MovieChat Forums > Philhelm > Replies
Philhelm's Replies
Wow, I didn't realize that he was that old, but he's 86. I hope I'm half as active as him at that age.
Before.
When she and Will were talking about it during the car ride home she said that she had no idea. Will then asked how she could have known. It was passed off as throwaway dialogue, but that was a hint that something was up, even before the firing.
That's awesome!
There was some comedy, but it was extremely dark.
1. Amon Goeth ordering the execution of the architect and then going along with her suggestion anyway.
2. Amon Goeth telling the other Nazi, "They cast a spell on you, you know, the Jews," when he realized that his original explanation wasn't working.
3. Amon Goeth's frustration at being unable to execute the factory worker due to a pistol jam.
4. Amon Goeth randomly shooting a Jew from his balcony for taking a break while he's not even dressed for the morning.
5. Amon Goeth practicing the "I pardon you" line in the mirror.
6. Schindler tricking Amon Goeth into giving the Jews in the train water, under the guise of giving them false hope.
7. The SS officer playing the piano while the soldiers are shooting people in the background.
8. Amon Goeth fixing his hair before his execution.
I'm sure there are other examples, but you get the point.
I don't think that Momoa blew Arnie out of the water.
I won't argue that Arnold's acting was great, or that he was true to the book version of Conan, but Arnold's Conan seemed to have a lot more charisma and screen presence. Also, Arnold had a much better supporting cast for him to lean on.
First Knight (1995)
I've been to stores so I must be gay.
Sure, I shouldn't believe my lying eyes.
There has definitely been a trend to display models who are less attractive, overweight, have crappy haircuts (outright buzz cuts in some case), skin conditions such as vitiligo, etc. Sure, they are more diverse, but you don't see any of that with the male models, at least not to the same extent.
If you go to Target or Wal-Mart, or wherever, I've noticed that the female clothing and makeup models have become...less than conventional, let's say, whereas most of the male models are mostly still buff. Perhaps it's gay men behind the marketing, but I've seen a lot more acceptance of women than men (especially if they are under 6' tall).
A notary typically only requires that you sign a document within their presence, so I'd imagine that remote notarization would work similarly. People with cell phones and photo ID could do that much easily enough.
The authentication number could be something that is generated like a 2-step verification process, so it doesn't necessarily need to be a memorized number. We do the same with email accounts and such.
I never said ending mail-in voting. That's you creating an argument to refute in your head. I'm aware that there are people who physically cannot go to the polls but who still have the right to vote. 2020 added mass mail-in voting on a scale not seen before, and highlighted some of the problems.
Conventional notarization is only one option. I think some states opened up remote notarization options due to COVID-19, but with today's technology I'm sure that there can be other means to ensure one vote per person, such as a security number that is associated with the mail-in ballot, etc. In other words, something to prevent one person from using another person's ballot.
The poll tax argument is overdone I think, especially considering all of the licenses and taxes we require just to exist. Regardless, I would make such services free to the public. I'd rather our tax dollars be used for legitimate government services than to give billions of dollars to Ukraine against the will of the taxpayers. If we are stuck on the notary option only, they could bill the government for voting-related services.
My problem with districts revealing their vote totals at different times is that the larger districts might know exactly how many more ballots are required to change the election result. With today's technology, I wouldn't be surprised if they can access voter rolls to fabricate ballots for actual people who might not have voted. This is why people were so angry at the 2020 delays in the swing states. Even if there was no fraud, the appearance of impropriety is bad enough. Games of poker are more strict than our damn elections.
Regarding the baby and his bottle and voter ID, why is it that people like me are expected to be responsible adults, wherein I'm required to pay taxes, pay license fees, ensure my children go to school, etc., but all of these other mythical people who are used to prevent us from safeguard our elections would be too put off to use an ID to vote in an election? And I'm not talking about actual people with disabilities. Poor people can get IDs too.
If an election was stolen and it was to your favor, would you even care?
"Even the fact that you weren't allowed to call the election fraudulent online tells you everything, you gullible twat."
That part shouldn't be understated. They didn't even censor two decades of "9/11 was an inside job," wherein the government was accused of outright murdering thousands of Americans, but multiple media platforms immediately censored accusations of election fraud.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the election was on the level, none of their subsequent actions have made me second guess myself. If they really wanted people to have faith in the elections they would add safeguards (for example, mail-in ballots requiring notarization, districts reporting results at the same time, etc.). The fact that blatantly obvious safeguards are not implemented is enough to conclude that they want the elections open to abuse.
They don't need millions of people. They only need operatives in metropolitan areas of swing states to tip the balance enough to take the electoral vote. The less populous red districts report their totals first, which opens up the opportunity to make up the difference in the larger cities while they stall (if they're clean about it, they might be able to use people already on the voter rolls who didn't vote to fabricate ballots); hence, why states such as Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, etc., were so unnecessarily delayed beyond anything we've ever seen when we used paper ballots. With electronic voting, there is no excuse for the winner to be declared after over a week. Get real.
If the government wants people to have faith in the elections then they need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but they don't because this is what they want, and people like you are all to willing to either turn or blind eye or simply not care. The problem is, the reason we have elections, rules, etc., is so that we don't kill each other every time there needs to be a transfer of power, but a lot of us are now wondering why we should honor elections that appear suspicious (again, the onus is on government to prove that the elections are fair, not for Joe Six-Pack to prove the opposite, which is impossible).
Also, my position isn't that I'm trying to steal elections. All I'm asking for is additional safeguards and transparency, etc., so that people can trust the elections. If the election was so clean, then what would you risk?
Again, I can't possibly prove anything since I don't have the authority to audit the results, but the government's actions don't fill me with confidence. Regardless, the nation is going to fall apart over this "nonsense," so why not support measures that add extra safeguards to elections? If the elections are fair, what do you have to lose? If I'm so horrible and stupid, why am I a vocal proponent of fair elections?
Even setting aside actual fraud, I don't even like the fact that counties submit their results at different times, since it opens up the potential of abuse. Why should I trust leftist political operatives, who have such contempt for us (people like you), to treat us fairly to begin with? I call B.S. on it all, and I don't have to prove it. They need to prove that we have fair elections.
I'm a private citizen. The burden isn't upon me to prove election fraud, but for the government to prove it conducted fair elections. At this point the evidence is circumstantial and is impossible for normal voters to prove without authority to do so, not to mention the folly of trying to prove election fraud to people like you who probably wouldn't even care. Considering that people have been clamoring for certain safeguards to our elections, and the fact that such proposals are ignored, it's obvious that those in power want the elections to be open to abuse. Regardless, if a sizable portion of the voting population thinks that elections are rigged, that's a huge problem, regardless of whether you think those people are wrong, stupid, etc. Just the fact that people who call for certain safeguards get scoffed at tells me all that I need to know, since the "winning" side isn't actually interested in fair elections.
If we don't vote then they win outright. Even if voting doesn't matter, it's still a placeholder until whatever happens, happens.
Well, we have a better picture regarding how the fraud works. The good news is that they don't control the elections outright, or else Trump wouldn't have won in 2016. I think they were overconfident in 2016 and were caught with their pants down, so they (the elected and unelected cogs in the government wheel, etc.) figured they'd mutiny against Trump for four years and ensure that 2020 goes their way.
It seems that they only really target swing states for the most part, and it probably costs money to grease political operatives' palms. I think they'd prefer to remove Trump from the ballot, but they will still steal it again if all else fails. The problem is that it's going to be all the more obvious now that Biden has proven to be a failure. It's possible that Trump wins, but only if certain factions who feel betrayed decide not to ride out for him again, but I give Trump less than a 5% chance, especially now that our enemies are behind the levers of power again.
Same. He was supposed to play Paul Sorvino's role, but Joe Pesci was obviously amazing as Tommy. Hell, he won an Oscar for the part.