AngryishHumanoid

Yes that's very on point for the question being asked, thanks.

Woh, a twofer.

I would 1000% percent watch a sequel to Being John Malkovich called Being Matt Damon, and they keep going deeper into him Inception style, and each layer is another increasingly more convoluted scenario of everyone having to save him.

Isn't it amazing how such a wonderful concept can still hold our imaginations despite the 27 terrible Hellraiser movies that have graced the screen since the last decent one decades ago?

I have a sneaking suspicion that IS the TL:DR.

This will require rigorous scientific testing.

There are much easier ways to keep yourself from passing gas. Like a butt plug.

I mean you know how insane you sound right now, right? Like I doubt you are being serious in what you are saying, cause we're over here saying "Hey some of those people murdered women and children who had nothing to do with the attacks on the Dakota people and that is frequently a death penalty kind of situation" and you're over there implying those women and children could have totally deserved it or something so that would have make it ok, kinda hard to tell which is why I have to assume you just don't like people disagreeing with you.

Look I agree with the overall sentiment but 1 of these is not like the others, especially if you've read the history of the Dakota War of 1862. Should the US in general not have wholesale slaughtered an indigenous people and stolen their land? Obviously not. Did that reality lead to the war of 1862? Sure did. Does that make massacring people on either side ok? No not really. Lincoln was given a recommendation to execute 303 people who participated in battles and, in some cases, massacred civilians. He asked for details of their convictions. Then he decided that the 38 who actively participated in massacres of innocent people should be executed, not the others who participated in battles. That kinda feels like the best of a fucked up situation to me.

I don't entirely agree with that. Sure Brady was one of the best, hands down, but I feel like their lack of success since he left had more to do with their inability to find another even decent QB. Belichick was good at taking specific players and finding unique and effective uses for them, but overall he was way better at drafting defensive players than offensive players, Brady and Gronk notwithstanding.

In terms of football IQ look at the Patriots/Rams Superbowl, one of the most boring SBs in history, lol. Rams had a new offense that trounced EVERYONE on their way to the SB, Belichick completely neutralized it and by the next year everyone used his defensive lineup against the Rams and they floundered.

If I spent 20 years watching a team I spent millions on lose to him over and over I'd probably be a salty bitch about it to. Then again these days I find it hard to like any of the owners or management in the NFL so fuck em.

Honestly once I went aeropress I could never go back.