HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MrScorpio » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 586 Next »

MrScorpio

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 65,996

Journal Archives

I have this huge cup of iced peach tea that I'm drinking next to my computer…

I have to be very careful with it while watching this GOPer debate…

Is the primary over yet?

When will it end?

"Don't Believe The Liberal Media"

What "Liberal Media?"

Fall around here is pretty weird.

I just saw TAKEN 3...

I thought that the acting, the writing, the stunts, the locales, the effects and the plot were all top notch. It's definitely an action movie's action movie.

However, I'm glad that I saw this movie on my tv first, rather than watching it at the big screen theater, because I'm quite sure that it would have given me a bad case of motion sickness. Fucking shaky cam.

I have no idea why they thought it was a good idea to direct and edit every fucking scene with a shitload of quick cuts with a shaky cam. I've never seen so many quick edits in a movie before in my entire life. How the hell can you expect the audience to process scenes when they're all two gawd damn seconds in length and shaken like a James Bond martini? Not just the action sequences, but the dialogue sequences as well. Who the fuck uses shaky cam on dialogue sequences?

It's basically a primer on how not to shoot and edit a movie. Take the fucking chase scenes, they had absolutely no sense of time and direction. It was just an impossibly quick series of shaken wheels and streets and they never allowed the viewer to process their sense of time, distance and location. The fight scenes were pretty much nothing more than close ups of limbs with a shaky cam.

Death to the shaky cam!

You take a great movie in all the other aspects and then chop it up like a plate of chipped beef that was tossed in a paint shaker. I have no idea how well this movie did at the theater, but if I saw it there I'd had a hard time sitting through the entire thing before having to walk out it to clear my head.

Maybe they'll do better with Taken 4.

Remember, Remember…


Democrats need to start turning out the vote in off year elections…

Bring it to bear as we do during the presidential season.

I have no idea why we make it so difficult on ourselves, by not turning out the vote. Allowing the right to gain an advantage in off years, allowing them to take both state houses, legislatures and Congress only gives them the tactical high ground.

Our turn-out for 2016 may allow us to regain the Senate as well as keep the White House, but we have to reiterate that those are not the only important elections. Every election is important.

Unless we act accordingly, our absence in off-years will only let the wingers fill the vacuum.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of being treated like a political minority, especially when we always tell ourselves that we are actually the majority.

Poor Charles Koch…

He's so put upon…

I'm half expecting him to blow his nose in a $500 hankie.

Do The Right Thing...

It's still pretty hard for our candidates to get right with BLM. Which is why I believe that constant engagement is required until they start listening.

Knee jerk reactions, or the incessant need to tailor their own message to a different message that BLM is sending is not listening, it's whitesplaining. And quite frankly, until the whitesplaining ends, activists need to persist. As I've said many times before, candidate supporters should welcome BLM protests, because as long as protestors care enough to send the candidates the message that Black Lives Matter and in a way meant by black people themselves, there's still the expectation that those candidates will eventually understand and finally respond accordingly.

But even today, I find the candidate responses, however perceived as sincere on their part, insufficient. So to me, it's easy to see why BLM activists still disrupt. For one thing, appropriation can occur. If activists are not available to reinforce their messages, in their absence, those messages can be warped and shaped by different agendas. That's a political reality that happens regardless of ideology: Politicians shape themselves into what they think the people want, even if the people want something different.

Now, it's still true that I haven't as yet chosen a candidate in the primary, I may never do that. I will however, support the one that we nominate, without reservation and in spite of how much I agree and disagree with them. I'm an avowed Democratic partisan, after all. What's the most important thing to me is to understand why I would support any of them as a nominee, despite of how much I disagree with them, rather than putting any one of them on a pedestal regardless of their shortcomings.

They're all better than Republicans, and that will always be in their favor.

Unfortunately, I have to deal with the things that make them problematic as well:

With Hillary, she has a very hard time accounting for the reasoning behind her and Bill's past policy decisions that has made life harder on the poor and on people of color. She has plenty of excuses and lots of justifications. But she also has an extremely hard time dealing with admissions about mistakes. Now, her defensiveness is quite understandable, because the Clintons have always been unfairly attacked by the wingers. It's much easier throw up a wall to defend against all criticism, rather than accept what's fair vs. the unfair.

The unwillingness to admit where one screwed up, especially in the light of fair and impartial scrutiny isn't a very likable trait to those who value humility. It looks just like arrogance. Yes, I do understand that our political landscapes rewards arrogance over humility, but we don't have to like it. If you want to understand what the source of her unfavorability is, that's the perception right there.

With Bernie, his problem usually comes up when he tries to match his own agenda to the message of BLM. Now, just for the record, I actually agree with him the most. But whenever I hear him address the message of BLM, he makes me cringe.

Bernie has this bad habit of inserting respectability politics into his messages. I'm sorry, but educated and employed black people are getting killed by the police as well, Bern. Yes, education and an improved economic outlook will also improve our overall picture, but how in the hell will that reverse centuries of white supremacist policies, conditions and ideas?

Bernie knows what he knows, which is all good for some, but he needs to know more. I do credit him for not clamming up and reacting defensively at the drop of a hat. Hopefully, he'll eventually get it.

With Martin, my problem with him stems from his tenure as Baltimore's mayor, when he aggravated the problem by adopting Broken Windows policies. If he's accounted for that shortfall, I really don't know. All I've heard him do was campaign against his primary opponents.

He has some serious skeletons in his closet, which led up to what happened to Freddie Gray. I need for him to be more accountable for that.

Now, with that being said, I'll also state that all of our candidates are ultimately redeemable, because we ALL have to deal with the Republicans in 2016, by standing up for the one that we will nominate.

However, at this point, I'm not interested in all the petty bickering between their supporters. I see both good and questionable elements in all three of our guys. Is there anything about any of them that's impossible to reconcile for me?

Surprisingly, no. I will stand up for any one of them against the GOPers, once we nominate.

Because, with our continued insistence, the liklihood that any of them will do the right thing while in office is greater than that of any GOPer.

Always keep your eyes on the prize.

I still believe that BLM activists should engage all of the candidates…

Pressure WORKS!

No one, especially ANYONE running as a Democrat, should be immune. Give it to the Republicans as well.

Either you engage, or fade away. American politics tends to put you on the back burner whenever you stop engaging.

Engagement is a tacit expectation of performance. Not engaging you means that you're being ignored.

Our candidates should be glad that BLM activists are still making demands upon them.

They wouldn't want to know the reason why if those activists ever stop.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 586 Next »