Are you really that ignorant? (That’s a rhetorical question, I know you are)
1) watch Argo. There were multiple attempted rescues, starting within days of the revolution.
2) read about Reagan who made a secret, illegal deal with the terroristic Iranians to not release the hostages until after the election to hurt Carter’s chances, then he later sold them weapons in another illegal deal to pay for another secret illegal war with the Contras. If a Democrat did anything near that, he/she would be (rightly) shot as a traitor if not legally then by some nut job….when Cons do it the anti American crimes are ignored and cons celebrate the treason.
3) Also read about the year+ of negotiations by Carter that actually gained their freedom on Jan 20 81. Would have been much sooner without Republican interference. Carter was the one who initially “held” (seized) those $8 billion of Iranian funds, and stopped buying Iranian oil costing them billions more…all legally, unlike the sneaky, illegal, back room collusion with and payoffs to the terrorists Reagan tried, knowingly and intentionally extending the hostage crisis for his personal political gains. The “deal” wasn’t struck on Jan 20…the Iranians delayed the release at Reagan’s request in exchange for promises of special treatment from president Reagan.

Like Biden, Carter actually solved a problem created largely by Republicans despite Republicans doing their utmost to work against America. Gas prices dropped nearly 10% in the last month and continue to drop despite a massive shortage world wide thanks to Russia and Saudi Arabia. Republicans have fought against every effort to lower them, voting against all mitigation efforts in a unified “fuck your gas prices” block.
They even voted against a bill to force oil companies to stop price gouging because it would have dropped prices significantly the day it passed, also helping inflation significantly, and cons REALLY don’t want prices to drop under Biden, certainly not before November.
It’s just like when every Con just voted to protect and keep neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and violent extremists in the military and federal police forces because they don’t want their voters to lose their jobs. Keeping their power is far more important to them than helping the country, and their main methodology is to try to hurt the country then blame the president….odd since they excused the former president from any and all responsibility for his lack of leadership and absolute horrific disaster that was his last year in office, from 1 million dead to -3.5% GDP to millions unemployed to rising inflation to supply chain failures to disastrously ruining the reputation of our elections to dividing the country horrifically to actually trying to overthrow the elected government by force…all for his own personal gain….and you whine that Biden hasn’t fixed everything yet!?

Pretty dishonest for Republicans to do everything in their power to stop any attempted plans on inflation, gas prices, or hostile foreign powers, then blame the president they blocked from fixing the issues they caused. It’s not weak leadership, it’s an anti American party with veto power and a chip on their shoulders willing to hurt the entire nation rather than let Biden (and America) have a “win”.

Now…how did Trump handle it when foreign powers kidnapped and dismembered an American? He covered it up, made excuses, declared the Saudi prince innocent (and Trump was recorded laughing about how he “saved his ass” over that murder)….then his son in law was given a $2 billion payment for future services his company was completely incapable of supplying.

So let’s measure Trump….
Nice guy, no. Moral, no. Ethical, no. Honest, no. Smart, no. Loyal, no. Trustworthy, no.
Fickle to the utmost, yes. Weak leader, yes. Treasonous, yes. Dictatorial, yes. Narcissistic, yes. Criminal, yes. Anti-democracy, yes.
Most American deaths-yes. Worst unemployment, yes. Worst economy, yes. Most domestic terrorism, yes.
Worst president ever by far….unequivocally by every measure. He actually made idiotic GW look benign by comparison.

Nice guy, yes
Moral, yes


Weak leader, yes

He failed to get out hostages. I believe 52+ week
He did tried and mission failed. Mission mishap - 6 dead
Finally on his last day, last hours negotiated agreement that included 8 billion bucks of held money.
This issue had a looming cloud over his presidency.

Like Joe Biden>
Failed to control inflation
Failed to do much about gas prices.

Nice editing there. Tons of audio missing and multiple skips....what did they edit out? Discussions of how to frame them? Bribes?

We've seen multiple instances of stops exactly like this that ended in police gunfire....just as cordial and friendly until the citizen tells police they have a gun, or a camera, then the police lose their shit and start shooting.
The Press at protest marches were all 100% friendly, cordial, had open dialog asking politely where police wanted them to move to, totally legal, and complied with every request FROM officers, and still got shot point blank in the eyes with rubber bullets, tear gas canisters fired so close they can kill, pepper sprayed, were beaten, and arrested. Multiple times, on camera, over and over and over and over and over and over.
You claim 'look, it worked once, that means it will work every time, just put your life and freedom on the line and check, and don't consider the hundreds of times it ended in prison or death.'

He didn't actually comply legally, legally if you have a concealed firearm in your glove compartment, you MUST inform officers IMMEDIATELY....They didn't, and tried to hide it by bringing up his registration on his phone instead of retrieving the paper copy from his glove compartment. Many MANY cases just like this end in tragedy. This one just ended in a full vehicle search without a warrant.

Comply with officers requests, eh? So let them violate your rights and you'll be fine....except when you aren't. So American, comrade. Perhaps, since you likely live where you have no rights, you don't understand them. If you don't exercise your rights, you don't have any.

This isn't the narrative because it's not the norm, and even if it was, that's besides the point. The daily violations and murders of unarmed, mostly black men, is the point you wish to ignore. Pablo Escobar was a nice guy if you did what he said, were polite and compliant, and never hinted at crossing him. He's not a good guy or good apple, he was a violent criminal thug...just like police.

When Trump called for the death penalty for the innocent Central Park 5, were all those times they didn't rape women (including the time they were falsely accused) the point, or was the singular, false accusation about the one time they did rape someone his only point? Hint-it's the second one.
*facepalm

Edit : Now, are you ever going to produce these "known instances" of massive democratic voter fraud, or can you admit that was just one more thing you made up? It's not going away, I plan on asking until you have the testicular fortitude to answer.

No more Mr. Nice Guy Rogers. Must have been a great release for him.

I'm pretty sure that if the tables were turned and somehow Hillary ran as a Republican, the Democrats would have voted for Trump as well. We tend to overlook things like reason and sanity in the USA when it comes to people/teams/etc that we hate.

Plus Trump was selling a message that a lot of people bought into, that they were somehow going to go back to a time when factory and coal jobs were a thing for middle class union type people. People who didn't work in those fields knew it was bogus from the get go, but when you live in a shitty area and desperately want to scroll back progress so that you can get your guaranteed 30+ an hour job/lifetime pension without a college education, you tend to overlook small things like guys grabbing pussies.

You are right, in a sane country Hillary probably would have been elected. She also probably wouldn't have been eligible to run because she would have beaten out Obama in 2008. She didn't because people were so desperate for something, anything to change in our fucked up government that they went with Obama. Hell, I even voted for him the first time. But, we lost our sanity sometime around the period when elected an actor over a generally 'nice guy' kind of president. Said actor/governor then instituted the following amazing things:

* The War on Drugs - utter failure
* Reaganomics - depends on who you ask, but it pretty much fucked us for years to come.
* Wonderful changes and cuts to education - See previous. They are still trying to undo the fuckery that was done to education in the 80's.
* Increased military spending to astronomical levels - pretty much fucked anyone not working for defense contractors.
* Destabilized Nicaragua and pissed off Iran worse at us - yeah, that didn't work out for us.
* Largely ignored the AIDs epidemic - tragedy on multiple levels.
* Etc

That fucker is still viewed as one of the best presidents and Carter as one of the worst.

I know I'm in a minority here, but I liked Iron Man 3, and he wrote the screenplay for Last Action Hero, not the story and the screenplay was fine for what it was (come on... Ahnold as Hamlet? That was genius!! ).

As a counter, I would say Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys... both of which are excellent.

Basically... this


It won't be as good as the original Predator, but that's like refusing to paint 'cos it won't be the Mona Lisa.

nice guy, not only did he leave the girl behind it almost looks like he closed the door on her.......

I have hope for this. Shane Black (writer and director) was in the original Predator and he’s done some good stuff in the last few years (“The nice guys” was great)

no one is owed anything, these "nice guys" as you call them are not that nice if they lose patience with their flawed strategy, then attack women.

how nice a person is doesn't matter, most women want someone who excites them/makes them laugh/is an action man/follows through on promises.

these incel people are not an internet group by coincidence... the internet is killing people's ability to be social, especially those people who would have already had trouble, but could have worked it out pre-internet, now people have internet forums as a crutch to help them never have to speak to real people ever and everything gets magnified.

The last comment about 'be a nice guy' is interesting.

I was listening to Joe Rogan Experience, and they mentioned something about how the genesis of the 'woman hater' is actually the forever-friend-zoned-nice-guy who gets so fed up with being 'taken for granted'/'shot down' that his niceness turns into hatred

It made sense to me. Essentially, the woman hater is what becomes of a boring nice guy who lacked the patience/endurance to wait for women his age to make their way through all the exciting unreliable men before being satiated (or just getting too old to fetch the interesting men's attention) and finally settling for the nice guy that was boringly always available.



And I get it. It plays into the human natural value system, where things that are scarce are more valuable.

The ahole is fleeting. You can't always have him, and if you do you can't hold him, so he has an element of scarcity, which creates value.

The nice guy will reliably stick around if you go with him, so he is less scarce, so he is less valuable. The lower value in turn makes him more likely to be single and always available, further reducing his scarcity, and further devaluing him, and further increasing his chances of being single. A feedback loop.

I suppose that there is also a 3rd path - the element of nice guys that just stop giving a crap before turning into haters, which makes them more scarce, which actually finally gets them attention, and they stop being single.

(And a 4th path - nice guy finds 'a girl who wants a nice guy from the start'. In my observation this isn't the typical case.)



Cases like this (forever alone nice guy, not specifically Mr Van Driver) are when I think 'arrangement' web sites create a good solution. The guys get to not be lonely anymore, and the women gets taken care of. Kind of plays into the nice guy natural instinct, too.

Amusingly, 'arrangement' may be a better fit for the forever-alone nice guys than 'waiting it out'.
In both cases (waiting vs arrangement) the women are mainly after stability/support.
The older women 'nice guy' matches with by 'waiting it out' would not have picked 'nice guy' if they still had the looks to keep pulling exciting men.
So, if you're gonna be with someone because they want you for support, why not just go with a younger woman and be up front about the situation. If it doesn't work out, either party can walk away. No messy divorce. Seems like a safer and more practical option.

(Not picking on older women, just observing that : as people get older, the single scene becomes more and more 'leftovers' that are 'left over for a good reason'. The odds of finding anyone worth while diminish with time, because the highest quality individuals get retained first. Wait long enough, and you're left with over the hill jaded pragmatists who once may have had looks but now have nothing left to offer. At which point, both 'arrangement' and 'being single' are legitimately better options.)



Regarding Mr. Van Guy specifically, I'm not sure if he had a chance. He had some social anxiety that made him unable to talk to people. So he was likely not gonna get a partner naturally, and was unlikely to succeed among professional peers well enough to get the financial security necessary to be some sugar daddy.

So, yeah, dude was likely a romantic dead end. Possibly even the same mental (brain developmental?) issues that made him unable to talk to people also made him susceptible to getting the sort of crazy tilted that allowed him to run people over. The dude could have actually been fated (circumstantially) to end up in tragedy. Just speculating, wouldn't shock me.

-scheherazade

Everything you need to know....
There's not a single crime even alluded to in the memo, much less proven. Only accusations of bias against Trump by the agency that handed him the presidency.
The steel dossier was certainly not the only evidence presented to FISA, a fact Republicans are desperate to hide.

Republicans wrote the lax FISA rules, and renewed them just last month over Democratic objection, to make it easy to spy on Muslims in America and fight terrorism.
Those lax rules were used to legally get a warrant, and renew it.

Republicans eventually (after blocking voting on it for a week+) voted to release the Democratic memo, after it had been already submitted to the FBI and DOJ first and had a 10 day viewing period. The Republican memo was not subject to review. They also knew Trump would veto it's release, and he has so far. The democrats all voted to release the Republican memo...at the same time and with the same restrictions as the rebuttal, Republicans all voted against that.

Bias does not automatically make one not credible, or incapable of properly investigating crimes. Honest people are biased against liars. Most law enforcement is biased against criminal perpetrators. Intelligence agents are biased against traitors.

If bias was a disqualifier for investigation, what has the Republican party been doing looking at Clinton? They clearly should have recused themselves, but in that case bias against her was a prerequisite to be part of the investigation team. A little consistency would be nice, guys.

In short, this is utter bullshit distraction, fake misleading opinion based on factual omission made by those who've made a career of making unsupported, often debunked charges against political enemies, not credible evidence of crimes or improper action by anyone. Sorry @bobknight33

I used to see Timothy Omundson fairly often on weekends. He'd take his kids out to the same playground I'd take my kids.

Seemed like a nice guy, but I didn't approach him because I had no idea of his real name and it felt too weird to go, "Hey, you're that guy from Jericho and Judging Amy, right?"

Once I overheard him talking about how excited his agent was for this new role and that they'd asked specifically for him. Next thing I heard he was in Galavant, so I presume that's the role.

@enoch.... dude, PLEASE edit your posts. Seriously, that is just painfully difficult to read.

And yes, the term "friend zone" is an invention to shame women. The implication is always that a woman is being unkind or hurtful or even stupid by not realising the "nice guy" is the one she "should be with". It's patronising at best, creepy as fuck at worst.

Also, your anecdote has nothing to do with the "friend zone".

Nice Guys was a great movie!

*quality exploration of violence

If nothing else, the fact that they were happily filming everything including her means that she never had the option of playing the nice guy here.