DominicCobb

Tyrphanax said:

DominicCobb said:

Yeah that pronunciation was a bit of a shock when I first listened to the radio drama, though I had hoped it was just a mistake (like how they used the Rebel fanfare for the Imperials). But I guess it’s official? Weird.

I assume that’s where they looked when deciding on a “canon” way to say it.

But as Lucas used to say with regards to pronunciation: “Ehh, it’s a big galaxy.”

True. Leia, Han, and Obi-Wan all have two different pronunciations in the OT. Tatooine has one pronunciation in the OT and another in the PT. George pronounces gungans differently than everyone else. Even in TFA you have two people pronouncing Jakku differently in the span of about 10 seconds.

NeverarGreat said:

Here’s my ideal version of that scene without the pilot celebrations. It’s music only at this point, but I’ve also removed the lightsaber pickup shot because it feels like a prequelism.
https://vimeo.com/200626043
password: music

Ooh, nice I appreciate trying to preserve that utterly splendid musical cue (though I can’t abide the removal of that lightsaber pickup, nor the calling it a “prequelism”).

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

I would love to know what you think is “positive criticism.” I’m not making fun of you here, I’m just telling you that, like usual, you’re coming to all the wrong conclusions.

Except for the part about me being perfect - that’s a right conclusion, thanks.

Well, would you share what conclusions you believe I’m getting wrong, without heckling me over it? I would be happy to have a respectful conversation over it.

At the risk of going off topic, this post:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

😦

is incredibly far off base. Just because Jay is having a political disagreement with you doesn’t mean he’s using his admin powers to persecute you and insult you without repercussions. He did say that one insult (which I personally wouldn’t even consider an insult), but he caught himself and removed it (everyone makes mistakes). Nothing about the rest of his post(s) are personal insults (unless you consider any kind of criticism a personal insult).

You always seem to make things personal when it never is. This is a political thread, we’re having a political discussion. If someone disagrees with your opinion or how you’re arguing it, that doesn’t mean they literally hate you or think you’re a total idiot. It’s the same thing with what you said about ferris. Jay was critiquing his debating style and then you had to go and make it an insult on his personal character. No one here doubts he is a good guy. We all know he is a cop and we all respect that. But it doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him.

suspiciouscoffee said:

That blows. I hope the couple splits soon.

A-

I’m just wondering if Frink has some pop song from four years ago in there that isn’t relevant anymore.

Yeah that pronunciation was a bit of a shock when I first listened to the radio drama, though I had hoped it was just a mistake (like how they used the Rebel fanfare for the Imperials). But I guess it’s official? Weird.

I can’t imagine any blockbusters these days getting finished in 2K, let alone a Star Wars film.

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

I would love to know what you think is “positive criticism.” I’m not making fun of you here, I’m just telling you that, like usual, you’re coming to all the wrong conclusions.

Except for the part about me being perfect - that’s a right conclusion, thanks.

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Trump has had so many chances for graciousness yet hasn’t taken advantage of any of them. He’s just an asshole, plain and simple, nothing’s going to change that. Hard to respect him as the president if he doesn’t know or care about knowing the first about being presidential.

No

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

So, education aside, there are high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?

What do you consider high? I feel comfortable saying D.C. has high levels of education because they do (highest in the country). Is that the same for violence and poverty? Don’t know, but my point was obviously the rates will be higher there than in any old small town, USA.

Compare it to other similar cities.

What like

New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

?

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

So, education aside, there are high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?

What do you consider high? I feel comfortable saying D.C. has high levels of education because they do (highest in the country). Is that the same for violence and poverty? Don’t know, but my point was obviously the rates will be higher there than in any old small town, USA.

thejediknighthusezni said:

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

First, Obama was the first black President, or half-black President to be precise, so his inauguration was a far more historical event than the average inauguration. This tends to bring in more looky-loos.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty). Additionally, the area also has a high number of black residents, so naturally the crowd will be bigger seeing that it’s far easier for these folks to get to the inauguration than it is for Mid-Western Republicans.

Third, there was rioting, violence, and all kinds of civil disorder occurring throughout the city in 2017, so a lot of people who might have attended decided against it in order to avoid personal harm or risk. This wasn’t a factor in 2009 because I don’t recall any Conservative groups trashing Washington on the election of Obama.

Fourth, and let’s just face the facts, Dems have a much better ground game in that they tend to spend way more money on making crowds look bigger at major events. They put a larger focus on collecting funds to bus people in and put people up in hotels that otherwise wouldn’t go. Republicans , for whatever reason, just don’t tend to do this and tend to have a “if they want to come, they’ll find a way” attitude. I know I do.

So, in conclusion, who should really care what the crowd looked like. I know I don’t, so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done. I have no clue if he’ll screw up, if he’ll be magnificent, or if he’ll just be meh. Who really knows, and anyone who claims to know is speaking through pure bias.

Sixth, security was reportedly considerably tighter because conservatives don’t riot when they don’t get their way (they sat still for eight years of that fraud “Barry Hussein”, and the demented lefties can’t make it 24 hours.) It was reportedly more difficult and time-consuming to be screened to enter the central parts of the mall.

I’d say it’s very important. The lefties are trying to whip-up chaos. The more they feel supported, the more they will agitate and destabilize.

Though I suppose these images bring warm feelings to your fucked up, bigoted heart.

Anyway, millions protested today. As far as I’ve read there wasn’t a single arrest.

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

You could have just fixed the typo.

Great that we already have the president and his press secretary lying to the American people (about something incredibly petty). And then turn around and blame the “dishonest media” for simply reporting facts.

Jetrell Fo said:

^Just in case you decide not to read my pm, your new thread has been locked. It happened after I reported a post for making fun of your thread, in the Parroty Thread, while said person was posting in your new thread.

The post I reported for making fun of your thread, remains untouched.

Posts in the “Parroty Thread” aren’t “making fun” of anything.

I think the best you can hope for is so bad it’s good.

TV’s Frink said:

During the inauguration there was a moment where they “kissed” by touching cheek-to-cheek. It was so super awkward.

I’m guessing the pussytape didn’t help things any.

I was fully prepared for a divorce had Trump lost the election.

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

DominicCobb said:

Tyrphanax said:

Possessed said:

Fuck you.

Just kidding. Always funny, right?

This is the kinda discourse I know and love.

Honestly fuck you. What about the kind of discourses you don’t know? You’re saying you only love the kind of discourse you’re familiar with?

I don’t care what you think.

I care, but only because everything he says is both wrong and stupid.

Dom: Wrong and Stupid

Found his autobiography title.

Nice

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Erm… so you can’t be held accountable for actions in the past? Hrm.

Jetrell Fo said:

Does this not count?

Either way, here’s the thing. We’re all allowed to post our opinions and disagree or agree with other people as we see fit. If you wanna jump in and start some discourse, go right ahead. I think most of us are open to it.

Yes, I posted this one, its based on facts.

Is it?

Tyrphanax said:

Possessed said:

Fuck you.

Just kidding. Always funny, right?

This is the kinda discourse I know and love.

Honestly fuck you. What about the kind of discourses you don’t know? You’re saying you only love the kind of discourse you’re familiar with?