Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ElCid

  1. 22 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

    I'd like to see Tin Men again. Danny DeVito comes close to ruining most of whatever he touches, but Tin was too good to tarnish. Maybe that's why I like Dreyfuss so much in it. His character holds the same opinion.

    Personally I like Dreyfuss better in Tin Men than anything else he did.   DeVito was not bad in it either.

    If you ever watch The Graduate, Dreyfuss has a small speaking part in it.

    • Like 1
  2. 13 minutes ago, Dargo said:

    Btw, in my case anyway, I've never thought of Jane Fonda as any sort of "glamour girl".

    And no, this would have nothing at all to do with her activist past.

    Nope, it's just that I never thought she was all that attractive, and even though yes, I once sat through that turkey of a movie Barbarella and when they had her all made up.

    (...great actress, though) 

    Try watching Sunday in New York.

  3. 11 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:

    the pipeline will not be operating at normal output for days and was limp brain a little premature in shutting down keystone XL?

    Keystone would still be under construction and primary purpose was to transport Canadian oil to TX to be sent overseas, so no help to US anyway.  ALSO, even if Keystone existed and was sending oil to TX, the refined products would have to go through the Colonial Pipeline that was hacked, limp brain.

    • Thanks 1
  4. Perhaps if Trump and the Republicans had instituted anti-hack measures or not been so allied with the country where the hackers operated from, this would not have happened.

    Biden has barely been in office a little over 100 days and the Trump administration sabotaged the transition and who knows what else.

    The Federal government has little to no control over the cyber activities of independent companies in America.

  5. 12 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

    Everybody remembers Jimmy Carter and the gas shortages, now we have the same thing because of Biden. Biden stopped a  pipeline and also stopped drilling, so what do people expect when you cut off supplies.

    Totally WRONG as usual.  Had nothing to do with a pipeline and drilling that still would not be producing gasoline for US.  A Pipeline that would serve Canada, not the US Southeast.

    So, dummy, there still would be NO gasoline available.  Even if there were petroleum coming from the pipeline or more drilling, it would still have to travel through the Colonial pipeline.  DUH!

  6. 2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

    I don't dispute any of this.  Only it is my opinion that in REAL terms the Democrats have not moved far to the left at all.  They are certainly not to the left of FDR and that is going on a century ago now.  This is just pure Republican messaging.  And from a party that is becoming far right extremists, a cult that no longer believes in the principles of democracy.

    Depends on your interpretation of "Far Left."  Compared to how far GOPers have moved to the Far Right; no Dems are not on far left.

    However, they are farther to the left than they were in the past and are in fact to the left of FDR.  In addition, many of the proposals being made and debated by Dems are far left and that "taints" the party as far as voters are concerned.  That's why Republicans keep winning and control more state governments.

    While it is good for Republican messaging, it is also already perceived by huge numbers of voters even without the GOPers saying anything.

    The huge number of voters who believe in capitalism as it exists in US, the primacy of business people determining what is best for economy and that government regulation is a bad thing (except for abortion and religious "rights").  Add in those middle class and working class voters who believe more government is bad for them financially and of no benefit to them.  Then add the truly wealthy, corporations, gun nuts and so on and you have a lot of people who will vote Republican.

    What I am saying is that the GOPers are becoming more extreme and a cult, BUT that does not mean that a huge number of voters will accept all that as long as their perceived needs and wants are taken care of.  And they perceive that Republicans are far better at that than Democrats.

  7. 1 minute ago, Bogie56 said:

    Well we each have our opinions and this is just that an opinion ... the democratic party has not moved "so far to the left."  It is pretty well stuck in the middle but just looks left because the right is moving swiftly to the EXTREME right.

    By contrast Canada's CONSERVATIVE party would be deemed Communist by these silly standards.

    There is no need to argue this point as it is just my OPINION.  Okay.

    As an American citizen who has studied American history and politics for decades, there is much to support my opinion.

    My point, which I may not have made clear, is that a third party will fail and will draw very few GOP voters and supporters away from the current party.   It would might draw moderates away from running in GOP primaries, leaving the field to only far-right extremists.  In the general elections, the voters who tend to support GOP would vote for whoever represents the GOP and very few would vote for the third party candidate.   Another "moderate" GOP candidate might also split the moderate vote so that the Dem candidate had even less of a chance.

    The Democrat Party in AMERICA has moved to the left and is perceived to have moved to the far left by many voters.  The GOP has been successful by appealing to moderates and conservatives while keeping their base.  Very few of those moderates would choose to vote for a Democrat or even a Third Party "Republican."

    Once again, the Republican Party won the 2020 election, except for Trump and a few others where Trump interfered  in the
    races.   They were successful because the majority of voters perceived the Democratic Party as being too liberal, too far left , etc.  Or that it does not represent their interests.

    Not my opinion, political and historic fact.

  8. All of the above is interesting, but I do not foresee any significant changes in the Republican Party in the near future.  They know their base and what their base wants.  They know the voters in their states and districts and what they want.

    A third party will have little to no influence on outcomes.  The Democratic Party is so far to the left that it will not appeal to any moderate Republicans, corporations, evangelicals and the other supporters of GOP.

  9. 21 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

    He stated in that quoted post why he's glad Trump was elected: his 3 Supreme Court appointees.

    I presume he hopes the current court composition would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision if and when a case challenging it arises.   This is one reason why a lot of conservative states are passing laws now which appear to violate previous Court decisions - so that they'll get to a Supreme Court hearing, knowing that they will lose initial cases, but through appeals work their way up the ladder.

    I suppose to Nip all the bad stuff you get with Trump is worth it as long as Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    Trump also delivered tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, reduction of regulations to almost nil in many cases and suppression of immigration.  He also delivered huge number of federal judges at all levels, not just the Supreme Court.

    • Like 1
  10. 15 hours ago, mr6666 said:


    Kristol's opinion is much closer to the truth.  The Republican Party is not on its last legs nor is there any reason to think it will change from its current course.  It was successful in 2010, 2016 and 2020 with the same policies it has now.

    • Sad 2
  11. 3 hours ago, Hibi said:

    Looks like a Tab salute on Tues. Is it his birthday? Too bad they didnt include mThat Kind of Woman with Sophia Loren! She co-starred with both Tab and his boyfriend (Tony Perkins) in separate films (Desire Under the Elms) Sophia's magic didnt work on them! I will record Tab Hunter Confidential. I assume it's an interview with him about his memoirs?

    Nothing there I wish to see, but I would rather watch Tab Hunter than Fred Astaire.

    • Haha 1
  12. 20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    I believe the USA invaded the Confederate States too early:   that a compromise could have been made where slavery is dissolved over time and slave owners were compensated for granting slaves freedom.      The overall cost of this compensation would have been a lot less than the cost of the Civil War.     But hey,  maybe that is wishful,  Monday morning quarterbacking.      But if such an agreement couldn't be reached I would have been fine with the South being a separate nation.     

    Compensation had been discussed for a long time, but strong elements in the North were opposed to it and strong elements in the South were opposed to even considering abolition of slavery.

    My great-great grandfather was a captain in the Confederate cavalry and I was a member of both the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars - until they became too racist and radical in other beliefs.

    But, I am totally opposed to the idea of two separate nations as both would have been weak.  It also would have set the tables for Texas, western states/territories and even some Northern and Mid-west states to secede.

    20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    I agree with Cid with regards to China.    All I can add is that the main reason Americans and associated politicians don't wish for China to dominate\intimidate  (not invade or take over),   are economic.     I.e.  The USA was doing this (e.g. getting a nation's national resources for 10 cents on the dollar),   and now China is almost an equal competitor,  which raises the cost of said national resources to American business. 


    One thing I forgot to mention is that the United States even before WW II practiced economic domination of other nations as both a business and governmental policy.  We didn't need to control the countries as we (US) controlled their production and consumption to our advantage.

    20 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

    The problem is, if separatism  had happened and the USA had split into two nations, the French were planning to come up through Mexico and colonize the south. The British were planning to try and take the north back. 

    Don't know what you base this upon, but as an American history major I never read anything about the above.  I also specialized in the Civil War era and have read many, many books and articles on the subjects.

    The British probably had a hard enough time "holding onto" Canada by 1865, I don't see them launching a full scale war against the US.  Even if they did try, the North was well equipped in both manpower, industry and military supplies to counter a British invasion while still fighting the Confederacy.  People do not realize that the South (CSA) by 1863-64 had exhausted its manpower and industrial base (such as it was).  The North still had hundreds of thousands of males to call upon to fight.  Not to mention an industrial base that could easily expand.

    As for France, James noted that France had a hard enough time holding onto Mexico and pretty much failed once the American Civil War ended.  France had pretty much lost by then anyway, but if they had stayed in Mexico, the US Army and Navy would have invaded and run them back to France.

    If the Confederacy had won, they would have turned their army toward Mexico if the US didn't if France was still there.  They would have loved to have new areas in which to expand slavery or at least their agricultural systems.  Most of the people who supported secession wanted to expand the Confederacy into Cuba and other Caribbean areas.  Not positive about Mexico, but I believe they also had an interest in expanding there as well.

  13. 1 minute ago, LsDoorMat said:

    Eventually, just like Hitler, the US will have to face China militarily. Or maybe in the case of the US they plan to continue worming their way into businesses here so that they can control the narrative. Say something bad about the CCP? Try getting a mortgage when China owns a half interest in the banks. And so on. 

    But don't worry. I'm sure when they take over Taiwan and execute a bunch of their political enemies there the US will stand by and do nothing. 

    When Chiang Kai-shek  forcefully took over Taiwan, he displaced the local officials with his own.  They stayed in control with Chiang  in charge for years, if not decades.

    I don't know where you live, but Americans do not want to be the police for the world.   

    Hitler was a totally different story from China.  As far as I know China has no ambitions to conquer other countries at this stage.  They may wish to "dominate" other countries, but so has the US, UK and other nations.

    • Like 1
  14. 2 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

    The difference - We have periodic elections to dispose of officials we do not like. You are free to move somewhere else if you choose, even if you don't want to. The people of China are stuck with the dictator Xi, and they better not say anything negative about the CCP or they will suddenly disappear. 

    But that is no reason for the US to get into a war with China we would eventually lose.

  15. 2 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

    Not to go into every point but -

    Taiwan does not want to be part of China any more than Hong Kong wanted to be under their iron fist. I think that matters.

    I actually forgot about the 1991 Gulf War or I would have included it among just wars. 

    Sure Putin would love to have his empire back. But Russia is just not the global threat that it used to be except in cyber activities which you mentioned. 

    Did not wish to imply that Taiwan wants to be a part of China, but before 1948 they were.  The issue is whether or not it is up to the United States alone to defend it should China attack.  A war with China would be a disaster for US - militarily and economically.

    Neither Hong Kong nor Taiwan does not wish to be part of China.  The people who live there do not wish to be part of China.  They can move if the thought of being under China is so anathema to them.

    I don't want to be part of a state that is controlled by far-right Republicans, but I am.  However, I do not see going to war over it or even moving.

  16. 2 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

    Since when is war necessary?

    In the case of the US:

    The American Revolutionary war.

    The War of 1812 - The British wanted us back.

    The Civil War after the South attacked Ft. Sumter


    Possibly with China if they keep pushing their weight around, invading other countries, committing genocide, and shooting up rockets with no plan for reentry.


    While the UK may have wanted America back, the US started the War of 1812 over British transgressions against the US.  If not for Napoleon and wars in Europe, the British may very well have defeated the US.  The Battle of New Orleans came after the peace treaty was signed.

    As for the Civil War, are you saying that if the Confederacy had not attacked Ft. Sumter, it would NOT have been appropriate for US to go to war with CSA?

    Highly unlikely US will go to war over genocide - never have before.

    Biggest threat to US from China might be China's ambitions to control the South China Sea.  This may very well lead to military confrontations with China.  Of course there are other threats from China - cyber, financial, economic, etc.

    1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    I agree with the first two and WWII,   but not the Civil War or any possible war with China.   Unless China was to attack South Korea or Japan directly,   I say,  the USA stays out of any conflict.    How a nation conducts themselves internally isn't something other counties  should go to war over:  trade sanctions \ diplomatic pressure,  yes,,,,, war,,, NO.

    Should China attack the USA for being a nation build on white supremacy and one that has committed crimes against people of color?   (I'm not saying this is true,  but only using this to call into question a nation attacking another nation for how they conduct themselves internally).



    So, you believe the US should not have invaded the Confederate States of America?   Which would have likely led to the dissolution of the USA.   Other states and regions may very well have left the US if the Confederacy was allowed to go in peace.

    Unlikely that China will attack South Korea directly.  They will do as they did in 1950 and use North Korea to do it.

    Incidentally I would add the Gulf War in 1991 as a just war because it was.  I was there.

    1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

    What if China attacks Taiwan? They'd do that before they went after larger nations.  With their "Beijing Bucks" they've actually got the big studios in their pockets already so that they never show Taiwan as an independent nation in a film. Would it be best to get other nations to join with us and  just hit China where it hurts - in the pocketbook ? Yes, but the same Beijing Bucks that have Disney giving shout outs to the people who run the concentration camps in China in the credits of Mulan would probably make them back down too. 

    I really see China as the 21st century 3rd Reich and I often feel like it is 1938 and I am in Great Britain listening to Neville Chamberlain drone on about appeasement with the Nazis. 

    What if we were built "on white supremacy and one that has committed crimes against people of color" ? Should we should just say it is OK for other nations to commit genocide today? Really? You sound like the CCP trolls I do battle with on the Washington Post comment section. By the way I'm not sure that much of the things built on people of color weren't destroyed in the Civil War since slavery was in the south. Was the Empire State Building built on people of color?  NASA? Silicon Valley? 

    Not trying to yell at you. You seem like a good fellow. I just get tired of the "Russia, Russia, Russia" drumbeat when Russia is really a country that is no longer globally powerful. The only resource they really have is oil and land that may defrost as a result of climate change. China is the real global threat. 

    Is it worth going to war with China over Taiwan?  Taiwan was a part of China before 1948(?).    I do not believe the US should go to war over Taiwan, unless many other nations also participate to a large scaled.  The UN, NATO, EU, Australia & New Zealand, etc.  Other Pacific Rim countries as well.

    The difference between Germany in 1940 and China today is that China dominates the world economy and even the US economy in many aspects.  

    "By the way I'm not sure that much of the things built on people of color weren't destroyed in the Civil War since slavery was in the south."  This is confusing.  For one thing, the South included more than just the 11 states that seceded.  Much of Washington DC, to include government buildings were build with slave labor.  Empire State Building, NASA and Silicon Valley did not exist when slavery did.

    As for other nations committing genocide, that is not something the US alone should go to war to resolve.

    Russia is a threat, especially in cyber activities.  It is also a threat to eastern Europe.  Do you believe that Russia (Putin) does not wish to restore the countries that Russia controlled under the Soviet Union.  Because he does and will go to war with them unless he believes the US, EU and NATO will stop him.   Russia is a threat to Europe because it controls much of the energy that Europe requires.


  17. 4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

    An interesting tid bit - did you know that right after Pearl Harbor, Canada was first to declare war on Japan?

    On December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan), the Empire of Japan began an undeclared war upon the United Kingdom (invading Hong Kong and Malaya), Canada, and the United States (attacking Pearl Harbor).[3] Mackenzie King and the Cabinet decided to go to war with Japan that evening and issued a proclamation the following day declaring that, as of December 7, a state of war existed between Japan and Canada.[2][3][14] One day later, the US and UK also declared war on the Japanese Empire.[3]These proclamations were presented by Mackenzie King to the House of Commons when parliament returned on January 21, 1942.[2]

    Interesting.  Not sure of how Canada works, but in the US only Congress can declare war.  So, FDR had to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war.

  18. 1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    Not sure I agree with this take of GOP history (development) over the last 55 years,  but let me ask you a question:  prior to 2016 (Trumpism) didn't you vote more for GOP candidates over those last 55 years,  than Dems?        

    NO!  Having said that though, it is relative.  I vote in Republican Primary because I can.  In my area of the state, NO Democrats have represented me in the last 20+ years.  So, I have to try and support the best GOPer in the primaries.  However, in the general elections I voted for the Dem (unless a total nutjob).  There are NO Dem statewide officials and have not been for at least 15 years.

    About 20 years ago I did support and vote for a couple of state legislature guys, but they had been Democrats and changed parties and were fairly moderate by S.C. standards.  Plus I actually knew them.  They are gone from office now and replaced by far-right GOPers.

    After the last election, S.C. has the fewest number of Dems. in state House and Senate since Reconstruction.

  19. 53 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    My gut reply here is:  so what.      I.e.  if the ban was lifted and Trump followed the company's posting policy,   so what,  if such post "zoon to the forefront".     

    If Trump violates the posting policy,  ban him for life.      As we discussed the odds of Trump following the posting policy is 1 in a million.    Therefor Dems and anti-Trumpers have nothing to fear,   unless these folks are being disingenuous:    they want Trump banned from as many various outlets as possible,  policy be dammed.     


    Missing the point.  When Trump posts, the media jumps on it to report it.  This includes all the fringe social media that is out there.  Rachell Madmouth would devote a whole show to what Trump said, as would others.  All those liberal podcasters would repeat it and then comment on it.  Not to mention all the counter tweets and postings.

    Why give him the opportunity?  He has already shown he does not believe in any regulation of anything he does.  Never has; never will.

    • Thanks 1
    • Sad 1
  20. 21 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    So you're saying the GOP because a cult party after Nixon resigned?     It would be interesting to see what leading GOP pols that held high office prior to 2008,   like Bush,  Cheney etc...  would say about that. 

    E.g. what "actions"  where taken,  say,  35 years ago that "permitted Trump to demolish any opposition"?      (and by opposition I assume you meant internal GOP opposition and not opposition by Dems,  which was enhanced by GOP tactics like gerrymandering etc...).



    Read my first sentence carefully "...what has become the Donald J. Trump..."  It began with Goldwater and advanced through Reagan to the point where it is now.   The party more and more and more embraced far-right, racist, suppressive and similar policies.  Bush 1 and 2 and Cheney supported or acquiesced when the Party advanced these positions.  The Party has increasingly pushed out those with moderate or even only slightly right of center positions.   Look how ignored George and Jeb Bush and Cheney are.

    It was not a sudden lurch, but a gradual change in the Party - but it was there.  Trump took advantage of it and his people now control the Party.

    Even Nixon was something of a cult figure to the majority of Republicans.  Goldwater and Reagan definitely were.

© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...