Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Chicom global enslavement

No, I honestly had never heard of such a thing. One of the perks of going to an engineering/technical school was not being exposed to garbage classes like that.

And I'm intrigued by that 1916 Project you mentioned. Apparently won a Pulitzer. If it's fake as you say it is, I bet there's some real good controversy there. (Yes, I know a Pulitzer or any other award is arbitrary.) On the face of it, it makes sense to have the contributors be predominantly black, however I have to imagine that could lead to potential bias, just as it would to have predominantly white contributors.

It?s 1619, not 1916.

1916 was a very good year.

It was the first year that Frank was 17, and it was a very good year.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TeDfgUvyKHk
 
No, I honestly had never heard of such a thing. One of the perks of going to an engineering/technical school was not being exposed to garbage classes like that.

And I'm intrigued by that 1916 Project you mentioned. Apparently won a Pulitzer. If it's fake as you say it is, I bet there's some real good controversy there. (Yes, I know a Pulitzer or any other award is arbitrary.) On the face of it, it makes sense to have the contributors be predominantly black, however I have to imagine that could lead to potential bias, just as it would to have predominantly white contributors.

Yeah, I think these programs are housed in sociology departments along with other fake science like anthropology - not real science but they're trying to pass themselves off as such.

The 1619 project in a net shell is based on the false and the baseless claim that America was founded with the arrival of the first slaves in 1619 (that date is also disputed as it's not clear that the people brought over from Africa then were enslaved). That date is the true founding because America is based on slavery and oppression. The creator of the project further claims, without evidence of any kind that the revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery in the colonies. Other contributors make the case that American capitalism's brutality (whatever that means) has it's roots in slavery (which is utter nonsense - slavery is the antithesis of capitalism), that the right wing politics of today are based on the politics of slavery and some even more bizarre essays like traffic jams are a byproduct of segregation.
 
Last edited:
It?s 1619, not 1916.

1916 was a very good year.

It was the first year that Frank was 17, and it was a very good year.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TeDfgUvyKHk

I know math is racist and all, and Sinatra probably grew up pretty fast in the rough streets of Hoboken, NJ (just across the Hudson from Manhattan and about 20 mins from my current hometown) but how does a guy born in 1915 get to be 17 a year later?
 
Last edited:
I know math is racist and all, and Sinatra probably grew up pretty fast in the rough streets of Hoboken, NJ (just across the Hudson from Manhattan and about 20 mins from my current hometown) but how does a guy born in 1915 get to be 17 a year later?

Because he?s Frank.

And it was a very good year.
 
Because he?s Frank.

And it was a very good year.

Much like the previously discussed Beatlemania, I never go the Frank Sinatra phenomenon. But that's the only explanation that makes any sense, so thank you for clearing that up. Just to be clear - math is still racist.
 
Last edited:
didn't have a divider window to roll up so I had to watch the entire clip...great scene from a great movie. I recently posted in this or another thread about a real life Spinal Tap-like documentary for a Canadian metal band called Anvil. Worth checking out if you haven't seen it.

The late great Bruno Kirby.

Taken far too soon.

In my heart I know he was funny.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Ty3fggeBA

I love all those Christopher Guest movies.

Even though he?s a Hollywood limousine libtard, and collaborates with others of that same ilk, I can?t help myself.
 
Bruno was also the young Clemenza in GFII ?

And of course, everyone knows that Vito got Frank the part in From Here to Eternity. Because there is simply no other explanation.

From the ?CIA-employed? writers at IMDB: (to ?debunk? the ?truth.?)

An urban myth regarding the casting of Frank Sinatra was that the Mafia made Columbia Pictures an offer they couldn't refuse. This, of course, was fictionalized in Mario Puzo's novel The Godfather (1972) and its subsequent film adaptation. The real reason for Sinatra's casting was mainly his then-wife Ava Gardner, who was shooting a film for Columbia head Harry Cohn and suggested to him that he use Sinatra. Although initially reluctant, Cohn eventually saw this as being a good idea, as Sinatra's stock was so low at the time that he would sign for a very low salary. Sinatra had been lobbying hard for the role, even suggesting he would do it for nothing, but he was eventually hired for the token amount of $8,000.​

Yah right, ya know? I mean, it?s on the internet.

Oh, one more thing: Frank sang that campaign song for JFK and then JFK dropped him like he was one of his underage swimming partners. Gives Frank motive ? well?
 
Last edited:
Bruno was also the young Clemenza in GFII ?

And of course, everyone knows that Vito got Frank the part in From Here to Eternity. Because there is simply no other explanation.

From the ?CIA-employed? writers at IMDB: (to ?debunk? the ?truth.?)

An urban myth regarding the casting of Frank Sinatra was that the Mafia made Columbia Pictures an offer they couldn't refuse. This, of course, was fictionalized in Mario Puzo's novel The Godfather (1972) and its subsequent film adaptation. The real reason for Sinatra's casting was mainly his then-wife Ava Gardner, who was shooting a film for Columbia head Harry Cohn and suggested to him that he use Sinatra. Although initially reluctant, Cohn eventually saw this as being a good idea, as Sinatra's stock was so low at the time that he would sign for a very low salary. Sinatra had been lobbying hard for the role, even suggesting he would do it for nothing, but he was eventually hired for the token amount of $8,000.​

Yah right, ya know? I mean, it?s on the internet.

Oh, one more thing: Frank was born in 1915.

I wonder how much of that story was fictionalized? Like did they threaten the studio with work stoppages or threaten an individual producer?

I read stories of Sinatra carrying suitcases of cash to Cuba for the mob, or maybe that was in FBI transcripts or something. seemed credible.

I think the only movie I saw him in was Guys and Dolls; my parents made me watch it when I was a kid, so I'd have culture and all that. as it was so long ago, my judgment of him as an actor is probably suspect, but I don't remember him forgetting his lines or anything like that.
 
I wonder how much of that story was fictionalized? Like did they threaten the studio with work stoppages or threaten an individual producer?

I think that all of it was. I actually accept the official narrative.

I read stories of Sinatra carrying suitcases of cash to Cuba for the mob, or maybe that was in FBI transcripts or something. seemed credible.

Never had the inclination to read the released FBI record, but maybe I might some day. Actually, not very likely.

I think the only movie I saw him in was Guys and Dolls; my parents made me watch it when I was a kid, so I'd have culture and all that. as it was so long ago, my judgment of him as an actor is probably suspect, but I don't remember him forgetting his lines or anything like that.

Besides the aforementioned movie, the only other movie I saw with Sinatra in it was Von Ryan?s Express, which I am certain portrayed the ethos of WWII with 100% accuracy.
 
I wonder how much of that story was fictionalized? Like did they threaten the studio with work stoppages or threaten an individual producer?

I read stories of Sinatra carrying suitcases of cash to Cuba for the mob, or maybe that was in FBI transcripts or something. seemed credible.

I think the only movie I saw him in was Guys and Dolls; my parents made me watch it when I was a kid, so I'd have culture and all that. as it was so long ago, my judgment of him as an actor is probably suspect, but I don't remember him forgetting his lines or anything like that.

Ugh, Frank's Luck Be A Lady is one of the worst versions I have ever heard. Way too slow and working too hard to push his silky smooth normal way of singing.

Best version was a fast paced, high energy number performed by a group of college kids. Man, THAT was fun to watch! Tempo set to at least 4x that of Sinatra's version, high level choreography, and infused with the energy that college kids are able to put into it. The play was above average in performance overall, but that number was worthy of Broadway I swear. Far better than the version I actually watched off Broadway about 10 years ago. Left that performance feeling like I wanted my money back.
 
I like Phil Hartman?s impression of Sinatra better than I like Sinatra, which is not all that much. You Make Me Feel So Young is one song I like but the premise also creeps me out somewhat. And that Rat Pack thing was just skewed from the beginning.
 
I wonder how much of that story was fictionalized? Like did they threaten the studio with work stoppages or threaten an individual producer?

I read stories of Sinatra carrying suitcases of cash to Cuba for the mob, or maybe that was in FBI transcripts or something. seemed credible.

I think the only movie I saw him in was Guys and Dolls; my parents made me watch it when I was a kid, so I'd have culture and all that. as it was so long ago, my judgment of him as an actor is probably suspect, but I don't remember him forgetting his lines or anything like that.

Yeah, they don?t use takes of a scene in a movie where an actor forgot his lines.
 
Yeah, they don?t use takes of a scene in a movie where an actor forgot his lines.

They often don?t use takes of a scene in a movie where an actor remembered his lines, either. Stanley Kubrick and William Wyler were famous for repeating takes of scenes to the levels of the absurd.
 
They often don?t use takes of a scene in a movie where an actor remembered his lines, either. Stanley Kubrick and William Wyler were famous for repeating takes of scenes to the levels of the absurd.

Steely Dan did the same thing producing their albums. I forget the artist - maybe Mark Knopfler - recorded with them for over 8 hours doing multiple takes and ended up being featured for 8 seconds on the album.
 
On the other end of the spectrum...

Israel Kamakawiwo'ole did his famous recording of Somewhere Over the Rainbow / What a Wonderful World in one take in the middle of the night because inspiration had struck.

"Someone from building security gave Israel a big steel chair. "Then I put up some microphones, do a quick soundcheck, roll tape, and the first thing he does is 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow. ' He played and sang, one take, and it was over." The next day Bertosa gave a copy for Israel and kept the master for himself."

Angela Lansbury performed Beauty and the Beast in one take after flying in, literally, at the last second after her plane was delayed due to a bomb threat. She raced into the studio, one take later she was done. THAT is a professional. And her version is the best compared to others. So much character of Mrs. Potts brought into the song...while it is considered by some to be off key at times or otherwise less technically precise, the artistic level is off the charts and overpowers the technical. After all, one should not expect Mrs. Potts to be a technical singer...so those points are moot as the imperfections make it warm and pure perfection.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top