth simply to bolster their own image?

It’s clearly untrue for one simple reason: there is never a single moment in the history of human endeavor where quality or excellence—or whatever metric you care to name—is the sole driving force. It doesn't happen in professional sports, it doesn't happen in the fine arts, and it certainly doesn't happen in our pursuit of wellness. In fact, if we look closely enough, we find that even in Hollywood, pure meritocracy is nothing more than a convenient myth.

Quality doesn't just distribute itself evenly across different eras.

It looks like everyone on the Football forum is obsessed with Amadeus

Peter Thompson4 said:So wait, you're telling me the movie that actually gives you deep characterization and a realistic reason for why things are happening is "boring," but the second one, which just jumps headfirst into the action without any real motivation, is somehow "good"??

wtf

The first one is just—plainly boring. Why should I care about realistic motivations if the characters themselves aren't even interesting?

And besides, the second movie isn't just mindless action.

Nolan’s take on Batman actually starts with an interesting premise: how do you actually drop larger-than-life characters like Batman and the Joker into a gritty, grounded reality? I still think you could pull that off in a city like Chicago or New York, but I don't think Nolan quite nailed it. Honestly, it feels like he just lacked the creative spark or the sheer intellect to make it work.

The first movie is just plain boring. The second one is decent enough, but the Joker doesn't really have a coherent motivation; he's just pure chaos for the sake of chaos—which works, sure, but it feels inconsistent with everything else. As for the third one? It feels like the script was written by someone on a heavy psychedelic trip; nothing about it makes sense.

Now, Burton’s Batman movies? At least they leaned into a stylized, vibrant world filled with eccentric characters and that classic Prince soundtrack. Total approval from me. ☕

brightpilot6 said:If you approach every Hollywood production from the jump as nothing more than a frivolous crowd-pleaser, is it any wonder they never seem to ""show"" you anything?

For my part, "Interstellar" didn't exactly ""show"" me anything new; rather, it just nudged me back toward pondering those same old questions I've likely already written about a hundred times. And no, it certainly didn't provide any tidy answers to them.

After finishing "The Odyssey," I was left merely wondering who exactly is placing those monoliths and what the ultimate purpose behind it all might be. But then again, isn't that less of a philosophical inquiry and more of a fascination with the cosmos itself?

Look, I didn't approach it that way. I went in without any massive expectations or hype, and honestly? I wasn't disappointed, but I wasn't blown away either. Just... there.

For me, Interstellar didn't "show" me anything new; it just nudged me back toward those same old questions I've probably typed out a hundred times already. And no, it certainly didn't hand me any answers.

After watching 2001: A Space Odyssey, I was just left wondering who's actually putting those monoliths out there and what the point of the whole charade is. But then again, is that even a philosophical question? Is being fascinated by the cosmos really a matter of philosophy?

We all react differently to different films and themes, I suppose. But really, what can you expect from someone who swears by the likes of Florentino Pérez and Luis Figo? If you can't appreciate the beauty of a well-played game on the pitch, you aren't going to see it in the stars either. ☕

If someone had actually told me I’d find myself on a sports forum debating whether Eco, Borges, Kubrick, or Nolan is the superior choice, I would have assumed we were reenacting some classic Saturday Night Live sketch 😁.

brightpilot6 said:Good grief, all I was suggesting is that the narrative and logic feel more cohesive in *Interstellar* than they do in *2001: A Space Odyssey*, and that it poses—at least to my mind—more profound philosophical questions regarding humanity and the cosmos.

And yet, here comes the crowd to tell me otherwise, insisting that since *2001* is a masterpiece, it must be superior in every conceivable way, claiming its story is better even though nobody can actually recount that plot without referencing Arthur C. Clarke’s novel or some Wikipedia entry. Not even two people describe the sequence of events the same way, do they?

In response to that, I argued that the film functions as a Rorschach test; people project these intense interpretations onto the plot, and then layer arbitrary technical analyses on top of those subjective readings. When I offered perspectives that contradicted yours, ruggedjackal46, you admitted they were valid, didn't you? So, where exactly did I go wrong?

By the way, at no point did I claim the film was flawed simply because it was ambitious. I was merely echoing that Rorschach sentiment in light of your arguments about the film's structural integrity, especially when the philosophical foundation feels somewhat shallow given the heavy-handed creationist undertones.

Just because the plot, the internal logic, and the core themes are essentially spoon-fed to an Interstellar viewer doesn't mean it’s a superior film to 2001, which actually demands a bit of intellectual heavy lifting from the audience.

And don't even get me started on the philosophy. To me, 2001 offers a pretty stark look at the absolute chaos of the human condition, whereas Interstellar just suggests that parental love can somehow overpower a black hole. It’s basically the philosophy of an American sitcom.

My response to that is that the movie's story is essentially a Rorschach test; people project whatever intense interpretations they want onto it, and then layer arbitrary takes on filmmaking technique on top of those interpretations. When I offered some perspectives that contradicted yours, ruggedjackal46, you actually admitted they were valid. So, where did I go wrong?

Just because a film allows for multiple interpretations doesn't make it completely random. Arbitrariness and blatant one-dimensionality are two different extremes, and 2001 sits somewhere comfortably in the middle.

brightpilot6 said:Nothing at all. I was simply meeting the argument on its own level. After all, what else can one say to "there are websites online" without descending into a series of endless, pointless essays?

The entire Eco section sums it up perfectly. To the fans, this is a masterpiece, and apparently, every single rule—or lack thereof—within the film serves only to prove its status as a masterpiece. Every interpretation reinforces its brilliance. Every plot hole is just more proof of its genius. Even every criticism is interpreted as further validation. Does the monolith only appear when celestial bodies align? A masterpiece. Doesn't show up at the start of the film? Clearly, there's a deeper meaning, making it a masterpiece. Do you claim it isn't a masterpiece? Then you must be a fool, and if a fool claims it isn't a masterpiece, then it surely must be one.

🙏🙏🙏

Honestly, you might find yourself right there in Ecov’s quartet of enthusiasts. To you, this movie is just a giant Rorschach test; you're desperately hunting for some sign of genius, yet you dismiss every single interpretation as "arbitrary" because, well, the movie is a "Rorschach test." Apparently, your specific take is the only one that isn't arbitrary, simply because you've decided the film is just a blank blotch and therefore you're somehow above the whole exercise.

James Anderson5 said:He really did an incredible job with that Rose character, but now people in the comments are already acting like they're some kind of intellectuals... It reminds me of how legendary actors like Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, or Al Pacino had such stellar careers before they eventually turned into caricatures of themselves...

If you're into that kind of literature, you should definitely check out Dan Brown or maybe some Michael Connelly... I highly recommend "The Doubtful Suspect"... 😁 So, Salai was actually like Leonardo da Vinci’s foster son, but here's a little more on him... Even though Leonardo called him a "liar, a thief, stubborn, and a glutton"—and the guy actually swiped things from Leonardo at least five times—he still kept him in the house for over 25 years to train him as an artist...

I honestly don't know when the last time I laughed that hard was... that book was something else...

Now this sounds interesting. 👍

brightpilot6 said:There are endless sites on the web 🙏🙏

It reminds me of that group from an old academic seminar on Foucault’s theories. 🙏🙏

"Oh, so you guys don't read Umberto Eco or Foucault either?"