TheAnimeLounge

'Bel-air' the drama adaption to The Fresh Prince of Bel-air is now going to happen. Green light for 2 seasons, Will Smith confirmed it.

Link: https://youtu.be/ae99z6B_gbo

I grew up watching this show and I was impressed with the trailer so I am excited to see this.

R.I.P to Diana Rigg, I just known her through her role in Game of Thrones as Lady Tyrell but she was actually pretty hot in her prime.

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:30 am The Oscars done full-on embraced the woke.

Reason number #(I've lost count...) as to why I don't watch the Oscars anymore.

I honestly cant remember the last time I tuned in from start to finish.

killacross wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:19 pm I have tried to watch Dune about 123,142,311x. I still have not finished because it is at least 2x as long.

The lynch movie was a debacle from start to finish. Despite the cast being relatively decent in my opinion(with the exception of sting, who in gods name ok'd that shit?) it was bogged down with budget constraints and studio interference.

Lynch was so ashamed of his involvement with the film that he removed his name and added the pseudonym "Alan smithee"(popularized in Hollywood by directors who didn't want their names in the credits of train wrecks.)

After watching the trailer yesterday, I have far more faith in Villeneuve to stay true to the source material and finally bring us a faithful adaptation.
The fact that he's splitting up the book into two movies is evidence of that(The first book is by far the largest of the series).

what did I just watch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jicOmGz6w2k

killacross wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:48 am what did I just watch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jicOmGz6w2k

The newest season of Bleach, obviously.

Guys...I'm heading out to Germany for the next month for work on Monday.

Hopefully...by the time I get back...the project will have advanced so much that I am past the BS headaches.

Oh nice, I'm jealous. Do you have to quarantine? Where in Germany?

killacross wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:48 am what did I just watch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jicOmGz6w2k

It's an anime that is based on a smartphone gacha RPG that can also be played on Steam. The RPG itself is based on japanese mythos to an extent and sometimes features cameos from other supernatural animes like Inuyasha for gacha characters. Going by comments, that nine-tailed fox is a HE.

xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:49 pm Oh nice, I'm jealous. Do you have to quarantine? Where in Germany?

I have to be swabbed in the US before they let me on the plane (Saturday)
Then a flight from NC to DC to Germany (Monday overnight)
I get swabbed at the airport in Germany before they let us into the country (Tuesday)
Then I have to quarantine for a "week" before the company lets us on their property...but I can travel throughout Germany if I really want to
I get swabbed again (Saturday) before I can start work there on Monday

Schwabish Hall Germany. Google makes it look really cool.

Holy shit Bader Ginsburg died.

HOLY SHIT -- was coming to say the exact same thing!

Means
#1. The Queen is next (because these immortals always drop in pairs)
#2: You think the Republicans will say the same thing as 4 years ago? Wait until AFTER the election to nominate a replacement...I'm not a gambling man....so I will say NOPE.

nah, trump will have someone on mconnell's desk monday. He'll look at the situation, and I guarantee you someone gets pushed through. Whether they get voted in is another question. The problem is that there a couple of republican senators that said it's too close to the election, but who knows with mitch

Mitch has said he wouldn't wait when previously presented with the hypothetical, but a friend of mine thought he might gamble and say he'll wait for the election. It might turn out more conservative voters, and even if he loses he can still push it through in the lame duck session.

I'm not 100% convinced that wouldn't also turn out more Democrat voters, so if he doesn't want to take that risk I imagine we'll see someone nominated sooner rather than later.

Edit: That was quick, he's already released a statement saying they'd vote on Trump's nominee. I'm going to be surprised if there aren't more riots at this point.

Her death highlights one of the major problems with politics and the growing overreach of the judiciary. Places like Vox... repositories of intellectual thought have shit like this "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. This is America’s grim future without her."

The supreme court isn't composed of politically neutral gods and this sick and twisted idea that they are supposed to be final say and overrule the other branches is a real problem. But the left typically wants more leftist justice so they can just run roughshod over everything they don't like. At least the other branches are elected and can be voted out, the whole idea behind giving justices lifetime appointments was that they had no real true power. They aren't any more powerful than the other branches. Ultimately they give their opinions and it's up to the states to do the heavy lifting of changing the law or not. This meant states could in theory say, "Thanks for your opinion but go fuck yourself." At that point, it would be up the citizens of said state to vote those people out and/or for local law enforcement to not enforce laws that were deemed unconstitutional.

If they do vote, their smartest plan would be to vote for one of the women that Trump nominated in the past. It shields her from all of the intersectional bullshit that the Democrats and left will pull. They'll still pull it but they'll look ridiculous; gonna be hard to say that she was a sexual predator.


The one card the Republicans will play is that Obama was 100% on his way out in 2016. Trump isn't necessarily done.

#1: funny...someone used the same term at work this week. And they used it incorrectly as well. Run roughshod
#2: I think turning out more Democrats is typically useless...because most of the country is red anyway...with 3 big pockets of blue (CA, NY, IL)
#3: The Republicans are going to try to rush someone through and get the person nominated and start the process. Even IF Trump loses in Nov...they will have shaped the future for another 20 years (which is the goal for both sides TBH)

killacross wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:30 am #2: I think turning out more Democrats is typically useless...because most of the country is red anyway...with 3 big pockets of blue (CA, NY, IL)

Most of the country is moderate, not hard left or right, with pockets of severe red or blue. By population, as evident 6 out of the last 7 elections, a majority of the people in the US voted left. Land area on the other hand, goes red, so it really depends on what you dictate as most, every major city votes left. It's almost like laws across a state and the country really shouldn't be uniform because of how different the rural and urban divide is

superbob wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:05 pm

killacross wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:30 am #2: I think turning out more Democrats is typically useless...because most of the country is red anyway...with 3 big pockets of blue (CA, NY, IL)

Most of the country is moderate, not hard left or right, with pockets of severe red or blue that push elections. By population, as evident 6 out of the last 7 elections, a majority of the people in the US vote left. By population, most of the country is blue, by land area most of the country is red

Yep, this. IIRC South Dakota didn't even have the population to be a state at the time it became one.

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:38 am The supreme court isn't composed of politically neutral gods and this sick and twisted idea that they are supposed to be final say and overrule the other branches is a real problem. But the left typically wants more leftist justice so they can just run rough shot over everything they don't like. At least the other branches are elected and can be voted out, the whole idea behind giving justices lifetime appointments was that they had no real true power. They aren't any more powerful than the other branches. Ultimately they give their opinions and it's up to the states to do the heavy lifting of changing the law or not. This meant states could in theory say, "Thanks for your opinion but go fuck yourself." At that point, it would be up the citizens of said state to vote those people out and/or for local law enforcement to not enforce laws that were deemed unconstitutional.

Vox gonna Vox.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be toothless - they're supposed to be the ultimate arbiters of whether or not a law is constitutional. Reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret a 200+ year old document, and when those disagreements are done at federal district courts the Supreme Court steps in to make the determination. Their lifetime appointments aren't supposed to reflect a level of no power, it's so that they're not beholden to anyone else. No kissing up to voters like a politician or sucking up to whoever appoints them.

States can't make laws that violate the Constitution, so they can't tell the Judiciary to fuck itself. If the Judiciary finds that a law violates the Constitution, it's struck down. The Legislative has the power to change that by amending the law to avoid the Constitutional conflict or amend the Constitution.

'Judicial Overreach' is also a bit of a loaded term - in decisions that people use this terminology it's always the government laws that limit the individual being struck down. Citizens United was eyebrow-raising, but in general if the government wants to limit an individual's sovereignty and that gets struck down I'm happy about it.

.

xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:33 pm
States can't make laws that violate the Constitution, so they can't tell the Judiciary to fuck itself. If the Judiciary finds that a law violates the Constitution, it's struck down. The Legislative has the power to change that by amending the law to avoid the Constitutional conflict or amend the Constitution.

Oh really? How does the judiciary enforce that decision? It has no enforcement arm, it has to rely on states to do what it said. What happens if a state says, "Nope". That is highly unlikely to happen but that's not the point, the point is someone other than the judiciary has to enforce what they decided.

killacross wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:30 am #1: funny...someone used the same term at work this week. And they used it incorrectly as well. Run roughshod

I dunno what you're talking about that's what I said.










Please don't notice that the post has been edited.