dngn4774's forum posts

#1 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio

Dotty solos

@_gaff_ said:

Pinky and The Brain solo

That defies math

#2 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio


As everyone has already said, Lincoln, though he himself wasn't exactly a pro-black rights person, was surely a much better person for his time. You can argue Lincoln words when he claimed he was pro-white supremacy, but his actions were all pointing to the opposite. In case people forget, the South seceded because they were afraid Lincoln was going to abolish Slavery thanks to his House Divided speech. Lincoln couldn't exactly say "I love blacks, blacks should be free" in 1861 when both the North and South were pro-segregation and the south was still pro-slavery. He had an election to win, but his friendship with blacks and his value of their personhood was present in his actions. He just was a slimy politician...

Gandhi, on the other hand, was a racist and a tool. Forget the fact that he called black South Africans "kaffirs", Gandhi called them "like animals in a zoo" and was vehemently opposed to people comparing the plight of the Indian people to that of sub-Saharan Africans. He said they were different, Indians were civilized and Blacks were not. Keep in mind, Gandhi was a pompous rich t*@t who only wanted change when he was denied a seat in the better side of a train. He wasn't altruistic or magnanimous, he was self-centered and egomaniacal.

Now compare them to MLK, a man who fought for equality for all--blacks, Asians, jews, women, the poor. MLK's lone vice is he suffered from infidelity in his marriage, but most great men often do.

Lincoln for this reason. They both accomplished great things but they are also measured on higher pedestal than they probably should have been granted. Like any other beloved historical figures when tend to only see the good things regarding their character, and turn a blind eye to their more unflattering qualities.

#3 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio
#4 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio


I can watch that one without my conscience reminding me how the athletes are being exploited.

#5 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio

@dngn4774 said:


Why not?

Because Hollywood's been spamming war films for years and tagging COD on the next one still won't make it better than the classics.

#6 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio

@dngn4774 said:

@allstarsuperman: Yeah, two and a half stars tops though.

2.5 outta 10....

I was going to be generous and say 2.5 out of 5, but I can't really argue with you. It ain't got nothing on Jet Li's Fearless. My favorite modern martial arts film.

#7 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio
#8 Edited by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio


#9 Posted by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio

Really depends on what is being written. If it is a mystery novel for example, first person is the way to go, but if it's something like an a fantasy tale with a bunch of characters than third person would be my preference.

#10 Edited by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio

@cf12793: Franklin sounded like Ice Cube in the trailer with the 401k line. I knew it couldn't have been him since Ice Cube isn't that young anymore.