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

ElCid

Members
  • Content Count

    14,059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by ElCid

  1. 1 minute ago, txfilmfan said:

    It's not quite in the panhandle - it's a bit south and east of there, but the topography is similar.   It's just a bit south of Wichita Falls TX.  

    Trees are in short supply in that part of the country.

    I went through an Army training course in southern MS once and roomed with an Army veterinarian from OK.  He said if anyone asked him what he thought of southern MS, he would have to say he couldn't see anything for the trees - compared to OK.

  2. 6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    My old '60 Ford Falcon had that feature.  But, for a long while I couldn't find the windshield washers until one night, when tapping my left foot hunting for the high beam button, hit another floor button that sent fluid squirting onto my windshield!  :D 

    Sepiatone

    My 71 Dodge Challenger had the floor button for the windshield wiper fluid.  Actually it was better because you could squirt a lot of water onto the windshield and then turn on the wipers.  You didn't drag the wipers across the dry, dirty windshield before the water started flowing. Also had some control over the amount of water based on hard you pressed the "button."

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

    as a jaded cineaste, I like to deliberately leave certain immensely popular titles unseen so that i don't get to a stage where I've seen everything and thus have no reason to live.

    so, with that, I come out with what some of you may find shocking: before this morning, I had never seen THE LAST PICTURE SHOW (1971.)

    I have now.

    JESUS CHRIST what a depressing, oppressive, and immensely compelling movie this is.

    OIP.gn8iEGiIgqA0G-9usv_5IgHaEI?pid=ImgDe GREAT ACTING WITH SUNGLASSES 101

    I really enjoyed the first half immensely, the second half is not meant to be enjoyed, but I was impressed nonetheless.

    HARD TO BELIEVE BEN JOHNSON is only in this for EIGHT MINUTES!

    Why did things not work out for TIMOTHY BOTTOMS as an actor? He pull a LEE TRACY at the Beverly Hill Hotel or something? He was really very good in this, but, I have to say WHAT A FILM FOR GREAT PERFORMANCES BY ACTRESSES this is.

    I did not realize that EILEEN BRENNAN was in this film. On this Sunday, I would like to thank God for creating EILEEN BRENNAN, and just wish He had not dropped and broke the mold afterwards. I would watch EILEEN BRENNAN READS ALOUD FROM THE SANTA MONICA PHONEBOOK WITH A CIGARETTE DANGLING FROM HER LIP: THE MOTION PICTURE in a HEARTBEAT.

    And CLORIS LEACHMAN, who does some amazing acting in the final 15 minutes, and thank heavens her scene was included! I can't imagine the film ending any other way. (AND MORE AMBIGUOUSLY THAN i THOUGHT IT WOULD!)

    But I think I was MOST IMPRESSED by ELLEN BURSTYN -and would have been gleefully, whole-heartedly thrilled were this movie ENTIRELY ABOUT HER.

    IT'S A GORGEOUS film, would make a great companion piece to AMERICAN GRAFFITI.

    Not recommended for anyone struggling with depression though.

     

    Texasville (1990) is the sequel, but is a much different movie.   Another McMurtry book and with the same director and cast for most part.  In color and not like The Last Picture Show.  Set 33 years after TLPS

    • Like 1
  4. 18 hours ago, Janet0312 said:

    My Dart. I drove this car daily. Got many comments on it. I'd be stopped at a light and people would yell over to me how they loved it and how they had one and also how you couldn't kill the engine as long as you fed it oil.

    How I miss it. Had to get a Jeep for the winter travel tho...

    The last time I drove her in the winter was when I almost smashed into a phone pole during a surprise snow squall. Many cars were off the road and I came around a corner. Was I scared for my own safety? Hell, no. All I could vision was a smashed grill. I made it tho. Phwew!

    Dart 1973.JPG

    My father had a 65 Dart and was so impressed with it that he "helped" my sister purchase a 67 Dart.  She drove it for a decade or more and well into six digit mileage - with minimal care.

    17 hours ago, Janet0312 said:

    Never heard of a Valiant De Luxe. Must have been for the semi rich.

    Many cars going back to the 30's had different levels which are confusing.  Custom, DeLuxe, etc. for example.  The Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart were very similar Chrysler Corp. vehicles.  Got more similar as they aged and Chrysler looked to cut costs.

  5. 20 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    If it's that difficult, my guess would be the increase was so that it must not have come as a shock to taxpayers, which then begs the question:

    What about it then that makes it so scary to the right?

    Sepiatone

    Not only scary to the right, but many moderates as well.  Politically, the problem is that the majority of people who actually vote can easily perceive "socialiazed" Medicare For All and similar programs as distasteful and therefore will oppose them.  

    If the US were to embrace the Candadian, Swiss, et. al. systems, there would be a huge increase in taxes for somebody.  It is very unlikely that this large increase would not filter down to the working and middle class taxpayers as well.  They already think they pay too much in taxes.

    Incidentally, The Affordable Care Act, as limited as it is currently, created an extra "tax" on Social Security recipients at certain income levels.  It is taken out as an extra Medicare charge, but it there to fund ACA.  Hasn't hit us, but I have heard from those that it has and they are not happy about it.  

    18 hours ago, SansFin said:

    I can not speak with authority as my political beliefs do not align with: 'right' or: "left' but I have heard it said that the most persuasive argument against government health programs is: the VA. What hope does the average citizen have of receiving proper care if veterans consistently and constantly suffer neglect at the hands of bureaucrats?

    A question which I have often heard posed is: "If socialized medicine is so great, why do NHS workers demand their benefit package include private health insurance?"

     

    The VA does have problems which the Trump administration did little to nothing to fix.  Nor did the Obama administration.  The problem is the huge number of veterans (and some spouses) eligible for services or payment for services.  Mind you, the patients basically pay nothing for services, so the taxpayers have to pay for it.  That is not wrong, but it is the way it is.

    I use the VA for some services and biggest problem is getting in touch with your medical provider.  Another example is that while private medical providers, hospitals and so forth began providing all services months ago, the VA is still very restrictive.  Locally, you can call a private provider and get an in person appointment within days or weeks depending on what is needed.  The VA does not even let you enter the buildings unless you have an appointment and in most cases, "appointments" are a telephone call to you  from your medical provider at his/her convenience.

    As for NHS workers, probably because without including private health insurance, they would have no realistic coverage.  

    16 hours ago, SansFin said:

    I have been made aware of a situation which speaks powerfully also against government control: at least two major cities have opened vaccinations to people of all ages. Officials bemoan how few people are scheduling appointments. People bemoan how appointments for weekends are rare or non-existent. The bureaucrats strongly feel the world must march to their Nine-To-Five Monday-through-Friday timetable and treat people who have children or have to work during the day as subhuman undeserving of care.

    Are the week-end appointments limited because they fill-up so quickly or because the facilities are not open?  What about the people administering the vaccinations, should they be required to work 60+ hour weeks for the convenience of some people?  What does having children have to do with it?  The children are still there on the week-ends and probably more of a problem than during the week.

    What do these people do when they need to see a medical person or facility on a non-emergency basis?  These are almost all operated on a M-F, 9-5 basis.

    The government is offering something for free that may save your life.

  6. Pelosi is right in this instance, increasing the size of the court is the wrong thing to do.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Let the commission figure it out.

    Personally I would like to see a Constitutional amendment setting term limits and age limits on all federal judges.

    One thing they could do is pass a law stating that in the event of a vacancy, the Senate must hold hearings within 30 days of the nomination being delivered by the President.  Then they have 90 days to have a vote on confirmation.  Neither the senate majority leader nor any other person may delay consideration of a nominee.  Also, NO filibusters allowed.  So, within 4 months it would be done.  Actually this should apply to all appointments needing approval of the Senate.

  7. 20 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

    I guess we have different experiences with drive-ins. Our local drive in shows the same stuff that’s running at walk in theaters. Currently the new Godzilla and Birds of Prey.  The drive-ins I haunted growing up would show schlock like Invasion of the B-Girls, but they also ran the latest Bond film or whatever big draw was out at the time.

     

    To my knowledge, there is only one drive-in theater left in S.C.

    17 hours ago, David Guercio said:


    Yes I did say that it would be really neat in the letter and just in case you guys are kind of a little confused?  I don’t mean we would actually go to a Drive In and see TCM’s Big Screen Classics Series.  What I mean is.  That could actually be a new event for and on TCM itself.  That could actually be the name of the event.  There could be a host and they could show a different classic movie every week.  Like for example.  TCM Spotlight.  The Essentials.  Essentials Jr.  Treasures From The Disney Vault etc and I’m not copying the Disney Channel.  But they used to have an event on Saturday afternoons called The Disney Drive In.  The promo went like this.  All your favorites from yesteryear.  Are at the Disney Drive In.  Saturdays at 1’30pm/12:30c.  That’s what gave me the idea for an event here on TCM.  There you have The TCM Drive In.  With classic movies.

    OK, so how would the TCM Drive-In be any different from what TCM does now?  Show a movie with an introduction by a host, a cartoon, a short feature and then an outro by the host?  Would the movies be any different?

  8. 3 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    As a GM retiree after near 30 years seniority, I haven't had to worry about healthcare coverage since Nov. '71.   What I'd like to know is.....

    Since the "socialized" medicine program started in Canada(if I stated that right) what, if any, pros and cons were outstanding?  And how much more of a burden on taxpayers did it add? 

    Sepiatone

    See my original post at beginning of this thread.  Of course not all of that is for medical care, but much of it is.

  9. Needs to be more specific as to what "Drive In" features mean.  Does it include a cartoon, shorts, double features, etc.?  Does it mean showing movies typically shown at drive-ins?  These would be movies lower than B movies.

    If interested, Tubi (free) has a link to Shout and Full Moon sites and they show a lot of movies that would have been "drive in" type fare.  At least in the late 60's and later.

  10. 2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:
    The Washington Post
    The Post Most
     
     
    ef9f3717351aa8b8687181744c44a6cb-CZPEZYZ2C5EGZLKVHTFYYKWYNY-600-0-70-8.jpg

    (Harry Stevens/The Washington Post)

    The new census will shake up seats in Congress. See how your state stands to win or lose.

    Some states will gain seats after the census, while others such as Rhode Island will likely lose them. And even after the changes, House members from some states will still represent a starkly different number of people than others.

    By Harry Stevens, Tara Bahrampour and Ted Mellnik   Read more »

    As usual, would not let me read the article.

    However, this is nothing new in American politics.  The North has been losing House seats for decades while the Sunbelt has been picking them up.  As for the numbers represented, some states have only one representative who represents the whole state no matter how many people live there.  There probably is some variance in the numbers per representative, but it complies with federal law.

    The issue is gerrymandering, particularly in Republican controlled states.  It will be brutal for the Democrats.

  11. 13 hours ago, hamradio said:

    How does an officer use a gun instead of a Taser?

    https://apnews.com/article/how-does-police-use-gun-instead-of-taser-explained-e6bb9c49b1bcdc244e3ec11d94137c82

     

    How does an officer mistake a gun for a Taser? Here's what experts say

    https://www.abc10.com/article/news/nation-world/how-officer-uses-gun-instead-of-a-taser/507-4f904a48-fbbf-4619-a35e-819812741a06

     

    This  will haunt her for the rest of her life.

    0_Kimberly-Potter.jpg

     

     

    This is NOT murder but negligent homicide at the most! 

    20608348_G.jpg?lastEditedDate=1618324050

     

    Wouldn't label  this as Police Force Abuse.

     

    From the article [and an excellent point] “Why do we even have Tasers that operate and function and feel and deploy exactly like a firearm?” Carter asked. “Why can’t we have Tasers that look and feel different? That you could never mistake for deploying a firearm so that we can ensure that mistake that has happened before can never happen again?”

    "This  will haunt her for the rest of her life."  And well it should.  She was a 26 YEAR veteran police officer.  She should know the difference between a stun gun and a pistol.

    • Thanks 3
  12. 20 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

    I come back to propaganda.  It is difficult to go up against the Republicans who say they are champions for smaller government and letting people keep more of their own money in their pockets.  They say this even if it isn't remotely true.  Like their trickle down theory.

    And who can argue with those pointing to needlessly squandered funds like the storied "$100,000 hammer"  that the Pentagon paid for.  But that is all to muddy the waters and leave more money for the rich and to provide no safety nets for the poor - voted for those who are last to benefit from this.

    On the subject of health care, I had EXTRA coverage than the basic through my Union.  **** if needed, etc.  I'm sure the Canadian military has something similar.  So people don't have to lose that sort of thing by having universal health care.  And because there is Universal health care that covers the basics the Extra coverage is peanuts.

    The Democrats in Congress and the White House approved the budgets that paid for the "$100,000 hammer." 

    So, you now no longer have "EXTRA coverage" for health care?  Why did you single out the Canadian military as being provided extra coverage since they are funded by the government (taxpayers)?  I am sure that is a very small percentage of the Canadian population anyway?

    Incidentally, you complain about the US Military spending too much money.  To some degree, I agree with that.  But you need to remember that the US military has a very substantial and costly role in defending the Pacific Rim countries, Europe, the Middle East and even some of Africa.  Therefore, these countries spend far, far less of their government budgets on defense.

    Without the US military, no telling what Russia, China and other bad actors would do in those locations.

  13. 19 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

    When I worked in the UK, my employer offered medical insurance policies to the UK employees (we were still covered under our US policy).  As I recall there was a cheap option that covered things the NHS didn't cover completely, and an expensive version that would pay for private care if you wanted.  Few people took either.

    I'm retired, but since I retired early, I'm not eligible for Medicare for another 8 years.  My previous employer provides retirees  with a policy (the same one as for employees), but we are completely responsible for paying the premium (no cost sharing).   As a single person, my premium is about $850 a month (around $10K per year).   Fortunately, my pension includes a medical annuity stipend (originally designed to pay for Medigap premiums, but it can be used for any medical purpose) that pays about 40% of the premium.  Even with that, my medical premium deduction is equal to about 65% of my income tax deduction from my pension check each month.   

    Texas insurance premiums are higher than average because we have so many uninsured people in the state and high rates of obesity, heart disease and cancer, so I'm told.

    I doubt my taxes would go up by $10K a year if my private health insurance was replaced by a government funded insurance system.

     

    But, would the government funded program give you the same coverage as your current private insurance?  Would you have the same accessibility to medical treatment?  Probably not.  

    One of the problems currently is the deficit in funding Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and other government funded medical "insurance."

  14. 20 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    And here in MI, it was a REPUBLICAN governor and state legislature who got into law the mandatory requirement to buy car insurance before you can buy your license plates or tabs.  

    Sepiatone

    In S.C., the state has required proof of insurance for decades.  In fact, if you are stopped you have to provide proof of insurance or you can be fined.  All of this was done when the Democrats controlled the governorship and the state legislature.  Personally I fully support it as there are still far too many uninsured or underinsured motorists on the roads today.

  15. 1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:
    Anyway, read the article, it's full of data points that Republican pollsters and strategists know, but that Republican lawmakers ignore because they rely on false information from racist TV hosts.
     
    GOP voter suppression will bear heavily on white rural voters, like those of Martin County KY, 2020 turnout 44.5% Those laws will advantage educated homeowners, in Fayette County KY, 2020 turnout 66.5%. Martin voted Trump; Fayette, Biden.

    Not exactly. 

    From the article: "They may lose some of their older, poorer, or sicker rural voters, but if they can thwart a larger number of Black or young voters, they [GOP]will emerge ahead."

    The GOPers have researched this and they may lose a few older, white voters who vote early or by mail.  But, the majority of voters using those methods in 2020 were Democratic voters.  GOPers will go to the polls on election day if they have to, whereas Democratic voters are far less likely to do so.

    No proof that Republican voters would have more difficulty creating an acceptable copy of identification to send in for mail-in voting.  On the other hand, Democratic voters would have more difficulty and be more prone to just not bothering.

    There are some points made for where GOPers are losing voters.  One area where they are gaining them is among Hispanics, particularly males.   This is what keeps TX and FL firmly in the GOP column.  Much of this has to do with GOP successfully branding the Dems as socialists.

    Also, don't expect the courts to prevent state voter suppression laws.  The federal bench is dominated by either moderate or conservative judges at this point.  The 68 Biden might get through the Senate will have little effect on that.  Regardless, the cases will ultimately end up before the Republican/conservative US Supreme Court.  Based on both precedent and the bent of the justices, they will let the states do as they please.  Just as they do with gerrymandering.

  16. My experience with the law enforcement officers I have known is that they join to drive faster than the speed limit, even in personal vehicles, with impunity, to exercise force against others and to legally use weapons of deadly or serious force.

    • Thanks 1
    • Sad 1
  17. 19 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

    No doubt the taxes are higher for the middle class and workers in other countries.   It has been my experience living in several of these countries that most people just accept that as a reality.  No one wants to give up their health care in Canada or in Britain.  Even the conservatives don't dare go anywhere near those sort of issues.

    Again, I think the messaging has been brutal in America and no doubt that is colored by the propagandists such as Rupert Murdoch and the Kochs who wish to have people believe that giving ANY money to social programs is just throwing it away on dead beats who won't look after themselves.  You hear that all the time.  Even the very people who rely on these programs don't wish to pay anything toward helping other people!  The same sort of sentiment sort of exists in Canada and throughout Europe as the Right Wing pushes that messaging upon workers every day as they sit and read Rupert Murdoch's rags on the way to work.  The indigenous 'deadbeat' is often replaced by the 'immigrant.'   Why pay anything toward new citizens?  You hear that a lot from the right wing in these countries and that is taken up by the 'worker' who reads these kind of rags.  What the right wing is actually trying to do is to get people to be against their own social safety nets.  Throw out the baby with the bathwater because you don't want to help deadbeats or immigrants.

    But at least in these other countries the social programs have been established and it is then much harder to get rid of them because the people have decided that they actually like them.

    Again, it is about how much higher taxes in "socialized" countries are.  This will be a major selling point for Republicans to use in defeating Democratic programs and Democratic candidates at both state and federal levels.

    The Democrats have suffered major losses among Hispanic voters, particularly males, because of Democratic links to "socialism."  That is why FL and TX are predominately still Republican.

  18. 40 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

    Why do Republicans wish to spend so much on the military and weapons of war?  And if you don't go along with them you are unpatriotic.

    Not just the Republicans.  While they wish to spend more, the Dems are all in if it affects their states or districts.

    But the issue is how much higher taxes on middle-class and workers are in other nations that provide "socialized" services.

  19. This was in The Week magazine referring to an article by Henry Olson in The Washington Post.

    The middle class in other countries pay far higher taxes than in the US.  Canada has a national 5% sales tax, provincial sales taxes or up to 10%.  Ontario has a top income ta rate of 46.13% on incomes of more than $175,000.  In the UK, taxpayers pay 40% tax on incomes of just $52.100 and 45% at $208,600.  They also pay a 20% Value-added tax on all goods and services and $3.00 per gal. fuel tax.  In Denmark, top tax rate of 55.9% for incomes of $86,500 plus a 25% value-added tax.

    This is how they pay for all their social programs.  It is doubtful that Biden's proposed taxes on corporations and "the rich" will pay for everything the progressives want.  It will also make it a tough sell to middle-class voters, especially with the Republicans spreading propaganda about taxes going up on all workers and the middle-class.

     

  20. 42 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

    I've only seen the Raymond Burr TV show, and never read any of the novels by Gardiner, so I was amused to see Paul Drake as a black character P.I. this go round. It's part of the "inclusion for all Americans"  that we obviously didn't get  with the Hollywood stereotypes. If it brings new fans to Earl Stanley Gardner's works great. They should bring in some Asian characters too. I enjoyed the  Sister Alice McKeegan character which was obviously based on Aimee Semple McPherson. McPherson pioneered the use of modern media in religious services, using radio to draw on the growing appeal of popular entertainment and incorporating stage techniques into her weekly sermons at Angelus Temple, an early megachurch

     You can just enjoy it as a parallel universe Perry Mason. It kind of like Spillane's Mike Hammer a New York Detective who in Kiss Me Deadly is set in Los Angeles, wearing no fedora  or trenchcoat, I don't even think he shoots a gun so no .45 Colt Automatic either. That story was changed a lot too but I'm not complaining it's the best Mike Hammer on film to date.

    I recently had free access to The Girl Hunters with Mickey Spillane as Mike Hammer.   Gave up about 1/3 of the way through it.

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