DonkeyCigars

Good point; it had been weeks and he was medically induced into a coma at one point during that time because his body was struggling with the breathing tubes or something. Last I heard they were going to bring him out of it and thinks were looking on the up and up and then seemingly overnight he was dead. At least a 3.5 week hospitalization, got a text from him he was in the hospital on June 23

I had a neighbor I really liked and was friends with just die yesterday after battling COVID-19 for weeks. I don’t know if it was delta, but I assume, as his son didn’t tell me and I felt it insensitive to ask so immediately if he was vaccinated and which vaccine he had, but I do eventually want to get that data. It’s sad because he was a really good guy, but also not all that surprising; he was in his mid-to-late 60’s and was still a pack a day smoker and had COPD and always labored to breathe even before March of 2020. Sucks though nevertheless.

I didn't say it was better than the stuff I see today, but I will say...watched ID4 with Will Smith around the 4th and the CGI/green screen stuff was horrible. Just very bad and aged like stinky cheese and that was around the same era and timeframe as T2.

Exactly this.

I guess I was feeling very early 90's because I also watch T2: Judgment Day. I remember seeing this movie first as a pre-teen (my first Rated-R movie, I think) and maybe a couple of times sense, but the story made a whole lot more sense as a whole as an adult. Very good movie still that held up well, I think.

The Romanian accent was so horrible, indeed.

Giannis is everything MN fans wish KAT could be.

It won't show up in the box score but clearly the PJ Tucker acquisition is what put the MKE Bucks over the top and won them this 'ship.

Congo -- the follow-up to Jurassic Park in the 90's of another Michael Crichton novel. Seems like Ernie Hudson aka the black Ghostbuster is tasked with carrying this movie and it is just a really bad movie.

Glad to see PJ Tucker get a ring tho

I was saying, we now know empirically that it was not a winning strategy (due to the loss, begging the question as it were), as opposed to conjecture or assumption. That is all, sorry for not being clear or whatever "doing a lot of work" means which I think you use when you are calling out an assumption?

Yea, unless this happens. Which is why I said it was a nakedly ambitious political ploy. No plausible deniability or positive optics to couch it in. They've just gone full bore "honest" with it and stopped even paying lip service to pretending it's something else, because they've found their folks don't need the sugar to take the medicine; they will chug it straight from the bottle and get high.

It obviously was not a winning platform in 2020 (I guess hindsight is, ahem, 2020), but now that we know what we know halfway through 2021, I think we can say it's not a winner now or in 2024.

I don’t think it’s a legitimate issue; the constitution clearly outlines the capital (D.C.) as a non-state and that is intentional. Re: P.R., I think it would have been better to have simply given them autonomy and let them spin off as a non-US territory, especially given the history of them voting to not be annexed as a state, but apparently that attitude has shifted and a simple majority would like to now be a state and the cake has been baked to include them as a state versus let them fail on their own. It is what it is; I personally could not care less either way. Regardless of all the above, the overarching point remains.

I am on the politics board right? It's okay to talk about politics here, right? If you can't talk about Cloak and Dagger in the Cloak Room without all the offended sensibilities then I guess we are all just through here, huh.

FIFY

I actually agree with you 100% on everything except the bold. That the optics are good for getting this political outcome is pure plausible deniability and one that both sides used to be able to own. The fact that the conservatives can't even attach to a plausible deniability / good optics reasoning for doing things just shows how far they've fallen and why they aren't a mid-term/long-term winner politically, unless things change. IMO.

They are comparable at a deeper level than the surface level you gave, which are different, and of which I agree with you. One is for X the other is for Y Both are in service of Z in order to A. X= limit voters who likely would help political opponents Y= add voters who likely would hurt political opponents (by helping yourself) Z= winning elections A= wield power Line 1 is different; Line 2 is same. See? This is politics from time immemorial.

Agreed. It's always been political and likely always will be.

Yes.

I don't think I agree completely with your police work, because you seem to be dead set on denying the political reindeer games that exists--whether marginally or disproportionally (as I tend to believe)-- and you seem to think that statehood is being looked at as a pure play bout of altruism or do-good-ism. I think these things are looked at through the lens of winning votes and elections and there are many threads/responses on this board with staunch democrats defending and admitting that while there is good practical and justification reasoning (as you also referenced) to couch this in, at the root it is a political ploy to counteract the GOP (filibustering, stone-walling, etc.). But take those examples away (just the first two that popped in my head) and I'm sure with some effort you can fill two columns of whatever naked ambition politics that you can agree are just that (e.g. notions to pack the court, laws to make it illegal to give water to voters, etc. et al.), but the point remains-- politics and politicians exist to win power and then wield it. Policies are the means to gain the support-- to get voters-- to get people to voluntarily give them that power. To Biden's credit, I think he is doing a good job of holding the line and not letting the other side win back any land that they lost and he is probably a bridge president for the next big idealism/populist candidate for the Dems. I can't imagine him getting a second term, but anything can happen-- Trump was elected in 2016, after all.

I think most voters in this country probably buy into the notion of representative democracy as well-- which is why you have the knife fights you have by both parties to capture votes (and limit votes). Whether it be naked ambition in policy talks (e.g. voter ID's to restrict voters who won't vote for you, or annexing new states to add voters likely to vote for you) or more nuanced, the end result is the same-- to push an agenda and build power in pursuit of power and ambition. Personally, I think the Democrats have a better line of sight to long term viability and power, the window is closing on the Conservatives unless they pivot their messaging and platform pretty quickly.

Do you think just because something was written 245 year ago that it means the execution and buy-in still exists in the present? It was real, I believe in the beginning, but like with all things, time collapses a beautiful vision of idealism into ugly realism. Over time, as new management and people get involved, sometimes cultures change for the worse. Sometimes the value and vision and mission statements just become lip service. Like anything else, if you don't have people tending the flame and keeping the fire stoked with the original intent, it will go out.

Two words for everyone: Patriot. Act. Some of you people are quick to forget the lessons of history. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, regardless of noble intentions or dishonest guises, it's very difficult to reverse and there are always unintentional consequences. Our government is not some altruistic good where people go to be of service. It's a necessary evil, full of egos and agendas for ambitious power and careers with a lot of money at stake. We would be wise to really think through what sort of powers we grant the government to have and try and think through all the implications and consequences outside of a single use case. At the very least, it's been interesting to see the change of mindset and feelings about government-- I wonder if it's a youthful/Gen Z naiveté or if hope just springs eternal for some people.

Sure I do. But I think there are differences in gain (I.e marginal versus absolute) and the law of diminishing returns can be applied to moral value and gains as well as material. It appears you don’t seem to think that. And I apologize for potentially mischaracterizing you earlier if I read you wrong— I do think there is room for differences and for folks to exist on a spectrum of morality or 9-block of beliefs (e.g. lawful good, chaotic good, etc.) and we don’t need complete consensus on subjective values and beliefs to get along and respect one another. So again, sorry.