|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 22, 2016 6:57:59 GMT -5
The Deadpool marketing team needs to take a bow. I don't think I've ever seen a film marketed better than this one. It always reminded me it was coming in new and interesting ways without smothering me with Deadpool stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 14, 2016 10:45:54 GMT -5
What logical argument is there in favour of Obama waiting to appoint? I can't see one.
Someone also said that if the Senate keeps shooting him down & the Democrats get a majority after the election the Dem president could nominate Obama himself. That would be deliciously ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 14, 2016 10:43:08 GMT -5
Arsenal fans pretending they're going to win the league makes me laugh. Their fixture list is appalling and they won't even finish above Spurs (who might actually win it).
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 13, 2016 10:24:36 GMT -5
Rooney just gave the most pathetic post-match interview. I really hope he s off to China before he breaks Bobby's record, but he probably won't leave until he has so hopefully he does it this season.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 12, 2016 3:35:02 GMT -5
Adam Johnson sacked by Sunderland. Totally expected but they were left with no choice. Shame for them because they could have done with him. Hopefully Khazri can step up, looks the part anyway. I just hate how he's made a mockery of us. Especially given that according to reports the club thought he was going to plead not guilty to all 4 charges. I assumed that the club knew he was pleading guilty and it was obvious they'd sack him after that. If he lied to them? That's pretty sh*tty on his part.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 8, 2016 14:53:53 GMT -5
Think Spurs will be the only ones to topple Leicester, Arsenal and City are both inconsistent for title challengers. That said, there's no way Leicester aren't going to get Champions League next season. After United I'd like Spurs to win the title. They've been quietly excellent, are brilliant to watch and have taken a lot of crap in recent years for a club of their stature.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 4, 2016 13:06:49 GMT -5
A word of warning, I'm going to be unbearable when we win the league. And here I was thinking you were unbearable now
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 15:55:05 GMT -5
Maybe, but the more important issue to us is that United aren't as successful as they would be without the Glazers. I wonder if Bucs fans feel the same. Most Bucs fans are kind of 50/50 on them. They do tend to be over aggressive in handling/firing their coaches and that leads to a lot of consistency issues. They aren't overspenders on free agents but they also will open up the wallet for guys and to keep their guys sometimes, but tend to let the older guys move on. I think them owning Man U is more of a financial investment for them, and a way to help get the NFL in Europe again. I'd certainly be worried about it if I were a Man U fan, because they are likely not their #1 priority. Yeah, that's certainly how all us United fans feel. We've tried nearly everything short of violence to get them out but there's not much you can do really. Thanks for the Bucs' perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 15:35:35 GMT -5
I think half the reason people come to wrestling shows (or any sporting event) is to be part of the atmosphere, whereas going to a movie or play is totally different. Maybe these guys were taking it too far, but in most cases audience participation is a good thing and should be encouraged. Wrestling would be much, much worse off if the crowd were constantly silent like at the theatre. As I said previously in the thread... "It's one thing to have fun, it's another to be distracting." I have no problem with someone having fun and dressing up. But I do have a problem with them drawing attention to themselves while there is talent in the ring performing. That's fair enough in this particular situation and some others, but I still don't think your theatre analogy is a fair one.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 15:29:35 GMT -5
I just wanted to know their thoughts on the owners. They share the same owners as Manchester United, and us United fans utterly despise them for several reasons. From what I hear the Bucs fans have a more positive outlook so I wanted to see for myself. Well I mean, the Bucs are the second best team in their division, which is nice; but the best only lost one game this season and is probably winning the Super Bowl on Sunday so not THAT positive. ManU's more successful than the Bucs don't worry. Maybe, but the more important issue to us is that United aren't as successful as they would be without the Glazers. I wonder if Bucs fans feel the same.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 15:09:31 GMT -5
He won't have a ready built super squad like his previous clubs but will surely have the money to do it. Must be a bit boring nonetheless lol. Not for the CL, but with the investment they give him you'd think City should be winning the league every year whilst he is there. That said, he's not being employed for the PL, and if he can't win that with this insane Bayern team he'll struggle with City.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 15:05:37 GMT -5
Are there any Tampa Bay fans here? I'd like to ask them a couple of questions. There used to be one but he went insane and then deleted himself. But I imagine we can answer just about any question for you. I just wanted to know their thoughts on the owners. They share the same owners as Manchester United, and us United fans utterly despise them for several reasons. From what I hear the Bucs fans have a more positive outlook so I wanted to see for myself.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 15:02:36 GMT -5
Man Utd 4-0 Stoke Ah, who am I kidding... Man Utd 0-1 StokeThat's the foul count after 36 seconds, yes? All four will be Fellaini.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 13:47:59 GMT -5
Are there any Tampa Bay fans here? I'd like to ask them a couple of questions.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 13:38:51 GMT -5
Imagine you were cast to be in a play. You were so excited. You invite your family & friends to be there. People flocked there to see what you have to offer. And right as you are about to say your first line, someone dressed like William Shakespeare jumps up and starts distracting the crowd. Then once the dust settles and you try to get things back on track, the entire crowd starts chanting "Willi-am Shake-speare! *clap *clap *clap!!" So the security asks him to step out so you can continue to preform. Would you just stand there and say, "I blame this on the PG aspects on this show?", "I can't believe they won't let this guy have fun!", or "This is somehow Roman Reigns fault!"? No! You'd be happy that the show can go on and people can see what they paid to watch. I think half the reason people come to wrestling shows (or any sporting event) is to be part of the atmosphere, whereas going to a movie or play is totally different. Maybe these guys were taking it too far, but in most cases audience participation is a good thing and should be encouraged. Wrestling would be much, much worse off if the crowd were constantly silent like at the theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 13:36:28 GMT -5
This says everything that's wrong with WWE's culture. Wrestlers should be praised for doing good off-script bits (as long as they don't just say "F*CK YOU" or something) and showing their character. The fact that only a top top star could get away with such a small deviation says it all.
No wonder the writing is crap; you've got 7 or 8 writers trying to script everything word for word week after week. If they just let wrestlers do their own promos (after giving them the gist of where it needs to go) and then live or die by said promos they would have much more time and creativity left over for the broader brushstrokes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 13:19:22 GMT -5
Losing to Mark Henry would have caused the most riots. Losing to Orton or maybe HBK would have been the most accepted. I don't think it would really matter until around Wrestlemania 21. I remember there was never any talk of a streak until around Wrestlemania 18, when after Taker pinned Flair, Taker counted all the wins he had on his fingers while standing on the apron, and the camera caught it. I think that is when Jim Ross said that Taker was, 10 - 0 at Mania. But from what I can remember, the Wrestlemania 21 match is when the mentioning of 'ending the streak' really came into play. So I think if Orton ended it, it would have gotten over huge since he was the Legend Killer. Orton ending it was the only match that would have ever made any short or long term sense (including WM30). And that said, Orton still made it as high as he likely would have anyway, so it still wasn't worth it to end the streak. But it at least had an argument in favour of it at the time. The only times i thought there was even a chance he would lose were: WM 21 vs Orton WM 25 vs HBK WM 28 vs HHH Otherwise i wasn't on the edge of my seat. Which i guess is why WM 30 stung so much. I just didn't give Lesnar a chance and the match was so plodding ,I couldn't build any suspense. It just sort of happened....there it is...its over. Add Edge at WM24 to this list and I agree. I went into that match thinking there was no chance but both men played it so perfectly that when Edge got that last spear I really thought it was done. Same goes for that Chokeslam into RKO and the SCM into Pedigree (I didn't watch the WM25 match until after I knew the result unfortunately).
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 13:17:26 GMT -5
Man Utd 4-0 Stoke
Ah, who am I kidding... Man Utd 0-1 Stoke
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 13:16:26 GMT -5
Merry Christmas everyone
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 1, 2016 13:12:47 GMT -5
the thought of that is pretty damn scary the way you described it sounds very possible but dear god I hope not That's the thing, people never really look at PA and NY as republican states because, in general, they normally go blue for the Presidency. Problem is people don't look at the population distribution. PA and NY are top five in population. More than half of PA's population is in Pittsburgh, Philly and their surrounding areas. Urban. Heavy democrat. But we've got the state of Alabama in the middle of those two cities. Rural. Heavy republican. That's why PA is controlled by mostly Republicans in our state house because in a GENERAL election, as long as Pittsburgh and Philly show up the Dem wins, but in local state elections for reps and state senate the Republicans dominate because you can only have so many coming from Pittsburgh and Philly. The same goes for New York. Manhattan, very urban, very Democrat...that little island has a bigger population than some small countries. That decides who wins New York's vote for President. But what about the rest of New York? Buffalo's urban but small, Albany's the capital but surrounded by rural everything, again heavy republican. A Dem can win the White House by winning only NY, PA, CA, NH, VT, RI, MA, NJ and ME. That's 9 out of 50 states. They need a tenth, which is why Florida and Ohio are so hotly contested. You win just ten of those and a couple of straggler states with small Electoral College numbers like Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada etcetera...you win by default. But if even one of PA, NY or CA EVER go red, the Republican wins because the other 30 states will vote red. The most dangerous would be California, obviously because of sheer population, but still. This is why no one likes the Electoral College. It benefits one party too much, unless you get a Reagan type personality running that can work both sides. But also look at popular vote. The Dem can still win if it were based solely on popular vote because Pittsburgh, Philly, NYC and LA combined make up...what...15 million votes alone? When you consider only about 100 million vote, 15's almost a fifth of the popular vote and that's just four cities in three states of a country of 50. TL; DR don't let Trump get far enough for something bad to happen to the Northeast in Winter on Election Day. I don't like to live THAT dangerously. I actually think that your electoral system is a brilliant one for a country that isn't... well, isn't the USA. It would work perfectly for a country the size of the USA when it was first set up. But you're too big and too divided now for it and it leads to so many messes. I think it would work much better in the UK, where divisions are smaller and there's no 'states rights' issues. I regularly have this argument with fellow Brits who say "but look at the mess the USA is in!". When I point out we have much more of a consensus they tend to concede your system would work better here than our own. If I could change one thing about Britain that would be it (though I'd get rid of the Electoral College which simply is not needed in this day and age). I'm not sure what you guys should have instead. Proportional Representation might work in the long term but the first twenty years would be a ing nightmare and that's too long of an adjustment period. Really you should just split up into three countries - East, Middle and West - and let each one do what it wants. Keep an EU-like binding between the three but not one country. That scenario has its own horrendous problems though...
|
|