Bear Down Wildcats

I thought mega threads and macho grande would be a perfect fit

Become an expert at something and work alone. When people wish to learn from you, answer their questions, but don't have them discuss among themselves. The more of you and the less of them, the better for all involved.

This is the key to job satisfaction.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Also, Eyes Wide Shut sucked, and is only regarded as a decent movie because Kubrick made it. I love some Kubrick movies (Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket) but he gets a lot of love for a guy who has regularly been on the wrong side of the pretentious line.

Nah, it didn't suck. It wasn't the greatest movie ever, but it didn't suck. It was actually a pretty decent exposition of the heroquest mythological arcetype.

Also, boobs.

While nice to view, Rally Tits don't work.

Hell, none of the superstitious things you fans do work.

Seconded on the RTs. Never been a fan. They have the same proven effectiveness as religious relics.

Chemex is waaaaaaay overrated.

I like the smell of onion and garlic on my fingertips after chopping them.

RichardCranium wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Also, Eyes Wide Shut sucked, and is only regarded as a decent movie because Kubrick made it. I love some Kubrick movies (Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket) but he gets a lot of love for a guy who has regularly been on the wrong side of the pretentious line.

Nah, it didn't suck. It wasn't the greatest movie ever, but it didn't suck. It was actually a pretty decent exposition of the heroquest mythological arcetype.

I sort of agree with this. It was the kind of movie that needs to be viewed as something other than a movie, because if it is viewed as a movie, it isn't good.

I hate other people's children.

It's nice having your own office with a window that opens so I can fart as much as I want and no one knows for the better.

Or so they let me think.

Alieberman wrote:I hate other people's children.

In this vein, a lot of people think all babies are cute. I don't agree. Some babies are pretty unfortunate looking.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Alieberman wrote:I hate other people's children.

In this vein, a lot of people think all babies are cute. I don't agree. Some babies are pretty unfortunate looking.

I think you mean Breathtaking.

See, Seinfeld still relevant!

i cant fucking stand Steph Curry

I hate Avatar still can't believe a recycled plot of Furngully and Dances with the Wolves is that popular. Visually amazing, the charcters and story are terrible!

97cats wrote:i cant fucking stand Steph Curry

I've spoken to several of your types recently.

I'm still perplexed. None of this was supposed to happen for him. Kid was a nothing recruit at a nothing school. Even when good he was still an injured lottery pick on bum feet. Even when healthy he wasn't supposed to be a generational talent. Even as a generational talent he wasn't supposed to be the engine to all-time great teams while setting pace for record demolishing. Even as all that he was still a skinny, teenage looking doofus who worked harder at his craft than most with twice his physical ability.

I get he's cocksure and rains swagger by the bucketful.

But if I could watch one healthy player right now, I'm watching Steph.

I hope we can still be friends! Haha

George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

Lando05 wrote:George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

That's not true at all in my opinion. I doubt we would've had the debt at 0 if Bush I was President again.

97cats wrote:i cant fucking stand Steph Curry

Although I hate Klay even more.

Lando05 wrote:George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

I agree with the first part. The second half I don't agree with.

HW looks a lot better looking at the new millenium. I'd go Truman as the most underrated president.

Lando05 wrote:George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

What exactly would have been so much better?

Chicat wrote:

Lando05 wrote:George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

What exactly would have been so much better?

I can envision HW as better in foreign policy. Clinton's foreign policy was pretty unremarkable. Hard to see him as better domestically, though.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Lando05 wrote:George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

What exactly would have been so much better?

I can envision HW as better in foreign policy. Clinton's foreign policy was pretty unremarkable. Hard to see him as better domestically, though.

I highly doubt HW would have done anything in Rwanda and I can't imagine Bosnia/Kosovo going better. And would he have attempted to broker peace between Israel and Palestine? I don't remember him expressing any interest in doing that in his first term.

Also, let's not forget that his administration was caught largely flat-footed when it came to the fall of communism. The State Dept should have been in every former Soviet state offering financial and strategic assistance to keep them from falling into kleptocracy, but we were largely absent. You would think that after the Romanians executed Ceaușescu that every other revolution/civil war in Eastern Europe wouldn't have been a surprise.

Chicat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Lando05 wrote:George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

What exactly would have been so much better?

I can envision HW as better in foreign policy. Clinton's foreign policy was pretty unremarkable. Hard to see him as better domestically, though.

I highly doubt HW would have done anything in Rwanda and I can't imagine Bosnia/Kosovo going better. And would he have attempted to broker peace between Israel and Palestine? I don't remember him expressing any interest in doing that in his first term.

Also, let's not forget that his administration was caught largely flat-footed when it came to the fall of communism. The State Dept should have been in every former Soviet state offering financial and strategic assistance to keep them from falling into kleptocracy, but we were largely absent. You would think that after the Romanians executed Ceaușescu that every other revolution/civil war in Eastern Europe wouldn't have been a surprise.

I disagree on Rwanda. Clinton himself was critical of his own policy and lack of intervention late in his term. Bush had committed troops in Somalia, and I think it's arguable he would potentially have done more in Rwanda. Either way, I do not see Rwanda as a Clinton success.

I do think it's fair to assume that Bosnia and Kosovo would have largely been the same.

See, I view HW not involving himself in post Cold War regional conflict as a positive. In my opinion, that has almost inevitably gone poorly for America. We offer support to one side (like supporting Saddam against Iran) but it goes south fast.

I don't see Rwanda as a success for Clinton either. That would be asinine.

Still wondering how HW in a second term would have been better than Clinton.

CalStateTempe wrote:Not what I heard through the grapevine at the time. I know I'm still just some dude on the internet believ what you want.

Thanks for the correction regarding Chris.

I still find everything gronk does on and off the field incredibly annoying.

I've been, uh, spending time, with a girl who was a scholarship athlete in that period and used to "hang out at Rob's house" in college. From what she's said, I think your take is probably the right one.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Lando05 wrote:George H. Bush was a better President then people give him credit for and the country would be better off if he would've gotten a 2nd term and Clinton would have lost.

What exactly would have been so much better?

I can envision HW as better in foreign policy. Clinton's foreign policy was pretty unremarkable. Hard to see him as better domestically, though.

I highly doubt HW would have done anything in Rwanda and I can't imagine Bosnia/Kosovo going better. And would he have attempted to broker peace between Israel and Palestine? I don't remember him expressing any interest in doing that in his first term.

Also, let's not forget that his administration was caught largely flat-footed when it came to the fall of communism. The State Dept should have been in every former Soviet state offering financial and strategic assistance to keep them from falling into kleptocracy, but we were largely absent. You would think that after the Romanians executed Ceaușescu that every other revolution/civil war in Eastern Europe wouldn't have been a surprise.

I disagree on Rwanda. Clinton himself was critical of his own policy and lack of intervention late in his term. Bush had committed troops in Somalia, and I think it's arguable he would potentially have done more in Rwanda. Either way, I do not see Rwanda as a Clinton success.

I do think it's fair to assume that Bosnia and Kosovo would have largely been the same.

See, I view HW not involving himself in post Cold War regional conflict as a positive. In my opinion, that has almost inevitably gone poorly for America. We offer support to one side (like supporting Saddam against Iran) but it goes south fast.

Pappy's Somalia adventure didn't really go well for anyone, though the crash and burn stage was admittedly under Clinton.

There's a difference between supporting Saddam or Pinochet and supporting a true democratic uprising. But I tend to agree that it's unlikely the US could have done much. What actually happened is pretty much what one would expect. The countries that were closer to NATO Europe (Czech, Poland, Baltic States, maybe Romania and Hungary) seem to have better sustained liberal democracies, while those closer to Moscow (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, etc.) haven't had as much success. The US wasn't realistically going to get in the middle of that. Just like we're not going to go to war with Russia today over the Crimea or Eastern Ukraine.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:We offer support to one side (like supporting Saddam against Iran) but it goes south fast.

I'm one that often, often cautions against sort of blindly supporting "one side" in a thing without trying to understand the secondary, tertiary, etc effects down the line but I'm interested in the example you gave. On that specific one I'm wondering how it "went down fast" as opposed to being "highly successful from the American policy perspective"?

But again, probably wrong thread.

SCCats wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:We offer support to one side (like supporting Saddam against Iran) but it goes south fast.

I'm one that often, often cautions against sort of blindly supporting "one side" in a thing without trying to understand the secondary, tertiary, etc effects down the line but I'm interested in the example you gave. On that specific one I'm wondering how it "went down fast" as opposed to being "highly successful from the American policy perspective"?

But again, probably wrong thread.

We backed Saddam in the early, mid 80's vs Iran. Saddam spun that support into enhancing his own regime and expansion that led to us fighting our own resources in Gulf War I. Our support of Saddam didn't even noticeably change the trajectory of Iranian government and regional influence.

I don't see a lot of success in our backing of Saddam, but let me know if you feel differently.

Here's an unpopular opinion on mine...

Iran isn't the demon US powerbrokers make them out to be.

Alieberman wrote:I liked Kirk Walters

I like America's Roast Beef, yes sir.

PieceOfMeat wrote:the last 2 star wars movies have pretty much sucked, and the next one probably will too.

All overrated. The chain store of movies. BTW, I like Red Robin as much or more than any mom n pop burger joint. Eat local is fine, unless it sucks. Just like chains.

Merkin wrote:Never thought Carrie Fischer as Princess Leia was hot.

Never.

Ditto.

And can we get over the comic book thing, please? If not, how about some racy Betty and Veronica? I hear they give jug head.

CalStateTempe wrote:Radiohead jumped the shark years ago.

Jug head is better.

JMarkJohns wrote:If you can do it while drinking or drunk, it's not a sport.
If outcome is decided by only judging, it's not a sport.
If you remain seated entirety of event, it's not a sport.

If fans can't yell while you're doing it, it's not a sport.

The whole vinyl trend is so pretentious. The music is just fine without the hissing. Buy a snake if It enhances the experience.

And, finally. Al Gore was right, and it just kills people to admit it. So they deny science instead.

CalStateTempe wrote:Here's an unpopular opinion on mine...

Iran isn't the demon US powerbrokers make them out to be.

But Duran Duran is.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I don't see a lot of success in our backing of Saddam, but let me know if you feel differently.

Yeah almost completely differently.

The OP against the Iranians was a success as far as our perspective on the matter. We wanted to punish Iranians for deposing the Shah and we did that with a massive grinding war over a decade that brought Iran to the brink of ruin.

I'm not sure how much the stuff that came after that was directly effected by that OP. Sadam's army was much, much, much, much, much better than Kuwait's before we supported him and much, much, much, much, much, much better after. So that's 5 muchs versus 6 muchs. So our support of his military during the 80s would not have in any way effected what would have occurred on the battlefield once Sadam decided to invade Kuwait.

The second gulf war had nothing to do with the first unless you want to make the argument that the actual and overriding reason we invaded Iraq was because the Younger wanted to avenge the hit put out on daddy and/or wanted to show he could wipe Iraq off the map where his father choose not to. And if you did conclude that, there were basically no actions Sadam took that precipitated the second gulf war. But even if you want to come to that conclusion about the Younger's reasons for the second gulf war, there's still not a clear connection between the initial OP and the first gulf war which would then allow for the possibility to tie it to the second gulf war.

Only thing pretentious about records are the goddamn prices now.

In 2000 I bought Otis Redding/Jimi Hendrix, Live From Monterrey Pop for $20 from a local record store. That album would cost $100 now.

I went to a thrift store that was closing recently, found 75 year old vinyl featuring Glenn Miller, Duke Ellington, etc. got them for free. Guy saw me
Rummaging through the piles, looking at the liner notes (if they still had them), eyeballing the quality of the vinyl, setting aside obscure albums. Got up to the front, and he said "No charge. Nice to see someone appreciate quality."

As for the sound, it is better. Compressed files sound tinny. Flat. Yes, there's the background fuzz, but the sound is fuller, richer, and you can hear depth if your speaker and equalizer setup is appropriate.

Sucks for driving though!

SCCats wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I don't see a lot of success in our backing of Saddam, but let me know if you feel differently.

Yeah almost completely differently.

The OP against the Iranians was a success as far as our perspective on the matter. We wanted to punish Iranians for deposing the Shah and we did that with a massive grinding war over a decade that brought Iran to the brink of ruin.

I'm not sure how much the stuff that came after that was directly effected by that OP. Sadam's army was much, much, much, much, much better than Kuwait's before we supported him and much, much, much, much, much, much better after. So that's 5 muchs versus 6 muchs. So our support of his military during the 80s would not have in any way effected what would have occurred on the battlefield once Sadam decided to invade Kuwait.

The second gulf war had nothing to do with the first unless you want to make the argument that the actual and overriding reason we invaded Iraq was because the Younger wanted to avenge the hit put out on daddy and/or wanted to show he could wipe Iraq off the map where his father choose not to. And if you did conclude that, there were basically no actions Sadam took that precipitated the second gulf war. But even if you want to come to that conclusion about the Younger's reasons for the second gulf war, there's still not a clear connection between the initial OP and the first gulf war which would then allow for the possibility to tie it to the second gulf war.

Well, we do see it differently. Prior to Gulf War II, I would argue Iraq and Iran were the two most stable anti-American countries in the ME. I see that as the net result. We intervened in Iran/Iraq's conflict, and produced a standoff that left both countries relatively stable and opposed to American interests.

I would judge our intervention on what the end result was. Both Iran and Iraq wound up with rulers opposed to America and a relatively tight control on thei regime. I view the first Iraq war as evidence that Iraq was no friend of US interests relatively quickly after they had the support Saddam needed.

JMarkJohns wrote:Only thing pretentious about records are the goddamn prices now.

In 2000 I bought Otis Redding/Jimi Hendrix, Live From Monterrey Pop for $20 from a local record store. That album would cost $100 now.

I went to a thrift store that was closing recently, found 75 year old vinyl featuring Glenn Miller, Duke Ellington, etc. got them for free. Guy saw me
Rummaging through the piles, looking at the liner notes (if they still had them), eyeballing the quality of the vinyl, setting aside obscure albums. Got up to the front, and he said "No charge. Nice to see someone appreciate quality."

As for the sound, it is better. Compressed files sound tinny. Flat. Yes, there's the background fuzz, but the sound is fuller, richer, and you can hear depth if your speaker and equalizer setup is appropriate.

Sucks for driving though!

This, like fine wine, expensive beer and the perfect TV picture, is lost on me. I've saved so much money being middle-brow. Good to know I can sell my LPs to someone who will appreciate them. I've essentially replace them all with digital.

Love this article. Same wine served at different temperature fools eveyone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiebell/ ... 069a843ae2" target="_blank

And ... the dump bucket.

During one of my interviews the wife of an especially insufferable wine snob, (who shall remain unnamed), pulled me aside and revealed that she’d in fact pulled a trick on her husband and his tasting cronies years ago. During one of their tastings, she confessed to taking their ‘dump bucket’ (where all the unconsumed wine is poured) and putting the contents into an empty bottle. She later presented the bottle to the group as a special wine she wanted them to try (covering it with a bag). “They swooned over it, and I never had the heart to tell them the truth."

I think the National Anthem should be replaced by Frank Zappa's guitar solo on Mars Hotel/Inca Roads.

gumby wrote:

JMarkJohns wrote:Only thing pretentious about records are the goddamn prices now.

In 2000 I bought Otis Redding/Jimi Hendrix, Live From Monterrey Pop for $20 from a local record store. That album would cost $100 now.

I went to a thrift store that was closing recently, found 75 year old vinyl featuring Glenn Miller, Duke Ellington, etc. got them for free. Guy saw me
Rummaging through the piles, looking at the liner notes (if they still had them), eyeballing the quality of the vinyl, setting aside obscure albums. Got up to the front, and he said "No charge. Nice to see someone appreciate quality."

As for the sound, it is better. Compressed files sound tinny. Flat. Yes, there's the background fuzz, but the sound is fuller, richer, and you can hear depth if your speaker and equalizer setup is appropriate.

Sucks for driving though!

This, like fine wine, expensive beer and the perfect TV picture, is lost on me. I've saved so much money being middle-brow. Good to know I can sell my LPs to someone who will appreciate them. I've essentially replace them all with digital.

Love this article. Same wine served at different temperature fools eveyone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiebell/ ... 069a843ae2" target="_blank

And ... the dump bucket.

During one of my interviews the wife of an especially insufferable wine snob, (who shall remain unnamed), pulled me aside and revealed that she’d in fact pulled a trick on her husband and his tasting cronies years ago. During one of their tastings, she confessed to taking their ‘dump bucket’ (where all the unconsumed wine is poured) and putting the contents into an empty bottle. She later presented the bottle to the group as a special wine she wanted them to try (covering it with a bag). “They swooned over it, and I never had the heart to tell them the truth."

To those who really enjoy wine very often very little things matter very much: for me, cellar temperature really, really enhances red wine; I have a certain glass for single malt the shape of which without a fucking doubt in the world improves every attribute of the whisky. But the snob factor really can outweigh lots of natural attributes of wine, and that's unfortunate. The "halo effect" is notorious: what seems to taste good in a hoity toity setting turns out to be plonk once you've bought a case and opened a bottle back home.

Never trust people who indulge the dump bucket. Real men swallow!

dovecanyoncat wrote:

gumby wrote:

JMarkJohns wrote:Only thing pretentious about records are the goddamn prices now.

In 2000 I bought Otis Redding/Jimi Hendrix, Live From Monterrey Pop for $20 from a local record store. That album would cost $100 now.

I went to a thrift store that was closing recently, found 75 year old vinyl featuring Glenn Miller, Duke Ellington, etc. got them for free. Guy saw me
Rummaging through the piles, looking at the liner notes (if they still had them), eyeballing the quality of the vinyl, setting aside obscure albums. Got up to the front, and he said "No charge. Nice to see someone appreciate quality."

As for the sound, it is better. Compressed files sound tinny. Flat. Yes, there's the background fuzz, but the sound is fuller, richer, and you can hear depth if your speaker and equalizer setup is appropriate.

Sucks for driving though!

This, like fine wine, expensive beer and the perfect TV picture, is lost on me. I've saved so much money being middle-brow. Good to know I can sell my LPs to someone who will appreciate them. I've essentially replace them all with digital.

Love this article. Same wine served at different temperature fools eveyone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiebell/ ... 069a843ae2" target="_blank

And ... the dump bucket.

During one of my interviews the wife of an especially insufferable wine snob, (who shall remain unnamed), pulled me aside and revealed that she’d in fact pulled a trick on her husband and his tasting cronies years ago. During one of their tastings, she confessed to taking their ‘dump bucket’ (where all the unconsumed wine is poured) and putting the contents into an empty bottle. She later presented the bottle to the group as a special wine she wanted them to try (covering it with a bag). “They swooned over it, and I never had the heart to tell them the truth."

To those who really enjoy wine very often very little things matter very much: for me, cellar temperature really, really enhances red wine; I have a certain glass for single malt the shape of which without a fucking doubt in the world improves every attribute of the whisky. But the snob factor really can outweigh lots of natural attributes of wine, and that's unfortunate. The "halo effect" is notorious: what seems to taste good in a hoity toity setting turns out to be plonk once you've bought a case and opened a bottle back home.

Never trust people who indulge the dump bucket. Real men swallow!

Dove,
Wife wants to get over the hill to Temecula for a day of wine tasting. I think it's been over 5 years since I've been out that way. Curious if you have any recommendations? My favorite on that stretch has always been Hart. Apologies in advance if the Dove Canyon is not the Dove here in the OC.

Thanks!

I don't like alcohol. I don't drink, not due to any particular moral objection, but just because I don't enjoy the taste and it isn't worth it.

I love alcohol and caffeine.

Would not make a good Mormon.

The advantage of not having a good palate is that I can really enjoy cheap wine. I do buy a lot of boxed wine, not the huge Peter Vella ones, but the smaller 1.5L-3L ones.

Corbett Canyon is probably my favorite. 3L box of Cabernet for $8.95 at Walmart. Believe it was given a 93 at one time.

i love food, alcohol, beer, wine & champagne -- all of it

Food and alcohol are for the weak of spirit who dath not turn to the glory of thine father. Maybe dath is a word.

I don't really like many people who don't own dogs.

Actually, I don't really like many people

I do like dogs though

Longhorned wrote:Food and alcohol are for the weak of spirit who dath not turn to the glory of thine father. Maybe dath is a word.

if you say it, it's true -- no contesting it here.

gimmie gimmie gimmie = food alcohol beer wine champagne

97cats wrote:i love food, alcohol, beer, wine & champagne -- all of it

But enough about breakfast ...

JMarkJohns wrote:

97cats wrote:i cant fucking stand Steph Curry

I've spoken to several of your types recently.

I'm still perplexed. None of this was supposed to happen for him. Kid was a nothing recruit at a nothing school. Even when good he was still an injured lottery pick on bum feet. Even when healthy he wasn't supposed to be a generational talent. Even as a generational talent he wasn't supposed to be the engine to all-time great teams while setting pace for record demolishing. Even as all that he was still a skinny, teenage looking doofus who worked harder at his craft than most with twice his physical ability.

I get he's cocksure and rains swagger by the bucketful.

But if I could watch one healthy player right now, I'm watching Steph.

I hope we can still be friends! Haha

I feel the same way about Tom Brady...not understanding the hate, I mean. I am no fan, but dude was overlooked forever, has zero athleticism, and came from the bottom of the draft to become the GOAT, sometimes taking gutted teams with nobody at receiver and turning them into free agent millionaires. It took this year to finally drive that home to me...we should be celebrating the fact that we are watching greatness.

I really think his good looks and his unfortunate choices of magazine photo spreads (and maybe marrying a supermodel) have led to all the hate. His story is like a made for TV movie.

I love coach calipari. Guy can do no wrong in my book for what he did for Arizona basketball.

CalStateTempe wrote:I love coach calipari. Guy can do no wrong in my book for what he did for Arizona basketball.

I agree and I like Calipari even if he hadn't brought us Miller.

Alieberman wrote:I don't really like many people who don't own dogs.

Actually, I don't really like many people

I do like dogs though

Try to imagine if that jerk you call "nature" gave you such severe allergies of dogs that you couldn't be anywhere near them. Could be worse, I suppose, but it makes me wonder why nature couldn't at least have made me not like dogs so much.