>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.

Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.

But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.

So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

An invention from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Dick towel:

http://videosift.com/video/Dick-Towel

San Diego
Atlanta
Philadelphia

Texas you next

GO GIANTS!!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Generalize the New Black Panthers? Have you seen these guys?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=175817
Unlike the nameless kooks[opinion] (some of which are liberal plants[opinion]) in the Tea Party vid above, this guy is the President of the Philadelphia chapter of the NBP[citation needed]. You can bet your bippy if the leaders of some Tea Party group had gone of like this guy then it would be national news[opinion]. You're trying to draw lines of moral equivalency where none exist. The NBP is dominated as a movement by racist positions[citation needed], and a large percentage of them are hate mongers[citation needed]. The Tea Party is not.[opinion][citation needed]


Haha did you just link me to a "news" site that has "Obama's Kenyan activities
called 'borderline criminal'" on the front page?

By the way I fixed what you said in your quote if you don't mind Since you've already provided me with one link, I bet you won't mind finding the citations I requested in your quote, thanks.

Generalize the New Black Panthers? Have you seen these guys?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=175817

Unlike the nameless kooks (some of which are liberal plants) in the Tea Party vid above, this guy is the President of the Philadelphia chapter of the NBP. You can bet your bippy if the leaders of some Tea Party group had gone of like this guy then it would be national news. You're trying to draw lines of moral equivalency where none exist. The NBP is dominated as a movement by racist positions, and a large percentage of them are hate mongers. The Tea Party is not.

Dude sounds like Charlie from Its always sunny in Philadelphia

Timely sift, nice one OP

Tags for this video have been changed from 'philadelphia, oscar, academy award, aids, 90s, 1993' to 'philadelphia, oscar, academy award, HIV, AIDS, 90s, 1990s, 1993' - edited by calvados

While I agree with the cheese steak comment, I have to choose your first option. Between hanging a dalass cowboys fan over the upper deck, throwing snowballs at Santa, D-sized batteries at JD Drew (again at a Phillies game) distractions in a game are fine by most of us. You may have great fans up there in Toronto, but they are not Philly fans. So yes, people do enjoy the baseball, but they also enjoy the shenanigans that seem to encompass going to a sporting event in Philadelphia.

If some kid wants to run around on a field to eventually get tazed down by some pathetic fat fuck of a cop, I'll cheer for the kid, just like the fans in the video. He wasted a few minutes of the game to give people extra enjoyment, at great cost to himself. The fines you get for these acts are not cheap. Most times the kid tires out or runs off the field himself, the game continues. Apparently the fat fuck of a rent-a-cop didn't get that memo. This wouldn't even make the news most night except of the idiot cop.

I don't know about a magical telepathic connection, but I do know there's an etiquette surrounding these events. I bet that rent-a-cop doesn't work another sporting event here for his own safety. I'd explain fan loyalty to you, but obviously it wouldn't stick to a Blue Jays fan.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^Sigh:
"In my opinion, this was somewhat deserved anyway. If I were at a Jays game and some dumb kid started to run on the field and disrupt the game, I'd be upset. Maybe this'll serve as a type of warning to other idiots thinking about doing the same thing."
You know nothing of us Philadelphia fans, and if you are one you should be ashamed for your idiotic remarks.

Fine, fixed it for you with my own team. What's the fucking difference? I paid to see a baseball game, not some young kid showboating. I have been to a phillys game when I was down in Philadelphia, the people around me seemed to enjoy the actual baseball too.
Is there some kind of magical telepathic connection that everybody gets once they're a phillys fan that makes it so they all prefer to see some idiot on the field then watch the game? Or are they just the same kinds of fans that the rest of the baseball teams have except with really fucking good cheesesteaks in their stadium.
my vote is on the latter.

>> ^Sigh:

"In my opinion, this was somewhat deserved anyway. If I were at a Jays game and some dumb kid started to run on the field and disrupt the game, I'd be upset. Maybe this'll serve as a type of warning to other idiots thinking about doing the same thing."
You know nothing of us Philadelphia fans, and if you are one you should be ashamed for your idiotic remarks.


Fine, fixed it for you with my own team. What's the fucking difference? I paid to see a baseball game, not some young kid showboating. I have been to a phillys game when I was down in Philadelphia, the people around me seemed to enjoy the actual baseball too.

Is there some kind of magical telepathic connection that everybody gets once they're a phillys fan that makes it so they all prefer to see some idiot on the field then watch the game? Or are they just the same kinds of fans that the rest of the baseball teams have except with really fucking good cheesesteaks in their stadium.

my vote is on the latter.

"In my opinion, this was somewhat deserved anyway. If I were at that phillys game and some dumb kid started to run on the field and disrupt the game, I'd be upset. Maybe this'll serve as a type of warning to other idiots thinking about doing the same thing."

You know nothing of us Philadelphia fans, and if you are one you should be ashamed for your idiotic remarks.

/sigh, another idiot teenager trying to.. what? what the hell is the point of running on the damn field in the first place.

It's not like it was spur of the moment, either, it was something the kid was planning on doing

"The mother of a teenager who ran onto the field at a Phillies game, where he was Tasered, is apologizing for her son's actions.

Amy Ziegler tells WTXF-TV that her 17-year-old son, Steve Consalvi, regrets running onto the field Monday night. She calls it a stupid thing to do.

The teen's father, Wayne Consalvi, tells The Philadelphia Inquirer that his son called him from the ballpark to tell him about the stunt. Wayne Consalvi says he told him not to do it."

The landing didn't look that hard to me, not much worse then if he had tripped, his arms went out to brace the impact and his leg was out until he was close the the ground, so he didn't exactly just tip over face first.

As for the issue at hand with the taser, in the context of the law, yeah. Should he have used it? who knows. I can't find anywhere showing how long he was on the field first, only that he was dodging field security guards until the cop started in, and once the cop started in 30 seconds until he was tased.

In my opinion, this was somewhat deserved anyway. If I were at that phillys game and some dumb kid started to run on the field and disrupt the game, I'd be upset. Maybe this'll serve as a type of warning to other idiots thinking about doing the same thing.

Go ahead, I'm sure that last paragraph has made you want to downvote this comment, but I still stand by what I said. If there's no form of punishment for doing idiotic things, then what's to stop others from doing it consistantly.

[edit] one last little thing, for the record, he wasn't unconscious for 30 seconds while he was down as that article seems to imply, after he was down they kept him down to remove the prongs and cuff him.

It took the Philadelphia Police Commissioner all of a few minutes to publicly conclude that there was nothing wrong with the actions of this cowardly cop "Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey examined video of the arrest and felt the officer acted within department guidelines, which allow officers to use Tasers to arrest fleeing suspects, said police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore. The department's internal affairs unit is investigating, Vanore said".

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jxdLqH9JN-SIUff7VYrNKskfDluAD9FG9QAO0