Cas Stark

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cas Stark

  1. That movie is SO underrated! I love it.
  2. The flaw there is that there never any plan for how exactly Sansa is going to 'get revenge'....LF seems to imply that she can just sex up Ramsay and get him to fall for her and then voila, she will be in control. But, this is a pretty bad plan. And Sansa's actions @ WF don't really support that, she is rude to everyone, never trying to seduce Ramsay at all. I would say this is a fatal flaw in the plan, especially with Stannis having been still alive at the time of the arrangement. Also, in this plan, many parties have to act out of their established characters. Roose Bolton would simply have killed LF once he got Sansa. And the Vale lords, similarly, would have figured out that Sansa wasn't kidnapped by the Boltons and would never have stood pat for an entire season in WF. So, I really don't think it hangs together as a reasonable plan, even if one assumes that LF believed Stannis would lose. How was he going to get Sansa back? It was, again, only by massive plot contrivance, that Ramsay left WF to engage Jon outside the walls and so was vulnerable....
  3. I'm sure he will. But, since I happen to think that Roger Goodell is the worst thing to happen to the NFL, maybe ever, I can't say it's a good thing, he's terrible at everything but TV contracts, he has been terrible pretty much from the very beginning and only continues on in his terribleness. Of course, I will hate him forever for FrameGate, but I already hated him and thought he was terrible long before that debacle.
  4. 1. How can my assertion be dubious, if you agree it's probably true? This is why I didn't post excerpts in the first place, because it would immediately be a tit for tat you didn't mention this or there is some other way to look at the data. I never said it was a strong claim, but it holds true pretty well across the board. 2. I did. But, again, a casual connection that isn't 'that strong' is nowhere close to being wrong. 3. I did not intend to imply this as I don't think it's correct.
  5. No, I made an off hand remark that many blue areas have a few rich people and a lot of poor people, "facts" were then demanded, so I took the time to post numerous links, silly me, having thought it was already common knowledge that income inequality is worse in blue areas than red, I was surprised anyone demanded 'facts'. And then, as night follows day, I was criticized for just posting links, because that was lazy, and then for the links not supporting my original statement....and since it's not worth the trouble to me to take it to next level of semantics and cherry picking that will ensue to go through each of those articles line by line, I leave it at that.
  6. And this is why this thread is an echo chamber. Have it at.
  7. It doesn't refute the point, as the headline should make clear. But, whatever.
  8. We will have to agree to disagree. If there is huge income inequality, e.g. that means a few rich people, lots of poor and fewer middle class, taxes are high, and the middle class is losing it's share, then to me that supports my statement.
  9. I provided the links. It isn't rude to provide links that supports one's position.
  10. Those dogs are a lot of work, they are high energy and need good training.
  12. How to be worse than Christie if you live in NJ and are not rich: raise taxes. And Murphy will definitely raise taxes all around. There is a reason why so many blue areas are a few rich people and lots of poor people...because the middle class can't afford the taxes and other feels.
  13. Yes, that's why I had to switch from Ind. to Rep. because I wanted to vote in I think the 2012 primary, and then never changed back. But, now I will. I'm even tempted to unregister, if that is even possible, that way no one will know my political leanings when the mob finally takes over, LOL. It's not very funny though.
  14. Yes, but in practice, strangers who are coming to the door, not just running direct mail or even phone campaigns, but showing up at the front door, commenting about party affiliation, is creepy and intimidating, especially in this climate of political hysteria. Of course, one wonders, why if the list says the people who live at XX address are GOP and Independent, did they still send more than half a dozen people for the same exact reason? I don't actually think that who you vote for should be accessible to the "public" but it's a fairly long standing tradition I think? so unlikely to be changed. ETA: Also, if I got a direct mail piece like what the other poster mentioned: NAME: your vote is public your neighbors are watching, I would, again be completely creeped out and would believe the purpose was to intimidate me.
  15. You don't know if it really came from the Democrats. But, in my state, I had at least 8 Democrats come to the door over the last several weeks inquiring about the voting habits of the household, trying to get us to register to vote by mail, even though the polling place is only 5 blocks away, asking questions about voting history and preferences....oh yeah, one person to my facing saying 'oh I see you are a Republican.........which was quite frankly very, very creepy...knowing that herds of 20 something people having my name and voting preference. I will be changing back to Independent ASAP. It was all very intimidating.
  16. 2/3 of those deaths are from suicides. And since there are several countries with higher suicide rates than the U.S. which have much stricter gun laws than the U.S. the data seems unconvincing that we would see much of a reduction in the suicide rate via strict gun control.
  17. I hope we don't ever get into the territory where the government is mandating that private businesses stay open for whatever reason they see fit..
  18. She seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.
  19. This is pretty damning of the Colts clown show of an organization and how they've dealt with Luck's injury:
  20. I haven't watched most of the last two seasons, only selected episodes, after the first run so I know what to expect or avoid, so I can't say that I really "enjoy" anything about the show, it became so bad that I couldn't even enjoy ranting about it's weaknesses and stupidity. I am only waiting for The End, to find out what happens to the main characters, and since I don't think that end will ever come from the creator of the world of Westeros, I have to make due with the showrunners version.
  21. Um, the strikes were about money. Not politics, LMAO. People got fined/suspended for not conforming to the NFL's rules, also not politics. Although presumably those rules will be modified now. I have no idea how or why you think suicides are political. There are numerous news channels, web sites, newspapers, community sites and events that are fully dedicated to issues and politics. The NFL used to be a respite from that. That was a good thing. I get that you think bringing politics into football is good, because you agree with the protest, but you're wrong. It was much better and more beneficial when sports were neutral territory that everyone could enjoy together regardless of their stances on any issues or what charities they contributed to. But we can agree to disagree, I'm out.
  22. Whatever. Once they partnered with one organization to the point of players being mandated to wear the special gear, yes the DOOR IS OPEN for other partnerships. Why just breast cancer? Why not heart disease? Why not diabetes? Why not AIDS? And then, all of a sudden your branding is muddled to shit
  23. That's B.S. There was no politics in football until very recently, the last 5? years or so.
  24. I have many issues with the NFL besides it's politicization, but, to answer your question, I guess I could only watch the 'game' and not any of the pre-game or the half time stuff, but then I'm working to censor the program, and it becomes easier to simply tune out, because if I have to work to actively filter out parts of the program, it's no longer relaxing, I'm working at it. You might say that politics is the straw that broke the camel's back, and I doubt I am alone in that feeling. I also just think it's a real shame that one of the few things left that wasn't polarized by it is, and there is no going back from that, not in this age. I personally find the pink gear is distracting, dilution of the NFL brand and was a bad idea, although I understand that they wanted to pick up more women fans and breast cancer research is something that would have universal support, but once that door was open.....