How can this be? His daddy could have bought those 'degrees' and positions for him, simple.

It would seem he can read, but likely at best at a 3rd grade level. His tweets bear that out, replete with misspelled words, horrendous grammar, and never words or concepts above 3rd grade comprehension levels.

Please site your reference for this data, as it seems unlikely to be correct....at least I hope it's not. The NASA stat in particular is almost certainly false....I've known many (my uncle ran the moon rock program for a while) and I've never met one with reading issues of any kind. Dyslexia is a disqualifying disability in aerospace...mix up one value and things go bad fast and hard.

You fuckers, it's called a brake pedal. I just love how her only concern is for the trucks underside, not that her baby daddy apparently just killed someone's *pet in front of their kids without pause, or at best just intentionally ran over someone's dead (or just injured) pet.
Great parenting.
Looks a bit faked in my hyper suspicious eyes, and either way it's horrible all around.

I'll bite. (needless to say, spoilers)

The characters certainly had motivation.

Jyn's motivation, much like Rae in FA, is simple, daddy issues. She isn't so much invested in the rebellion as she is in enacting vengeance for her father. She is stunted emotionally and is not idealistic, but I think she uses that as a vehicle to push other characters along with her. Her last moments with Cassian aren't driven by any great romance, just the solace of two people who don't know if what they did will make a difference, but they succeeded in what they set out to do. I suspect she understood before she left Yavin that she was not going to get out of it alive, which sort of fits with her fairly nihilistic view of the universe.

Cassian was entirely driven by the fight against the Empire. He was willing to do anything, and was completely ruthless at the start, but he does mellow towards the end as Jyn makes a point of saying that he was like a stormtrooper. He is a zealot, a true believer, and is willing to sacrifice everything, even his humanity, for the cause.

Orson, the imperial commander, is a mixture of patriotism and self interest. He's a fervant believer in the imperial ethos of bringing order to the galaxy, but he is also deeply interested in recognition and commensurate rise in rank. He is so motivated that he risks his life directly to try and stop the rebels (not something you typically see bad leader types do outside of superhero movies, that's what henchmen are for) at the end.

The droid is all programming, but his comedy relief is explained by the dialogue that slicing an imp droid can affect it's personality. He is the one of the few light hearted notes (and consequently gives us a pretty poignant note when he says goodbye and get's shut down) in what is a fairly depressing movie. His bluntly honest statements are perfectly ironic and as such really do deserve the laughs they get.

The monk and the warrior were guardians of a temple but are now displaced. While it's couched in the monks mysticism, I think honestly they were happy to stand up to the big bad guys who wrecked their temple and extract some form of revenge. I think it would please both of them to know that it was worth it in the end.

The imperial defector seems to have little motivation, but he has already taken the dangerous step of defecting and getting the ball rolling for the entire plot etc, he's obviously completely displeased about the empire and willing to risk his life to do something about it.

Saul has been driven mad by the fight. The rebel leadership all seem to fit well within their established roles in the canon, as do Tarkin and Vader. Random rebel and imp personal are placeholders and who really gives a fuck what their motivations are? X D

/shrug As far as character development goes, it's certainly not a work for the ages, but to say these characters are going to get a thing because they need to get a thing seems to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Oh yeah, and in regards to AT AT's, it's a strategic imperial world and heavily garrisoned. Likely a staging point for excursions around the galaxy as well. It has major shielding, AA and fighter complements, Star Destroyers standing guard etc. Sure, fan service is a thing (although the homages in R1 are far less clunky than FA, including things like the Hammerhead, references to the cartoons etc), but as an imp commander, I would certainly release AT AT and AT ST vehicles against an attacking force of unknown size, particularly when you see a whole bunch of landing pads explode simultaneously. Are their 10 commandos or 1,000? 10,000? Yeah, go lowball and wait for them to walk out in the open right? \= |

It's not like the AT AT's were stomping all over the archive looking for a guy hiding behind valuable Imp data infrastructure, they are roaming the outer regions and are fairly proof against ground troops. Makes sense to me.

Dunno, I think the RLM reviews are generally entertaining and thoughtful, but in this case whoever writes Plinkett has let his acerbic dislike of "new" Star Wars cloud his objectiveness imo. It was an enjoyable flick and certainly one I intend to own. I don't think it's anywhere near the best sci fi (although I kinda like it on par with Empire) movie out there, but it's far better than RLM gives it credit for, imo.

@ChaosEngine
what the holy FUCK are you babbling about?

when did i EVER state,or make the argument that free speech meant free from consequences?

the only difference in BB's and my stance is that her reference to "see something,say something" was a tad disturbing to me and since she felt this was a community (which i agree with) then as a community we can all hold gorilla,or anyone to account for what they post.BB felt that calling down the "benevolent dictator" was the best path.

i disagreed with her is all.
but it certainly within her right to choose to do so.
i felt that an un-necessary way to address gorillas comment.

but hey,i am not easily offended.other people are.i am in no way agreeing with gorilla's "nigger prince",even for low brow comedy it is offensive.i was defending gorillas right to say it...and our right to go "what the fuck man,that is just wrong and offensive",and people did show their opinion by downvoting,and yes,even BB's tactic of calling the "benevolent dictator" can be considered appropriate (though i felt un-necessary).

dude,yer kinda talking out yer ass here.
but nice lecture,useless and pointless n regards to what i was saying,but still nice.

i am of the philosophy that if we are a community,then we can respond as a community,no need to call daddy to settle disputes.we can wear our big boy pants.

*edit: and oh for the love of JESUS @gorillaman!
way to flush my argument right down the fucking toilet.
i give up..sighs..i tried..i really really tried...
/bangs head against the wall

@bareboards2
pure and utter sophistry.

and i resent the fact that you slyly attempt to imply that i will just sit back and remain silent to injustice.

when i feel quite confident my records on this site prove the exact opposite.i have vociferously and aggressively taken on those who would bully,berate and belittle anyone who would voice their opinion.

i believe i have come to YOUR defense on more than one occasion.

what i found disturbing in your comment and maybe i should clarify is this "As Homeland Security says, if you see something, say something."

this is LITERALLY what was posted on almost every open venue in east germany.

and for you to tacitly excuse this statement by dismissively stating that "the stasi operated in secret".as somehow being evidence of your own righteousness belies an ignorance of just how oppressive and fearful those people were living in those conditions.

so you are morally superior because you openly called to out,and i quote "benevolent dictator with a light touch",and did not do so in private?
THIS is your justification?
THIS is the evidence you present to me to...what? exactly?

if you truly feel that you have somehow struck a blow for justice and taken a stand for moral integrity,then i submit that you have no clue what free speech really entales,nor do you understand the implications when we,as a community,start calling in the big daddy in the sky every time someone writes an offensive potty/racist or bigoted word.

and just LOOK how you consumed @gorillaman 's comment.
you made no reference to his salient point,but rather focused on ONE thing:nigger prince.

now was this appropriate?
taken singularly i would have to agree with you.
no..it is not appropriate.

but when we take our understandings of @gorillaman,who has been a contributing sifter for over 10 years,and consider his humor..which is dark and incredibly dry (like sahara dry),then with this context added to the mix,we can conclude that he was probably making a joke...you are certainly within your rights to find that joke in poor taste,and with this community,you are also within your rights (and even encouraged) to take @gorillaman to task for his poor taste.

but instead you called for big daddy in the sky to bring the hammer of justice down,and punish this dirt potty mouthed racist.his crime?
racist verbiage.

no consideration of who was writing it.
no consideration of his history on this site,which you openly admitted is a community.
you just..focused..on..the..word.

and then you preen like a peacock thinking somehow you have struck a blow of righteousness?

please sister.....you accomplished nothing except to put dag in an awkward position,and came across as a self righteous moralizer.

when you simply could have done what other sifters here actually DID.
you downvote his comment.
and if you felt so inclined,and it appears you ARE so inclined,directly call @gorillaman out for his poor choice of verbiage.

look BB,
i actually find you to be a sweetheart,with a huuuuge propensity for empathy and compassion,but every time i engage with you my sphincter tightens up like it is preparing for a colonoscopy.there is this ever-present apprehension that my words will not be taken with humanity that they are written,or the open honesty i am trying to convey.

i am sure that if we were actually sitting in a cafe,sipping that delicious coffee you guys are so proud of, i would not experience this anxiety when engaging with you,but it seems EVERY time i disagree with something you post,or an opinion i may take issue with,i offend you in some manner.

you ..and i am sure this is not done on purpose..make it incredibly difficult to disagree with something you post,because i always feel i have hurt your feelings somehow.

real or imagined...i am just being honest here.i always approach any interaction with you as if i am walking on eggshells,underlined with landmines.

i am simply disagreeing with you here.
calling for a ban on gorillaman because of a joke made in poor taste,while simultaneously disregarding his contributions to this site,and taking his personality into consideration,is simply an over-zealous reaction and in no way deserves the attention of dag.

because if gorillaman deserves to be banned for an offensive phrase,than i should be banned as well.

free speech is just that...free.
of course we are free to ridicule that speech.
yaaay free speech!

You don't necessarily do good works in order to avoid retribution from a sky daddy if you believe in god, nor do you necessarily do it because you want to get the reward of living in heaven.

I believe although I do not insist god exists. I do what's right because it's right. I'm not looking for a cookie for doing it.

That's really the problem to me on both sides. People spend too much time justifying their own beliefs instead of understanding others.

Can you be good without god?
I submit you can ONLY be 'good' without god, because acting a certain way out of fear of retribution from the sky daddy is not being 'good'. To be 'good', you must act properly because it's beneficial to others, acting properly because it benefits you is self serving, not good.
Could be a *quality movie, certainly a quality discussion that should take place.
*doublepromote

Anybody got a length? The way it played on my computer, it didn't show a progress bar or length....I didn't know if I was in for 2 min, or 2 hours (it was the former).

It is an unusual choice to elect a 5 time bankrupt lying sex offender.
Funnily enough if he had just index linked that 14 million his daddy gave him in 1960 he'd have several hundred billion dollars.
Still, maybe at 72 he'll finally stop failing and exploiting people and cryng like a little girl when he's insulted.

I guess the only reason daddy had a son was to make this video some day to emotionally blackmail Valve.

Evil genius.

Trump inherited over 200 million in real-estate from daddy in the early '80s.

If he'd sold it and simply put the money in indexed funds, it would be worth about 12 billion today. If he'd held onto it the real-estate would be worth about 15 billion today. At his most generous, Trump estimates his own wealth around 8 billion. Other sources have it much lower (Deutsche Bank estimated it well under a billion about ten years ago).

So, to answer your question, "How does he manage his companies?"

Badly. But when you start with so much even total incompetence takes a while to drain your accounts.

No major bank will lend him money anymore. I've heard that he owes hundreds of millions to Putin cronies, which perfectly explains why he's so Putin friendly. He's probably been told they'll write off some or all of his debt if he carries their water for four years as president. I think it's entirely possible Trump is bankrupt and doing Putin some favors is the only way to keep himself solvent.

There's no discussion here. Clinton has played fast and loose with the rules for her own gain, she's gamed the system, she's taken the expedient position far more times than she's taken the good, honorable, or right positions. She's not a very good choice for president.

Donald Trump is bankrupt. He claims to be a great businessman, but in reality it certainly appears he owes more than he has right now. In any case, at the very LEAST, even if you take his own over-inflated assessment of his net worth he'd have been further ahead putting his money in indexed mutual funds than trusting his own business acumen. He'd have been farther ahead still if he'd just held on to all the real estate daddy left him. The best you can say about him, business wise, is that after stiffing contractors for their pay, paying NO taxes for decades, and arranging at least six bankruptcies in such a way that he took minimum damage and his investors bore the brunt.... after all that, he's only BEHIND a few billion dollars from where he'd be if he'd just invested it and left it alone.

On top of that, it certainly appears he's a rapist, or at the very least guilty of sexual assault. He's so weak and afraid he has to constantly bully and puff himself up (this is not how strong people act). He appears to have little to no grasp of international affairs, tax policy, the environment, the economy. Worse still, he doesn't care that he knows nothing and makes no attempt to educate himself.

So... rapist-psychopath-egomaniac-moron, or lady who's a bit shifty. Hmm, tough choice.

but, but, but.... how is this any different from the magical car that checks, tops up, and changes its oil all by itself AND rotates it tires and renews its brakes on a regular basis... or the mysterious toilet that gets plugged up and, as if by magic, gets cleared again sometime after Daddy gets home....

Thanks for this thoughtful response.

I agree 100% with the idea of catching more flies with honey idea. Treating people with respect. All of that stuff is patently true to me.

However. Of course there is a "however."

I don't agree with the "clearly condescending" assessment. I did not find the delivery condescending in the least. I found it sarcastic and pissed off and appropriate to the topic.

This video is not meant to add to the debate or woo people to her side. It is flat out laying out the facts with a take no prisoners attitude.

That you think this is condescending and I guess poisonous is interesting to me.

Is this indeed sexism at work? Did you read Crushbug's comment? Do you understand that women are "policed" as to their tone of voice all the time? In fact, your mother's (true) advice that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar is actually the internalized oppression that we women struggle with all the time. Be sweet, be kind, be oblique. Manipulate your (male) partner into doing what you want by leading him to think it is his idea.

Just writing this out is making my stomach hurt. It is so poisonous, the suppression of free human expression that women are subjected to in so many cultures. (Think of young Japanese girls who cover their mouths coyly when they laugh.)

Having said all this, please don't think that I believe that men are the evil oppressors. Men have a different pressure put on them that distorts their psyches -- "be a man" is just as deadly as "be sweet".

I was just saying to a friend the other day -- I was wondering how it screws up little boys' heads when daddy leaves the house for a week long business trip, and tells his 4 year old son "You're the man of the house now. Take care of your mother." Good lord. He's a child! He needs her to take care of him!

Anyway. There is much that I agree with in your long and thoughtful response. I just don't think that these ideas are appropriately applied to this comedy video. As you sort of implied with your addendum.

I thought the exact same thing the first time I saw a House Centipede (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutigera_coleoptrata).
Even worse (for them) when scared they stand up halfway and run really-fucking-fast, holding their forelegs out like the wickedest looking alien you would never want to see running across your floor.
Unfortunately (for them) they only look scary. They're about as harmless as your average 'daddy-longleg' spider, and are good to have in the home as they eat other insects that humans consider more pest-like.