Sam Thomas3 said:Honestly, they’re just getting in their own way at this point! Isn't it funny how that works? They've essentially become their own worst enemy. 🙏
About three and a half years ago, right under the noses of this oblivious crowd, we witnessed the biggest precedent since anyone can remember. I mean, it was massive—big enough that even the most stubborn, blind followers might finally open their eyes! In any stable society, a precedent like that would effectively wipe out every single type of crime on the other side of the aisle. We haven't seen anything quite like it since the early '90s during the height of the war. But what do we care, right? To everyone here, the only real issue is some petty drama happening over at Verizon because apparently, people are starting to form lines. 🙏.
Can someone please, for the love of everything holy, just turn off the damn lights? Seriously!
You're missing the point entirely; we aren't even talking about that.
bluenomad2 said:Not "maybe," but definitely more. And we need to define what we mean by "fans." You have regular fans, and then you have organized groups—like the Black Knights, the Black and Gold Army, or BBB. Within those groups, there are thugs that the leadership always claims to distance themselves from, though I’m convinced most people in those circles have been in a scrap at some point. It's just in their DNA. They think they're heroes, but they aren't. If there were one collective name for all those groups, it would be Don Quixote.
Exactly. They pick fights and cause chaos just for the hell of it, and then play the victim when things go south. It's precisely because of people like that that the fight against Jerry Jones becomes such an uphill battle.
Keith Miller30 said:Incitement is a broad concept, isn't it? It isn't strictly limited to little Tina or whoever we are talking about. Incitement applies to everyone; tomorrow, some random idiot might see a status update and decide to take matters into their own hands. That is what incitement refers to—it isn't just about the individual who has already committed a crime.
I suppose it’s clear to me that while the probability of someone reading this and launching a crusade to kill a police officer is slim, such behavior simply isn't normal. There are certain groups in society that I personally cannot stand—really, I can't tolerate them—but it has never once crossed my mind to suggest, even in jest, that they should be wiped out.
The idea of wanting the neighbor's cow to die isn't necessarily tied to "incitement." Envy is one thing; in many ways, it's a natural human trait, though it's more pronounced in some than in others. Just because of envy doesn't mean we are a corrupt people—or if you want to look at it that way, then the whole world is corrupt, not just us.
It doesn't really matter; it is just interesting how you most often read these sentiments from sports fans. Isn't it curious how doctors, conductors, engineers, lawyers, or even the clerks at Walmart don't seem to have an issue with the police? It seems those groups don't find the police to be a problem at all, yet for the fans... well, there's a code of silence there, common sense is labeled as incitement, and ACAB becomes the mantra.
Just to be clear, this certainly doesn't apply to every single fan, but whether they admit it or not, it is often the fans who hold these specific views and attitudes toward law enforcement.
Exactly. Look, there is police brutality against fans in certain cases, sure, but more often than not, they play the victim far more than they actually are. They cause a massive mess that has nothing to do with Mamić, and then the police show up and "mistreat" them. There are definitely scumbags in the police force, but honestly, there might be even more of them among the fans.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure how much weight parents carry in this equation. Maybe they bear the brunt of responsibility for poor upbringing, but if you ask me, society plays a massive role in shaping young people. You see plenty of parents doing everything by the book, yet because there's such a concentrated pool of idiots out there today, some perfectly decent kids fall in with the wrong crowd and turn into completely different people within a year. I'm speaking generally here, not specifically about this case.
What really gets under my skin are these self-righteous crusaders who spend all their time trashing the country and complaining about crime, only to turn around and steal or act like thugs themselves, hurting people who are just trying to earn an honest living. They pose as these pillars of morality—there are plenty of them among the hooligans, especially those who are against Mamić (and look, I am 100% on their side regarding him)—but then they go off to cause trouble in some local bar or jump someone just for looking at them sideways. What does Mamić have to do with that?
I don't even bother watching trailers for older films; sometimes I won't even read the plot summary. 🤷
Based on the trailer for Inherent Vice, I was expecting something a bit more fun (though it is decently entertaining), but I definitely didn't expect such a messed up story.
Look, his behavior was pure clownery. I honestly can't wrap my head around what he was trying to accomplish. Was he attempting to protect bears from people? In the documentary, he had that encounter with the hunters that went absolutely nowhere; they just explained that the population is huge, they only cull about 6% annually, and the numbers remain stable. It’s obvious he was just trying to outrun some personal demons, as the film suggests, but he failed to grasp the fundamental truth: you don't meddle with nature. Animals are animals, no matter how much "love" you try to shower on them.
Sure, he lasted a decent amount of time out there, but it was an incredibly high-stakes gamble. He almost never kept his back turned to the brush for more than a few seconds during filming because, quite frankly, he was terrified of the bears. Ultimately, a bear killed him before dawn—likely an attack on the tent. I read somewhere that food sources were scarce that year, forcing them to target things they normally wouldn't, which is something he really should have known given how long he studied them. On top of that, he flagrantly ignored every single National Park regulation. To me, that kind of reckless approach is just unprofessional. The worst part is that he died right as they were supposed to be heading out, and Amie Huguenard was caught in the crossfire. Judging by her journal, she was terrified of those bears the whole time and apparently intended to leave him. Look, he can do whatever he wants with his own life, but he likely filled her head with nonsense, making him partially responsible for her death. 🤷
I listened to the audio of the attack on YouTube. It's gruesome.
In my opinion, the guy was a bigger fool than most, but I have to admit the documentary itself is beautifully made—engaging and even a little entertaining at times. 👍
Jeremy Harris21 said:Personally, I think Tom Hanks edges out Denzel Washington. He doesn't resort to those ridiculous facial expressions or forced acting styles you see from him—not that he’s bad, but his mannerisms are honestly laughable. As for Robert De Niro, he’s easily one of the worst actors working today. He’s basically making a mockery of himself at this point, dropping down to the level of Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller.
Look, they're talented actors, sure, but they are incredibly overrated. If Denzel Washington ends up with three Oscars, I'm going to be annoyed; it's just too much. He isn't even in the same league as someone like Jack or Denzel. And De Niro? It's an absolute embarrassment lately. It's a tragedy because he might have been the best in the world once upon a time—that run he had transitioning from the 70s into the 80s was legendary.🙏
It’s a decent enough movie. Viggo delivers a solid performance and there are some fun moments sprinkled in, but nothing groundbreaking. Honestly, I’m still scratching my head over the point of that ending.
Peter Ruiz2 said:I just want to single out Ace in the Hole. It’s almost as if he didn't even direct it. To me, Wilder was always the director of glamour and that whole high-society milieu. Even his more serious films feel somewhat comedic to my eyes. Take Sunset Boulevard, for example—it's incredibly overrated.
I agree that one is overrated, but the rest are excellent, especially Witness for the Prosecution.
Alex Brown50 said:Honestly, I'm not feeling her at all—and if I were in charge, I wouldn't vote for any of them. It’s a total lose-lose situation... I just think this guy is a much bigger, potentially way more dangerous threat. He basically rode to power on pure, irrational impulse—just leaning hard into those primal, social-barbarism instincts. He’s actually worse than his opponents in that regard, and don't even get me started on his supposed "care for the people" or his fight against the establishment. Just look at all the racists, bigots, and every other type of paranoid nutcase out there in America. They are literally thriving like never before—doesn't that say something? We've seen these kinds of populist frenzies play out in history before.
But how can you claim he’s "potentially evil" when he hasn't even been in politics until now? That’s pure speculation; I have zero clue what his term will actually look like. I’ve heard Hillary talk about arming China with missiles and threatening Russia, whereas on the flip side, Trump talked about trying to build better relations with the Russians. God knows how much truth is in any of it, but based on those statements alone, I’d conclude Trump is the lesser of two evils.
What propelled him into power was primarily a destructive and irrational impulse; he tapped into the most primitive instincts of social barbarism. He’s worse in that regard than any of his opponents, and you can forget about him actually caring for the people or fighting the establishment. Just look at all the racists, bigots, and various other paranoid lunatics in America. They are practically glowing with joy like never before—doesn't that say something? We already have plenty of historical precedents for this kind of populist madness.
Surely you realize Trump isn't quite the monster the bought-and-paid-for media portrays him to be? For Christ's sake, you'd think the man was Hitler reading through all that propaganda; half his quotes are ripped straight out of context. If anyone played dirty and tried to exploit our most primal impulses, it was the opposition campaign.
Alex Brown50 said:Man, Trump’s gonna be preaching peace to the whole world—honestly. You guys will realize pretty fast that things might actually get way messier than they were under previous administrations, but hey—enjoy the "people's victory" while it lasts.
We aren't even expecting that; who knows what's coming. But logically, you’d rather take a risk than just keep repeating the same old mistakes. Trump beat the mainstream media, Hollywood, Wall Street, and Hillary. He didn't even have the support of his own party at first, which means he actually has capable people around him. There's some hope there.
Look, you really have a choice between a proven disaster—someone buried in serious scandals regarding domestic policy (under FBI investigation, no less)—and... this. When it comes to foreign policy, I don't even need to elaborate; she’s largely responsible for this entire migrant crisis and the surge in terror attacks across the West. And yet, you're going to tell me "no, I'm sticking with her because Trump is too crude"? (As if he doesn't have his own share of drama). Look, I hold more liberal views myself and I disagree with a lot of what Trump says, but supporting her is an insult to common sense.
Justin James10 said:The funny thing is, you are actually projecting your own binary mindset right onto the conversation. ☕
So, I guess our American paradise is doomed to crumble simply because the individual most responsible for several wars and the largest refugee crisis in the last fifty years didn't receive the recognition they deserved? Is that how it works? 🐔
Exactly. Only someone completely blind could support a woman like that. Sure, Trump is a crude guy, but at least he isn't a corrupt war criminal.
Michelle Palmer6 said:Oh sure, let’s all give him a standing ovation for inheriting billions of dollars.
If anyone was destined to get played by Trump, it would have been someone like Hillary Clinton. At the end of the day, there isn't going to be much of a shift; after all, Washington is run by lobbyists and big money, not just pure politics. Sure, Trump will shake up the "political correctness" of the major Western powers, he'll act like a clown, he'll stumble, and he'll provide endless memes, but ultimately? He'll end up being just another Republican candidate. It's been crystal clear for years now that the Republicans are the ones holding all the cards.
And I don't know, I highly doubt the establishment would have worked this hard to keep Trump out of office if nothing were actually changing. It’s honestly infuriating to see how they humiliated him from every angle and how protected Hillary was, but we'll just have to wait and see.