chyron8472

imperialscum said:

chyron8472 said:

generalfrevious said:

DominicCobb said:

Lord Haseo said:

rodneyfaile said:

The Force Awakens and Rogue One are superior to the prequels in every way.

Not in terms of their soundtracks.

That’s very much up for debate.

I can’t remember any [music] from the recent films, but I absolutely remember at least one song from each prequel film.

March of the Resistance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqKtype7Kk

Rey’s Theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65As1V0vQDM

You don’t remember those?

I could actually not remember either of those. And it is probably not music’s fault but rather unmemorable nature of TFA.

It is not going to be so memorable if you’ve seen it at most twice and not since over 2 years ago.

Again, if you listen to the soundtrack on its own, the music will stand out to you in the film. Just try it.

Also, there is:

The Imperial Suite (from Rogue One)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C2wCcuKmLI

generalfrevious said:

DominicCobb said:

Lord Haseo said:

rodneyfaile said:

The Force Awakens and Rogue One are superior to the prequels in every way.

Not in terms of their soundtracks.

That’s very much up for debate.

I can’t remember any [music] from the recent films, but I absolutely remember at least one song from each prequel film.

March of the Resistance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqKtype7Kk

Rey’s Theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65As1V0vQDM

You don’t remember those? I’d bet money you don’t remember the music because you haven’t listened to the soundtrack.

“My little buttercup, has the sweetest smile
Dear little buttercup won’t you stay awhile
You and I will settle down in a cottage built for two, oh
Dear little buttercup
Sweet little buttercup,
My little buttercup
I love you.”

generalfrevious said:

chyron8472 said:

But again, Trump will not bring the coal industry back. He can’t. The energy industry isn’t going that way. He can’t continue to win the favor of the rust belt when they can look at his record and see that he didn’t do squat for them. When he got elected, they thought he might; or at least thought there was a better chance he would than that Hillary would. But he won’t, and in 3 years, they will see that.

He got elected in part as a protest candidate, but as an incumbent, he can’t do that. In 2016 he had no record other than being a businessman. But now he is a politician, and he can’t oppose the status quo when he is the status quo.

Trump can distract his base from lack of industrial jobs by creating scapegoats such as immigrants, or the media, or the GOP establishment. He can just claim he was impeded in his agenda by the Washington elite and fake news. It wouldn’t be hard for him to get reelected as long as he keeps that one third loyal to him for the next three years.

No. You’re assuming that his base is the only political demographic that matters. Again, OBAMA WON TWICE. There are reasons why Obama won. Trump’s base didn’t just materialize from the ether. These people existed beforehand. They existed when Bill Clinton was elected twice and when Barack Obama was elected twice.

Why are you so adamant to insist that the (Neo)Nazis are taking over the world again? Trump did not win by a wide margin. He won Michigan by 0.3%; He won Ohio and Wisconsin by 0.7%. He didn’t win every state he won by huge margins. Some of them, yes. But not all of them.

And he was up against Hillary. Lots of people in this country HAAATE Hillary Clinton, and not merely because she’s a woman. They hate her because they view her as corrupt. They hate her because they perceive that she can not identify with their circumstances. They hate her because they think she commits crimes and gets away with it. Now, whether these things are true or not, it still speaks to their perspective. And she did nothing that alleviated it. When Debbie Schultz was accused of railroading Bernie and was kicked out of heading the DNC, Hillary immediately hired her for her campaign staff. When people confronted Hillary with questions about circumstances that cast her as corrupt, she deflected it. She kept on about why Trump would be horrible instead. To be sure, Trump is horrible and dangerous, but Hillary did nothing to MAKE HERSELF RELATABLE. That’s probably why when the Comey letter came out, her poll numbers dropped like a rock instead of people brushing it off. People were tired of her perceived shenanigans.

In any case, Trumps base alone does not win elections. I don’t know why you insist that they do, as though the Democratic Party is imploding with no chance of recovery. The Democrats just picked a bad candidate.

JEDIT: Let me be clear. I voted for Hillary–both in the general and the primary. I would have voted for Hillary in 2008 if Obama wasn’t running. But I can see how Hillary herself is out of touch with why she lost; and in so being, why her campaign was pretty much doomed.

darth_ender said:

I would like to say that I appreciate a little more normalcy in your debate points, general. Though your view remains very pessimistic, it’s much more realistic in approach, and it’s more enjoyable engaging in conversation with you this way.

I agree.

But again, Trump will not bring the coal industry back. He can’t. The energy industry isn’t going that way. He can’t continue to win the favor of the rust belt when they can look at his record and see that he didn’t do squat for them. When he got elected, they thought he might; or at least thought there was a better chance he would than that Hillary would. But he won’t, and in 3 years, they will see that.

He got elected in part as a protest candidate, but as an incumbent, he can’t do that. In 2016 he had no record other than being a businessman. But now he is a politician, and he can’t oppose the status quo when he is the status quo.

generalfrevious said:

I believe the people in the GOP who oppose Trump will end up losing their primaries to more extremist candidates in 2018. Plus, the GOP won’t be facing an uphill battle like the democrats will be in the election: there are about 20 seats at stake, and half of them are in red states. So when the new congress convenes in 2019 talks of impeachment will be dead, or at the very least removal will be impossible with 60 senators loyal to Trump.

But the Tea Party was popular back in the day because they were not part of the the status quo. Now they are. Trump was elected for similar reasons the Tea Party was a decade ago: people wanted to shake up the government. But now the Tea Party has been around long enough that people are equally sick of them. Ted Cruz is a Tea Partier and he filibustered and shut the government down. The people don’t want that. That’s why Ted Cruz lost the primary.

People didn’t vote in Trump because he’s extremist. They voted him in because he’s different. If the Democrats can only find some vanilla nobody, then that isn’t going to cut it because people are seeking change.

You have to remember that Barack Obama did get elected. Twice, and by a large margin both times. And we still had racists and white supremacists back then as well. So to say that, because Trump supports will continue to support him, it will single-handedly win the election–that is overlooking other factors involved that lost him the popular vote or won the vote for Obama.

generalfrevious said:

Trump is never going to be impeached. In fact, I’m betting that in 2018 he is going to get a filibuster-proof senate and in 2020 win a second term in office. One in three Americans believe he can do no wrong.

History seems to show that when a President has low approval ratings, it often does not bode well for his party in Congress getting reelected.

Also, in 2020, he will likely not be running against Hillary Clinton. If Trump had run against Sanders, it would be a different story than running against her. And if you remember, he did not win the popular vote. Winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote is not that common. Plenty of people hated them both during the general election, but if the Democrats can find someone who is not despised equally as much as Trump then they have a decent shot at winning in 2020.

TV’s Frink said:

[Never mind, we’re stuck in a time loop.]

Warbler said:

*sigh*

Okay. I think this horse is thoroughly dead.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve said several things that directly indicated otherwise, but it seems like it would be a waste of time to keep repeating them over and over.

I think this then would be the point where one would say “I’m sorry for leading you to feel invalidated. It wasn’t my intent.” Instead of arguing that one didn’t actually do so.

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

Let’s say hypothetically that you could, though. There is a very large contingent of black people that are mad about Jack Black’s name. Would you still say that it’s silly?

It’s not so much about whether he thought it was silly; but whether he thinks white people were allowed to think it was silly.

TV’s Frink said:

I’m not saying he shouldn’t care about children starving because he’s not starving. I’m saying he shouldn’t bitch about black people being offended by something that they are offended by. There’s a difference.

I don’t think there is.

TV’s Frink said:

No I’m asking what evidence in the ESPN thing? A lot of people (not just blacks but let’s say a lot of black people) thought it was offensive and shouldn’t have been done. Warb’s opinion is that those people are wrong, my opinion is that he shouldn’t give that particular opinion. I’m not saying he can’t, I’m saying he shouldn’t. What’s the available evidence that says I’m wrong or that Warb is right?

Your opinion is not contrary to Warbler’s opinion. Your opinion is opposed to Warbler’s opinion itself. You’re opposed to the idea that he has an opinion. Warbler’s opinion being wrong doesn’t make yours right.

Even if his opinion is incorrect, white privilege or not, he should be allowed to have it. And this is an open forum, so as long as he is civil he should be allowed to communicate it.

TV’s Frink said:

This all happened because of the ESPN fantasy football auction thing. What “available evidence” are you talking about?

This is my evidence:

TV’s Frink said:

If I think our skin color precludes us from the ability to have an informed opinion on something that doesn’t affect us in the slightest, who gives a shit?

This is my evidence, along with the fact that you keep using the term “white privilege.” The existence of white privilege isn’t Warbler’s issue with you using it. You’re being dismissive. You’re saying because a circumstance doesn’t affect him he shouldn’t give a shit about it, nor should his opinion matter because his knowledge is not informed by first hand experience.

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

TV’s Frink said:

If I think our skin color precludes us from the ability to have an informed opinion on something that doesn’t affect us in the slightest, who gives a shit?

Warbler said:

When I have to put up with you criticism and your attitude, I do.

I agree with Warbler. I think it’s rude to tell someone their argument is inherently ignorant and automatically invalid. Yes, people in a majority culture might not have first-hand experience regarding issues or situations a minority culture may face, but that doesn’t mean they can’t still form nor communicate an opinion based on available evidence provided to them on the subject.

Being dismissive of someone’s opinion just because they have second or third hand evidence rather than first hand is just as wrong as someone with said third hand evidence assuming they’re a foremost authority on the subject.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warb, should we call the group we’ve been talking about blacks or African Americans?

I suppose African American is the preferred term. If you want me to cease using the term black, I will.

My understanding is that black people refer to other black people as “Black” and not as “African American”. I’m not sure why calling someone “Black” is negative. It’s just a acceptably relevant label. Also, not that I agree with Whoopi Goldberg’s political or social views, but I remember hearing at one point about how someone asked her if she thinks of herself as Black or as African American–to which she said she was an “American”–and caught lots of flak for it. I think she had a valid point and I was annoyed at peoples’ reaction about it.

I kept reading FOS as “full of s#!+”.

Regarding the statues in the South, I have a feeling that there has been a certain romanticism attached to the Confederacy and/or the prominent characters involved. Similar to how pirates or cowboys are romanticized. Much of the reality has been lost and replaced with fictional motivations or made romantic with notions of “southern pride” or rebelling against The Man.

I don’t think the present-day South understands what the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia (aka the Confederate Flag) actually stood for back in the day, but rather attaches a romantic quality to it in ignorance of the reality it came from.

Case in point, if you watch the pilot episode of The Dukes of Hazzard, when they painted that car they painted what they called the “Rebel Flag” on top of it; and that whole show was basically about rebelling against the bumbling, incompetent county police and corrupt commissioner in a romantic sort of way.

SilverWook said:

Generalfrevious and thejediknightusezni,

Shape up or ship out. There will be NO FURTHER WARNINGS. If you can’t moderate your own behavior, you WILL BE BANNED. Whether or not it’s permanent will be up to Jay.

Now stop stinking up the joint.

Tell them if they don’t do as you wish, you will become angry and use your magic.

[accidental double post]

For the record, I liked Master Mode better because it forced me to strategize ways to make money, acquire good armor and weapons, get the Master Sword early and visit many shrines, by necessity; whereas in Normal Mode I didn’t often have to run away from Bokoblins or risk death.

At the beginning of my Master Mode file, when I was racing on horseback to get to Pondo’s Lodge (snowball bowling), I saw people crying for help as they were being beaten on the side of the road by blue and silver bokoblins, but I had to leave them because I would only die in the attempt. I’ve never done that before in a Zelda game.

I find myself hanging around Hyrule Castle a lot because I love the music so much. I also like the music at Rito Village (which shares the same melody as Dragon Roost Island from Wind Waker.) I agree that I wish the overworld had more music (and I’m a huge fan of film/tv/game soundtracks), but the game is still wonderful as it is.

Having played Breath of the Wild for 290+ hours (according to my Switch) and having completed all 120 shrines and destroyed Ganon on both Normal and Master Mode, I still can’t say where it lies on my list of favorite Zelda games. Its gameplay is almost incomparable to the other 3D Zeldas for a myriad of reasons.

generalfrevious said:

moviefreakedmind said:

generalfrevious said:

moviefreakedmind said:

generalfrevious said:

Possessed said:

Well that’s poking enough don’t you think Duracell?

I’m within my bounds here; what I say is valid in light of Presidrnt Trump and Charlottesville.

No you’re not. Go to hell.

White privilege in action.

You’re not in your bounds. You constantly disregard the rules of the forum and the OP’s ban on doomsaying. I’m sick of your filthy attempts at gaining attention, which I realize I’m giving to you now but I can’t resist because your posts are so sickening. And by the way, “Presidrnt” isn’t a fucking word.

Instead of trying to shut me up, tell how I’m wrong according to your delusional mind.

Look, the point of this thread (and this forum) is to have reasoned discussion. You are not being reasonable. People might have strong opinions, but they must be at least willing to have a civil conversation.

If you can not treat others respectfully nor refrain from doom saying, then please do not post in here.