caulfield12

Latino Review seems like a group competing with the Chippendale's. Now You See Me wasn't THAT bad. I can see someone giving it a 2-3 out of 5, but 1? It was so long ago when I watched it in the theatres, but I remember at least being entertained and generally enjoying it. I also think it's a "big" movie that plays better on the large screen than at home. ONE should be for specially reserved for Atlas Shrugged sequels, Saving Christmas (Kirk Cameron), Transformers 5 or 90% of the movies that Adam Sandler puts out, like Blended and That's My Boy.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 08:45 AM) One thing of note, Gates' religious point of view change came with the birth of his first child. He was generally, and accurately, described as non religious (waste of time on Sunday when you could be working) or even an atheist. How many non religious based shelters do you find around a city? Food pantries? That's my main point. Churches generally are a gathering spot for communities to do good deeds directly in the community. As a nation we just don't have time for civic and fraternal groups like we use to. The Masons, Elks, Moose, etc all have declining memberships. And that's where the non-believers or atheists sometimes have a problem. When assistance or a meal is contingent upon first being proselytized to...I remember about a decade ago this was a huge issue with "compassionate conservatism" under GW Bush and the granting of Federal block funds to religious-based charities. It's one thing to do good deeds, but if you force people to listen to "witnessing" or testimonials, it starts to become more about the religion expanding itself and less about the heart of the New Testament/peace and social justice message. Of course, in the Bible, it doesn't say anything about the building of physical churches or donating money, that was just a later interpretation of the Church. When a majority of donations go to fundraising costs, staffing/salaries and physical office space, it tends to lose focus from the mission and become more about sustaining an organization into perpetuity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/...;pgtype=article No, it's not about The Game and pick-up artists, haha. When you think about it, approaching dating from this "interview/questionnaire" format makes a lot of sense, although some might think it's a little bit forced, it would seem to be a lot better use of time than the typical dinner and a movie cliche. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/...g-or-small.html Here are the 37 questions to ask...

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 06:10 AM) I did the same thing...although it took me a little longer than two weeks. I started watching Chuck. I'm hooked. Great combination of action and comedy. Plus, you know, Yvonne Strahovski. She was also in the recent 24 reboot. Person of Interest Wonder if they'll bring in another cast member for the balance of the season?

QUOTE (Douglas Rome @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 05:33 AM) Me and Linda watch Celebrity Apprentice with Donald Trump. This season has Johnny Damon as lone of the contestants, and a few of the tasks are fund raisers. The key to winning is to call on your best buddies to make cash donations and document the results. These Celebrities can garner some big bucks but it seems the pro sports players have a rough go. Damon was only able to accumulate $5000, while one of the Hollywood guys was able to earn $165,000. Linda asked what's with that, I thought these ball players made so much money? And it's true, baseball players are the elite of the pro sport world when it comes to salaries, but evidently not when it comes to charity donations. Or maybe Damon doesn't have any friends? thanks, douglas This should be in the TV thread or possibly The Diamond Club...or Slam, if it's going to go in that philosophical direction.

Blowing a 17 point lead to an 0-4 Minnesota team, even on the road. Inexcusable. Mentally weak. McCaffrey's one season away from being fired, as they're unlikely to improve much with White graduating. I am posting this anyway while breathing a huge sigh of relief. Went down by four before eventually pulling the game out. Would have been a season killer IMO. OSU (for first place) at home, at Wisconsin and at Purdue the next three. Would take 1-2 and hoping for 2-1.

Blowing a 17 point lead to an 0-4 Minnesota team, even on the road. Inexcusable. Mentally weak. McCaffrey's one season away from being fired, as they're unlikely to improve much with White graduating. I am posting this anyway while breathing a huge sigh of relief. Went down by four before eventually pulling the game out. Would have been a season killer IMO. OSU (for first place) at home, at Wisconsin and at Purdue the next three. Would take 1-2 and hoping for 2-1.

Started on Banshee now. Lili Simmons, wow (yes, I'm rhyming). Just finished the first season. Shameless, what the hell is going on...??? Dermot Mulroney and pies?

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:02 PM) Are you sure about that ? That just sounds ridiculous. Talk about Human Rain Delay. That guy took forever to pitch, like Contreras when he first came to the Sox in 2004. Seem to be collecting ex-Sox. Radinsky was a pitching coach there previously.

Like that the original press release from the Sox had him with 20+ homers in three of the last four seasons. Wishful thinking.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 07:20 PM) I watch the Oscars beginning to end every year. I know, mock me. I put validity in those winners despite hating the idea that movies are made to win awards. The TV awards at the Globes? C'mon. No way The Affair was best drama. Or the girl from Jane the Virgin is best actress. I guess I have to see that Julianne Moore movie. No real lead woman stands out this year like Blanchett did last year. Away from Her, Iris and Amour are all much better "Alzheimer's movies." If it weren't for the performance of Moore, this one would easily fit on the Lifetime or Oprah Network, especially due to the presence/s of Kimberly Stewart, Alec Baldwin and Kate Bosworth. I put it in the okay/decent movie category, with a superior acting performance embedded within in, like Big Eyes (although honestly I don't quite understand the canonization of Amy Adams). It's also not a movie I would be happy paying $10-15 to see in a theatre, or a date movie, either. The Gambler 3.25/5 Unbroken 3.75/5 Predestination 3.50/5 (either this movie is totally transcendent or it's terrible and impossible to follow, I'm still not sure after one viewing but I'm leaning towards the incomprehensible argument, it almost feels like they started backwards from the ending and tried to fill in the rest of the plot...) Has anyone else seen John Wick? Awesome movie, better than Snowpiercer of the "underdog/indie" movies made with smaller production and marketing budgets. And superior to its cousins, The Equalizer and Taken 3. Another movie to consider if you do like Predestination is an even smaller budget film, Coherence, which is a lot of fun.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 04:30 PM) You think critics put too much stock in the golden globes? They are pretty much regarded as a joke, but most watch because it's a lot looser than the oscars. More drunken behavior....and the Hollywood Foreign Press!!! One thing it is....more starpower with the inclusion of the tv categories, whereas there are some years (like when The Artist was the top movie) that the motivation of everyday Americans to watch the Oscars is practically nil.

Interesting the word choice of "Moslems" vs. Muslims by Murdoch. At first, I thought it must have something to do with British/Australian vs. Americanized English. But not... http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/11/...slim-vs-moslem/

Maybe Snowpiercer was a product of hype...in the sense that when I watched it, my expectations weren't particularly high and I didn't even pay any attention until I noticed Chris Evans was in the film. Then I started to get into it...my joy with the film is more about the futuristic vision/cinematography than being particularly enamored with the ending. The other part of my puzzlement was how a movie like that barely made it to the theatres (that was only after a groundswell of "word of mouth") when there's so much unoriginal garbage, like Grown Ups 2 or The Hot Tub Time Machine 2 (I know, I secretly dug the first one but will surely be disappointed with the sequel) being produced. This is a tough year, admittedly. Boyhood bores half the people who see it to death, the other half feel it's brilliant, amazing and any other adjective Michael Keaton didn't use last night. Selma, The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game all have flaws because of their cinematic departures from the real stories, with Selma being the best of that lot. Same thing with The Grand Budapest...Wes Anderson has a devoted niche of followers, but his style of humor isn't for everyone, by any means. Now that I consider all the movies, and their respective scripts, I'd have to say Birdman was the most original/inventive/creative/daring of the bunch.

found these quotes from the comments section of a yahoo question on the topic....take them for what they're worth!!! By percentage of Gross National Income, the top most charitable nations in the world are among the least religious nations on earth. And guess what, the largest recipients of these money also happen to be among the most religious nations on earth. It is funny how the world works. Bill Gates, the most well known atheist in the world, gives more money away than anyone else on the planet Earth. Also, "Christians" like yourself give to feel better about yourself, I volunteer to make those that are less fortunate feel better about themselves, which do you think is a more generous act? Here's a hint, most modern "Christians" are selfish egotists. Believers, don't be afraid to question religion. If God is so almighty, why must he ask people for their money? Or is bleeding mostly the poor and middle class for thousands of years, God's special type of love? if you exclude donating money to churches which for some reason is labeled charity, then atheists actually do give more money than religious people. i dont think donating money to churches should count as charity because the churches just spend it on themselves rather than helping other people

Wow...can't believe NW almost won at MSU. And Rutgers over WISC? Nobody saw that one coming.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/08/leviathan_..._putins_russia/ Leviathan, the Russian foreign language film that just won Best Foreign Film, looks like a must-watch flick. JK Simmons deservedly (or is it deservingly) won for Whiplash, Birdman for Screenplay (a bit of a surprise, Amy Adams for Big Eyes. Most of the major awards are coming up still. Boyhood is also getting its fair share of awards, this one for Patricia Arquette's quirky mother in the film. The Theory of Everything, Boyhood, Selma and The Imitation Game would seem to be the Top 4 at this point, with The Grand Budapest Hotel on the outside looking in. How to Train Your Dragon 2 over The Lego Movie is a bit of a head-scratcher.

If you look at the Chinese example, where 90%+ of the population is atheistic/agnostic, the answer in the absence of Mao's dictatorship is that wealth and money become the universal aspiration and charitable giving is diminished (but not for the reason that non-believers are "immoral" and don't care as much about humanity). Very few give to or trust charity in China because of the belief that it's a trick/scam/hoax and/or susceptible to bribery, corruption and interference by the government. Here's an example, a two year old girl who was run over twice in the street and nobody helped her (amazingly 18 people walked past without doing a thing) because they believed someone would come out and blame them for injuring the girl, moving her, taking her to a hospital, being a "good Samaritan" in general. She ended up dying later the next week in the hospital of her injuries. http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/videos/2-ye...bystanders.html One of the comments below the story was quite telling. It isn’t ignoring, it’s not daring. If one were to encounter a Nanjing judge, one would be screwed. [Note: “Nanjing judge” refers to the infamous 2006 case of a man named Peng Yu who helped a woman to the hospital after she had fallen only to have the old woman accuse him of knocking her down. The Nanjing judge in that case ultimately ruled that common sense dictated that only the person who hit her would take her to the hospital, setting a precedent that continues to only further discourage and reinforce many Chinese people’s wariness to help others in similar situations.] In the end, it's like an Ayn Rand novel, where charity starts at home and families have no choice but to take care of each other in the absence of much governmental social support. Taxes are fairly low, especially compared to the US and certainly most of Europe. There are good and bad points to this...the worst is that nearly everyone only cares about themselves (and their families). Families are self-sufficient, for the most part.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) This is more reductio ad absurdum/strawman, which is where every religious argument ends up...so I'm not surprised. By your rational, nobody should have to take responsibility for anything, ever, be it religious or otherwise. If you can't see the problem with that line of thinking, it shows exactly what Reddy is talking about. You excuse yourself, and everyone else about everything, so being apathetic to any given situation absolves you (or the group in question) of ALL responsibility. Maybe that's the f***ing problem, it's simply magnified when it comes to religion because it's not a law of the universe...it's something man invented. We HAVE to deal with nature/science, it's a reality of being a carbon based life form, living in a universe dictated by the laws of science/physics. We don't, however, have to deal with religion because it's something man invented thousands of years ago (or 50 years ago in the case of Scientology), but we do have to put up with it because of reasons. Blame the Founding Fathers for that one...or parents.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 12:33 PM) Thank you. SPUN OFF OF IT. What does off of it mean to you? To me it means not on, not a part of, it is off not on. Hmm, why would they spin off of it? perhaps IT isn't preaching what they want? So you believe that 1.3 BILLION people on the planet, 23% of the world's population, are being taught weekly to kill non Muslims and to perpetrate this acts of terrorism? Wow, how do you sleep at night? And if churches are responsible for every act of their members, even ones that spin off, who is responsible for the non religious and what they do? Or do you get off without any responsibility? Where do the non religious learn to kill and commit acts of terrorism? How about everyone is expected to not look the other way and to denounce it? Why is that my responsibility and not yours? We can't put a stop to gang violence in this country, maybe we should reevaluate our citizenship as a whole. Stop criminals? Seriously? You are kidding right? Name when that has ever happened by anyone? And you expect a religion with 1.3 billion followers to do that? Wow. Opus Dei for example, as chronicled by the Dan Brown books. Was every Christian in Vermont responsible for the actions of the KKK in the Deep South? Where do we draw the line? Should those Muslims all be required to start charities or their own madrassas to counteract the sharia Muslims? Is renouncing them publicly enough? Why isn't anyone speaking out against the oil princes who keep their countries poorly educated and with nothing approaching equality of opportunity or life choice for women? And where does 90% of the terror network funding originate? Logically, buying electric cars is the most effective approach to fight back.

We are leaving out two very important movies in our discussion. The Theory of Everything and The Grand Budapest Hotel.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 08:50 PM) Science has created the worse imaginable ways of killing people. Bombs, chemical weapons, guns, diseases. Why aren't you condemning the evils of science on a daily f***ing basis? You should be demanding that the science leaders also condemn scientific discoveries to kill people. Or find another way of life. Right. Scientists. Weapons makers. The media. Countries which have a lack of gun control laws because their Constitutions are being deliberately misinterpreted. How many mass shootings have there been in the U.S. In the last decade? After nearly every one of them, it seemed common sense might prevail. But nothing has changed. It's not so simple as it would seem to change the ideology of any group, country or religion...look at polygamy in the Mormon Church (in the end a very small splinter group) or the issue of slavery for 400+ years (which resulted in a Civil War). It's not just Sharia law here. It's also the division of Sunni and Shiite. Or look at Northern Ireland for a Christian example. Two groups (Protestants and Catholics) that have almost the exact same fundamental beliefs.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 08:50 PM) Science has created the worse imaginable ways of killing people. Bombs, chemical weapons, guns, diseases. Why aren't you condemning the evils of science on a daily f***ing basis? You should be demanding that the science leaders also condemn scientific discoveries to kill people. Or find another way of life. Right. Scientists. Weapons makers. The media. Countries which have a lack of gun control laws because their Constitutions are being deliberately misinterpreted. How many mass shootings have there been in the U.S. In the last decade? After nearly every one of them, it seemed common sense might prevail. But nothing has changed. It's not so simple as it would seem to change the ideology of any group, country or religion...look at polygamy in the Mormon Church (in the end a very small splinter group) or the issue of slavery for 400+ years (which resulted in a Civil War). It's not just Sharia law here. It's also the division of Sunni and Shiite. Or look at Northern Ireland for a Christian example. Two groups (Protestants and Catholics) that have almost the exact same fundamental beliefs.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) Either argument takes a very small subset of a group of people who share similar beliefs and expands that to include every member. It also makes the supposition that because you identify with a certain belief that all your behaviors can be attributed to that shared belief. And yet we don't round up the disaffected social misfits (especially with rich parents) who are members of the Trenchcoat Mafia in every school on suspicion of bomb and gun plots. Or every US Postal Service employee.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 01:00 PM) I completely agree, but the question is HOW? Right now we have no way of stopping radical Islamist attacks in Europe because of the ease of transportation across borders. All I'm asking is for the non-radical Muslim leaders of the world to stand the f*** up and say something! Condemn these acts and radicalism in general. Clarify the teachings of the Koran on a global scale. They simply refuse to do it out of either fear, or agreement. How do you all propose to address this? Isn't closing the borders tantamount to the US building a huge wall along the Rio Grande...so hatred and distrust of foreigners essentially ends up winning out over freedom and equality? If 60% of Americans are Christian and believe every word in the New Testament, they would be condemning gays and lesbians and considered in the eyes of their religion as equally culpable as gays for not instructing them about the error in their ways when given the opportunity to do so. Stopping Westboro Baptist Church in a world of free speech is equally challenging as getting the news media to cover every Muslim speaking out against violence. It doesn't fit the narrative. There's no blood or fear. There's no Nightcrawler showing up to take pictures of the non-carnage. As far as that goes, shouldn't we just blame the media for covering terrorism? If they ignored it, wouldn't it quickly wither on the vine and die? No martyrs, virgins in heaven or funding without tv cameras and news reporters.