• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About grego

  • Rank
    The Gadget Play
  • Birthday 05/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
    d green!
  • Location
    Germantown, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I noticed that too. I don't know how far back they were filming, but it seemed like quite a long time. there was also footage which looked like cell phone footage, from times like when he the dude (cant recall who it was) and realized he no longer owned his tv show. a week before the fire. I finished the show last night and I really liked it. I wonder, when it comes to these pseudo documentary type shows, if we are getting the whole story. these shows are made to elicit an emotional response to keep you engaged. when making a murderer was on, there was outrage- some of it justified, no doubt, but much of it not. purposely leaving out exculpatory evidence makes it seem like there was this huge injustice. same with 'when they see us'. you will be convinced of someones guilt or innocence based on a completely manufactured, selective, one sided view of events. its essentially rage bait. when it came out that Michael Moore staged the scene in bowling for columbine where he comes out of the bank with the rifle, I felt like I was being manipulated and lied to (because I was). that drives me nuts. I don't mind being told a story, but i'd like to know all of the facts. in Moores case, hell, in steven averys case and the central park 5 case, there are legitimate discussions that can be had. but its counter productive to twist facts and obfuscate the truth.
  2. that's funny. that's what my sis in laws boyfriend told me too. I don't know why, i'm into it. I was late listening to 'serial', which had a structure where it introduced and built up characters, then, at the end of every episode, introduced a bit of a plot twist you don't see coming. I like the plot twists, I like trainwrecks, and i'm a people watcher, especially potential psychopathic extreme narcissists, and this show might have three of them. everybodys nuts. I love it.
  3. i'm sure i'm interpreting those poll numbers with my own confirmation bias (as much as I try to not do so). I thought biden was the guy after 2016 that could beat trump. he had a swagger and attitude, that seemed like it would match up well. that belief has waned over time, partly due to him not looking very sharp lately, and looking tired and quite old physically. i'm afraid joe rogan may be right when he said trump would eat him alive in debates.
  4. I think we're interpreting him differently. he said he needs a strong vp to bring enthusiasm. the poll indicates a lack of enthusiasm for joe. do you think the poll is wrong?
  5. Rdskns2000 is right. from the article Evil posted -
  6. I honestly don't remember having an issue with any mod, or saying something that would have been remotely ban worthy, so i'm surprised to hear that. I really worry about the division and polarization in society today and, as a result, I've tried to make it a point to not contribute to it by being snarky, insulting or dismissive, but, rather, to try to understand where people are coming from. I've been rather unsuccessful in that endeavor, unfortunately, which has resulted in me reading and not posting so much. to hear that I was on the ban list is a but surprising given my propensity for self flagellation for being a jackass. sorry to hear about your mom. I can relate- my mom has early onset dementia that's been getting progressively worse for years. (I don't believe that prager and carlin are birds of a feather)
  7. I know you love me. it's valentines day, after all.
  8. I think you hit on something. i'm looking at the claim on it's face (is it true, or is it false), not how it was made (thoughtfully or not), his political stances, or why he thinks the status quo surrounding the taboo on the word is as it is. (I agree that these other claims regarding blame are clearly up for debate).
  9. there is a certain amount of license given to comedians, no doubt (I think there should be). I have no idea if prager is a racist, but i'm positive that presumption is coloring the view of the audience. in that clip, I hear him and carlin making the same point- the intent matters. I believe this is his point, because he says as much. he says it's despicable to call someone the word, which is different from using it to say "X called someone ….the n-word".
  10. i'm seeing his words completely differently. this appears to me as another example of two movies on one screen. what i'm seeing people say that he's saying is not what I see him saying. i'm not seeing him complaining that he can't use the word to call people the word, I see him saying that you can't say the word if you were, for example, quoting somebody- you have to stop and say 'n-word'. george carlin says it better <mod edit video>
  11. I don't disagree about inclusiveness, at least historically, although maybe tolerance for traditional conservative positions is changing. The Obama example above alludes to that. But that may be true of the right as well. It seems to me there are less conservative dems and less liberal repubs than there used to be. Clietes' point was that republicans have moved to the right. I think that may be more perception than reality as a result of the left moving further left, if Pew is accurate. The right hasn't changed much over the last couple of decades.
  12. i'm not sure about that. what do you make of this? and this- When did Barack Obama become a Republican? By John Avlon i can tell you in my own experience, my views have moved considerably left from where i was just a few years ago. and i'm confident obama circa 2008 couldn't make it to the current 2020 candidate debate stage. (my current views would put me left of 2008 obama on most issues).