MovieChat Forums > fishpan > Replies
fishpan's Replies
No microwaves.
though it was kind of brave to try and pay homage to the dodgy BSG 1980 episode where a lone cylon got taken out by the use of a kitchen appliance
Think it and the disbandment of UNIT were more a criticism of the times we live in, you know populism, living in their own bubble. Bascially Brexit.
Have a couple of years of not being invaded or have a group that isn't saving people publicly then why should governments think they need them or work with other government as their voters would care more about the cost of bread at their local Tesco's and how many immigrants are supposedly taking their jobs?
Always thought that only one cell of a dalek needed to survive for the possibility of a fleet to be a reality, considering they've been shown they can convert people.
As for the Doctor not making fun of it. This Doctor seems a lot more compassionate compared to her predecessors. Making fun of someone is humiliating them, she doesn't seem to be into that.
I think that any system that causes people to need to use GoFundme as a way for funding 1st round basic types of treatment is a sadistic hatred of the working class but that is just me.
Why? Do you expect a young man and his car to have a 'special' bond?
If so isn't that an objectophilic porn movie?
It could explain why Dumbldore also didn't do something about Tom Riddle when he first met him and could see he was a wrongin. Dumbldore isn't exactly been the most virtuous of characters so why when we saw him being creeped out by Riddle he didn't do something about curtail the kid outside sending him to Hogwarts?
But if Credence had just been killed or been hurt and linked to both families wouldnt Dumbldore hold back on dealing with Credence's nephew out of guilt?
There is a spinster Aunt who was engaged to a wizard in the Dumbledore family.
It would be cool if she was Credence's mother and that his father was Voldemort's grandfather. Ages would work for that and it would explain why Nagini would bond to Voldemort. She isn't caring about him being evil, she's bound to him at first because he would be Credence's nephew.
Agree Voldemort is supposed to be your straight up Hitler type. Grindelwald is more your fascist for this age. He doesn't want 'rid' of muggles, just control them or not have them in power etc etc. Basically Grindelwald is a popularist in the terms of Steve Bannon.
It is a shame though they do have Depp playing him though - think it would have been so much better if they had Depp as Graves last film and Farrell taking over as Grindelwald. But guess the studio would never have taken that punt before, plus I doubt Depp would have been brave enough to have the scene where Graves basically grooms Credence the way that Farrell did in the first one
Okay I know they'll probably go somewhat that way but I can't help feel but feel a little uncomfortable.
Cas was millions of years old when Dean took him to the brothel. But Jack, even though he's physically an adult, well Jack has just learned to tie his own shoes.
If she is also the one telling the story then her being a badass at the point where she starts being an active part in it makes a lot of sense.
Well the whole TV series is really her story and what shaped her, where as the comics is her brother's. Her not being a badass would be disappointing.
Possible we could see a Rick and michonne's kid.
Also that is possibly what is going to be the reason why we don't see Maggie as her wanting vengeance was the trigger for Rick being on that bridge. How would she deal knowing that her actions were the trigger for 2kids being left without a father after her raising her kid alone was part of her argument with Michonne about still wanting to kill Negan?
Though question is from the promo Michonne is very security consious so why would she let Judith run around alone?
Yes as I said in my reply - the was an act in the 1920's.
But the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, the Indian reservation and treaties all existed in practical terms existed at the whim of the US military - hell wounded knee was 1890. But the court ruling over Wong Kim Ark was 1898. Meaning those who had generations and generations of history in North America had less rights than first generation immigrants on a whim of the US federal government, why because they were less trusted, not white, had to be controlled?
As you said there is a problem with regards to Native Americans voting at present. Part of the fight about the Keystone pipeline involved it going through a debated piece of land.
All of these things should be put into the discussion regarding birthright citizenship because the Native Americans show that the 14th wasn't sacrosanct but also that people born in the US also need the protection of citizenship as well. Because like it or not the US not an unblemished record when it comes to those born within its own borders and it is very easy for governments to turn onto easily identifiable groups when they feel like it - like with voter suppression now.
As for the 14th amendment being able to be modified - it is in the name. But also can you also go onto boards and tell 2nd amendment supports that it can be amended too so we should have a discussion?
From my understanding until an act in the 1920's native americans weren't considered US citizens unless they 'naturalised' i.e. left their tribe, took land allotments, married a white person or served in the US military. Basically in practical terms give up their way of life.
Didn't matter if they were born in the territorial US or not, because they were 'citizens' of their tribe and had their own 'sovereign lands' and so were loyal to that supposedly. Didn't matter that if the US government decided to do anything to them there or decide to move them to other 'sovereign lands' as there was basically nothing they could do to stop it.
So basically the 14th amendment didn't count for the indigenous population of the US, until the 1920's and that was in part because so many served during world war 1.
But people can tell me if I'm wrong or not.
The issue is being put wrongly.
Those parents who move to the US have kids and are doing so because they want to live there and work there and build lives there fine. As a way to prevent the removal or prevent citizenship for groups who were born and live in the US such as Native Americans as was done in the past - birth right citizenship is a must to protect them.
However, rich elites from other nations who send their pregnant wives over to a hotel next to a maternity hospital to ensure that their baby has dual citizenship before whisking them away back to China or Russia or Saudi Arabia - then you have a real argument with regards to birth right citizenship.
But that is not the context this is being discussed, we are discussing it in terms of race and poverty but birth tourism should be discussed but it isn't because the people doing it tend to have money, lots of it.
Yeah but the way things are rigged don't think it will do any good
True but their thoughts and prayers will be with us all of course.
If Trump does change the Constitution by executive order can the GOP and Fox news and all high head conservatives come out publicly and admit that when they complained about Obama being a dictator they were being hypocrites and don't believe in the Republic because they are happy to support the path to autocracy when it one of them who is a closer skin shade does acts like a dictator.
True I suppose.
That is the scary thing and I suppose that is why they introduced fixed points and had here showing the bad side as much as the Doctor saving the Roman family from Pompeii is good. The waters of Mars tried to show it, the Time Monk tried to show it I think but it failed to be as powerful as this because we weren't invested in the stakes, but here we are.
But that little nudge one way or the other can change so much and lead to pain for others. It is a question how many fixed points have been altered in Who because of a nudge, intended or not. Krasko's plan simply involved getting a bus driver a day off, no biggy and if that was it then how many other things change because of an introduced variable.
Ashlida was never meant to be drowned as a witch, but she was because she lived when she should have died. How many died on Agicourt because of the longbow man who was her. How many survived the plague because they listened to her thing about washing when they should have died or the opposite because they saw what happened to her when she said to wash so died instead of taking the advice of a 'witch'. Those little changes, how many ripples???