Posts by Ethan Parker47

I agree—the roommate was definitely taken out brutally. I went back to check, but the explanation is already there: it was premeditated. Still, he was basically a CIA think tank guy.

I also agree the movie is fantastic right up until the tunnel reveal. That’s when the quality drops from greatness down to a solid three out of ten.

Even though that kind of ending was predictable—not necessarily because of Hollywood mainstream tropes, but because of that typical American structural functionalism (the message to the average American that they can, and must, trust the system) and sheer pragmatism (the Mayor calling a session to find extra-legal solutions to "Clyde's problem" and Nick setting up Clyde in solitary)—I was really hoping for something more along the lines of Fincher.

Here’s what I was actually looking for: Clyde kills them all—including Nick's family—except for Nick himself. This would drive Nick into the same existential void Clyde is trapped in, forcing him to drop his "cool, powerful" persona and descend to the level of a criminal. Then, Nick kills Clyde, but it's too late; everyone has already been punished, and Clyde has achieved his goal. All that's left for Clyde is death, which serves to push Nick outside the law and deliver one final blow to the last remaining villain (that little cog in a broken system).

Anyway, that’s how I pictured the end halfway through the film, and I have to admit—I was pretty disappointed. 😢

raido said:...

Man, if I had your brain, I’d finally get some rest.

I’m not trying to be insulting—really—but when someone hits 35 and their long-term memory is this shot, it becomes way too easy to blame everything on whoever happens to be in power right now.

Look, don't get me wrong—I'm not out here defending them—but if you view everything in such black and white (the Republican Party vs. whatever party you prefer), then you're clearly missing a few key details from those heavy drugs you've been taking.

raido said:....I respect your youthful fanaticism, really, but I’m not worried about people who actually think for themselves. I’m worried about those who hide behind an almighty Creator to justify wiping out anyone with a different political opinion—you won't find anything like that in the Bible. You'd have much better luck looking for lessons on love and tolerance there...

Give me a break—don't start a fight just to peddle nonsense to me. I know exactly what the Bible says, and trust me, I don't need you lecturing me on it. If I did, I wouldn't be posting here in the first place.

Who are we even talking about when we mention "political dissidents"? Are we talking about the people who undermined our country and caused irreparable damage to its global standing through their actions? Or the ones who were leaking information or giving it away for free? Come on, stop being naive. Wake up from that "civilized," idealized version of the world you're living in.

Richard Wilson4 said:There was no war from 1996 to 1999. That’s actually when the factories started failing, journalists were being bugged, local election wins by the opposition were being overturned, and tycoons and thugs were running wild across America...

It’s funny how there was "no war" then, yet the Midwest wasn't fully integrated until '97—and even if you call that a peaceful transition, the wartime mentality and atmosphere were still everywhere. People need to realize we were just a few years out from a long conflict. What else are you going to do besides listen in on someone who clearly hates the newly formed, free America with their entire being—someone working tirelessly to undermine it under the guise of "civilized norms," when everyone knows they're just an extension of some NGO or intelligence operation? Sure, maybe some people who didn't deserve it were bugged too—maybe—but there's such a thing as acceptable collateral damage. It's just a matter of functionality.

A lot of those factories went under—not because of war or shady privatization, but because they couldn't compete and their tech was obsolete. In all these accusations, nobody seems to account for the global economic climate at the time, much like how nobody accounts for the CIA's economic strikes against America back then.

raido said:you’re clearly unhinged—probably comes from having a father who was some kind of Republican Party fanatic. if this were a functional country, you would have been institutionalized a long time ago...

...besides, since you're talking about liquidations so casually, why don't you pick up a weapon and actually do something?....

...you don't have the weapons or the guts; you just have stolen tax dollars or some cushy pension through $1667...

Look, buddy, you're the only one here headed for the psych ward—I can see from the comments below that you're secretly rooting for those radical left-wing anti-American factions.

First off, I'm not even a shred of a supporter of today's Republican Party. Second, when we talk about the 90s, we're talking about war. In wartime, there's no room for the civilian idealism of liberal ideologies—nor should there be. The Geneva Conventions define those boundaries well enough, and America actually held its own even in that arena. So, your attempts to devalue American sacrifice and our massive victory will only find an audience on some fringe, overseas forums.

That whole myth about how certain leaders pulled us out of the darkness of the 90s is just that—a myth designed to cloud the truth and cover up their well-oiled business ventures run on old-school, pre-war principles. Of course, they needed a scapegoat, and unfortunately, they found one in the entire civilized and weary American people, embodied by Franjo Harmon, the great strategist and creator of our American nation.

If I had been old enough back then, it's highly likely that in my youthful fanaticism, I would have picked up a rifle and followed orders. I'm not living comfortably today, nor were my parents ever involved in politics or any specific party. You can only fear people like me because we think for ourselves, and we don't need much to satisfy our needs, especially with a strong faith in God, the Creator of the Almighty. 😉

Richard Wilson4 said:Do me a favor and actually read my posts and threads. If you find even one single thing where I say something positive about the USA or communism, I’ll personally ask the mods to ban me for good...

😲

The way I see it, America should be a European democratic state. That's where we differ...

Look, I’ve read enough of your stuff. Setting aside the cynicism and irony, I respect your analytical effort and your drive to stay informed. But in this general frenzy to label who's a "true" American, a communist, a post-communist, or a neo-communist, things have gotten messy. Just because someone changed their name or went into hiding doesn't mean they changed their underlying policy, mindset, or how they follow an agenda set decades ago.

What kind of damn democracy are we even talking about when it barely exists in that quasi-democratic Europe anyway? Given how much you pride yourself on being informed, you should remember what the first President of America—God rest his soul—used to say; forget "what kind of Europe," we *are* Europe. We proved our civilizational standing long ago and defended the very idea of Europe, which seems to be abandoning its own roots these days. That's the Europe we're dealing with. Why would I, who stands above all that nonsense, want to become just another piece of common filth? Sure, we have plenty of internal issues to settle, but that's how you prove your American identity—not by sucking up to expensive European elites.

Remember, back then we were building a nation, Beautiful ours, while those subversive NGO agents and bottom-feeders were only interested in tearing down and disparaging the existing order (however flawed, it was ours!). In wartime, there is no democracy—survival is the priority. Therefore, any anomaly had to be cut out like a tumor.

Matthew Harris2 said:Quincy:

during times of national unity

In an era defined by the robbery of the century...

Quincy:

The Republican Party wasn't even a unified group back then, let alone now. Of course you'd need to wiretap journalists, agents, and political climbers—hell, you should've just taken them out on the spot.

You had to eliminate anyone standing in the way of the loot. They understood ☕

My dear brother with the brainwashed mind, the national looting of the century started long before the Republican Party took power, but that knowledge acts like a computer virus for you—it prevents what little processing power you have from actually working optimally. Maybe it's better if you stick to worrying about social issues and gender biases, and leave serious politics to the grown-ups.😉

And one more thing—could we please move past this tired logic where questioning US policy makes you "anti-American," while blindly supporting everything they do supposedly makes you a "true patriot"?

Seriously, what kind of twisted reasoning is that? It’s honestly pathetic.

I find myself having to take Ned's side again—not just because of the nonsense being peddled here, but because I hear this exact garbage daily. It isn't just from the media (I've become immune to that by now), but from people my own age, or worse, the younger generations who seem straight-up programmed by leftist propaganda.

That whole "200 wealthy families" thing is a myth. Even if it weren't, I’d still back the idea that you're all being conditioned—just think about why.

It's incredibly easy to just dump every accusation onto the Republican Party through oversimplification—mostly because clearly, nobody here is capable of thinking more broadly.

Even during times of national unity, the Republican Party wasn't some monolithic entity, let alone now. Back then, you didn't just have to wiretap journalists, agents, and party careerists—you practically had to neutralize them on sight. That's what actually happens when a state functions.

There is one interesting detail most people aren't aware of, though it's easily verifiable if you actually look for scientific papers online (but who has the patience to cite sources? It’s much easier to just swallow whatever the propaganda machine feeds you).

Essentially, the Democratic Party once commissioned a study on privatization during the 90s via the Ivo Pilar Institute. Interestingly, they never actually used the results of that research anywhere. I have to wonder why. You can find those papers on the American Link, if you care to look.

Raymond Barrett12 said:Huh? 🤔

Anomie was coined by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim—it basically refers to what a professor might call a "breakdown of normative structure." It’s that state where people can't grasp new values or norms during times of social upheaval, while the old ones have lost their relevance.

+Also, it's the name of the sociology student association over at the Slavic Studies department.

Drew Adams58 said:When I say "completely inaccurate," I’m talking about comparing the era when Adele first emerged to 1996. I'm not sure what experience you're basing that conclusion on. When Adele was around, both you and I were still in diapers—and by '96, you were thirteen, so I doubt you can really make that comparison. My take is that the collapse of social norms happened because of the war, not because of the electronic music wave or the inflation of rock. Back then, Adele served as a sort of rebellion for the youth because, at the time, that kind of thing was taboo (similar to how Billy Joel was viewed). It's also worth noting that in the early nineties, you didn't hear many local bands playing stuff that actually fit the zeitgeist. And why anyone would elevate geriatric acts to such heights right when incredible new bands are emerging is something I'll never understand.
My apologies if my comment about "running your mouth" offended you, but that's just how communication goes on this subforum.

Great—see, this is actual dialogue. From what I can tell, you misunderstood me, likely because I wasn't clear enough myself. Regardless, the specific cause of societal anomie isn't the point here; the point is the fact that older generations don't know how to act in new times, while the new ones learn from the old. Quiz? 🙂 I didn't say electronics caused the anomie; I said the popularity of electronic music eclipsed rock, which led to an inflation of rock—basically a flood of new bands churning out new sounds (suddenly everyone wanted to be a DJ 🤣). Where did rebellion manifest most in '96? In the sports fan culture, which was a melting pot of everything—skinheads, rockers, metalheads, new wave followers, and punks who were only punks by musical taste (and any of those groups could have categorized Adele as "universal"). Even though I was only thirteen, I was at the games back then, and Adele's track "Just Don't Hit Me in the Head, Blue Friend" describes '96 perfectly.

peace

On topic—looking at the forum, I see people complaining about how our freshman orientation is better than theirs 😬 👍

Drew Adams58 said:I’d call this dodging the question while being flat-out wrong.

Personally, I’d call this dodging the issue squared—it's just unnecessary provocation. Your critique didn't open any doors for actual constructive dialogue or correcting errors (which is what criticism is actually for). My stance is based on the fact that I reached out via DM to give you a chance to explain your take on the Adele phenomenon politely and honestly, and you just didn't respond. Like I mentioned in my previous post about Adele, that was just my perspective—I never claimed it was the absolute truth. Regardless, that isn't the point of this thread, so I'm going to treat your message for what it really is: a provocation that deserves to be ignored.

On-topic—hey, two days after the university arts festival, some sophomore group 😁 is throwing some kind of party. I'm not sure if it's an open or closed thing yet. Honestly, I'm a bit worried that if they go too hard, it might scare off the more high-quality crowd from showing up to the festival next year.🙂

Dead Carrot said:I guess that’s why I never quite understood the whole Adele phenomenon.

I'll skip commenting on the first half of your post—honestly, not my cup of tea—but what you quoted here actually gave me some food for thought.

My take? In the 90s, we saw this massive inflation of rock music meeting the rising wave of electronic sounds. Add a bit of societal anomie to the mix—basically a breakdown of traditional structures—and you get a generation growing up on the stuff their parents used to blast, which, in my case, was Adele. Just some personal musings based on my own experience. Being born in '83, I still find it totally fine to spin some Adele today—it brings back those vibes from, say, '96 or '97, when things in America felt strangely similar to the era she was most active.

peace

@Joshua Carter20/">@@Joshua Carter20 - Ran into a colleague from last year's organizing committee at the mall—he was asking why they don't sell tickets there.

Heading out for Spring Break!!! 👍 :klap: 👋