- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rush Limbaugh pouts about potential black James Bond
Posted on 12/29/14 at 4:59 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 12/29/14 at 4:59 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Incorrect.
The phrase means a sure thing is better than nothing. Nothing about "doubling." Not even insinuating that you'll end up with nothing. It simply alludes to risk-aversion. You can't even understand your own phrase.
bullshite.
I was specifically discussing how the phrase relates to marketing a product but it also relates to everything you do in life.
The "bird in the hand" represents what you already have and letting go of the "bird in the hand" for the "two in the bush" means being so greedy that you give up what you already have for something you don't have that is worth more (in this case double). The "two in the bush" represents something that you will not be able to get because it is impossible to catch a bird that is in a bush let alone catch two birds in the bush.
quote:
And also, "resting on one's laurels" is indeed contradictory. It means that maintaining status quo based upon past successes is a bad thing.
"Resting on one's laurels" is not contradictory to the phrase "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
The opposite of "resting on your laurels" is not "resting on your laurels". You can not "rest on your laurels" but also not follow the words of wisdom in the phrase, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" by being greedy and giving up what you already have for something worth more (double) that is impossible to obtain and which will result in you having nothing in the end.
quote:
And as I have already pointed out, simply maintaining is kryptonite for business/brand growth. Being risk-averse (I.e., playing it safe) is the wrong way to conduct business affairs. History is littered with examples of brands that fell by the wayside and/or were significantly marginalized by thinking "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
That's because you are mis-interpreting the phrase, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
The phrase isn't telling you never to take chances in order to make more money than you already have.
Again, it's telling you not to be greedy and give up the sure way that you already are making a profit from your product for another way that appears will make more money (double) but will be impossible for you to do.
The phrase is not telling you not to do something that actually has a possibility of making you more money than you already have.
quote:
Clearly, you are out of both your professional and literary depth.
Clearly, you don't know shite.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 5:10 pm
1
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:12 pm to DawgfaninCa
First time I've seen this thread.
Elba would make a fan-fricking-tastic Bond.
Elba would make a fan-fricking-tastic Bond.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:24 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Just to be very very clear about what Rush said: he bitched about the national origin of the ACTOR HIMSELF.
No way to describe that but "stupid".
No way to describe that but "stupid".
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:25 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Just to be very very clear about what Rush said: he bitched about the national origin of the ACTOR HIMSELF.
Does he not know that Idris Elba is English?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:26 pm to BuckyBadger
quote:
ok. Got it. You are a straight racist and illogical.
Since you have your head screwed on backwards that means whatever you think then the opposite is true.
I can see it now.
If another remake of the movie Moby Dick is ever made in the future, morons like you will be screaming that Moby Dick should be a great black whale because Moby Dick has always been a great white whale.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:26 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Does he not know that Idris Elba is English?
Read the quote in the OP - he says the role calls for a "white from Scotland" not a "black Briton" (let's leave aside the argument for now that you could say Scots are 'Britons' to begin with).
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:28 pm to Big Scrub TX
Has anyone spelled it Limbaw in here?
Cause I just thought of it and for some reason it has me giggling.
Cause I just thought of it and for some reason it has me giggling.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:29 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Read the quote in the OP - he says the role calls for a "white from Scotland" not a "black Briton"
It also calls for a 6', slim, man with black hair and a scar on one cheek who's also a heavy smoker.
How many of those have we seen on the big screen?
Hell, Connery is the only Scot to play Bond out of 7 different actors.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:37 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Hell, Connery is the only Scot to play Bond out of 7 different actors.
Right. Rush's statements are absurd on their face, yet few here want to admit it.
I want someone to come and defend the NATIONALITY OF THE ACTOR HIMSELF AS RELEVANT.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:40 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I want someone to come and defend the NATIONALITY OF THE ACTOR HIMSELF AS RELEVANT.
It's absurd.
The whole thing about his appearance is absurd as well. Roger Moore and Daniel Craig (the current Bond) are both blonde for god's sake.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:50 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
It also calls for a 6', slim, man with black hair and a scar on one cheek who's also a heavy smoker.
How many of those have we seen on the big screen?
Those are minor physical characteristics of the original James Bond.
He's not portrayed as a smoker anymore because it is not pc to show someone smoking.
A white actor with brown hair can have his hair dyed to black or wear a black wig.
A white actor who is under 6' can wear lifts to make him appear to be 6'.
They only want a handsome dude to play Bond to get women to watch the movie so they don't want to mess up the actor's face with a scar. However, they could use make up to put a scar on his face.
Changing the color of Bond's skin from white to black is a major physical characteristic change.
However, if they want to have a black actor play James Bond and use makeup to make him look white then I have no problem with that black actor playing Bond.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:52 pm to DawgfaninCa
I can't believe this stupid thread is still going. Who gives a rat's arse about a ridiculously cheesy film series. Make him Arab, who gives a shite?
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:54 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Those are minor physical characteristics of the original James Bond.
So hair color is a "minor physical characteristic", but skin color isn't? Why not?
quote:
A white actor with brown hair can have his hair dyed to black or wear a black wig.
But they haven't done that.
quote:
However, if they want to have a black actor play James Bond and use makeup to make him look white then I have no problem with that black actor playing Bond.
They haven't bothered to dye the blondes, but this is what you need to be "OK with it"?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:58 pm to Jake88
quote:
I can't believe this stupid thread is still going. Who gives a rat's arse about a ridiculously cheesy film series. Make him Arab, who gives a shite?
Since you think this is a stupid thread that should have ended a long time ago, I can't believe you are so stupid that you felt to need to post your dumb comment.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 6:01 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I can't believe you are so stupid that you felt to need to post your dumb comment.
Wow, what a comeback! I hope you didn't tax your synapses too much with that one. You might have to take the rest of the week off.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 6:05 pm to Jake88
quote:
I hope you didn't tax your synapses too much with that one.
Why give them any ideas, now a synapse tax will be the next thing we hear about
Posted on 12/29/14 at 6:06 pm to Jake88
quote:
Wow, what a comeback!
Well it was, and far more people care about this film franchise than you would think.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 6:07 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
So hair color is a "minor physical characteristic", but skin color isn't? Why not?
I already explained that hair color can be easily changed.
Skin color can't.
quote:
But they haven't done that.
But they could easily do that if it was necessary.
quote:
They haven't bothered to dye the blondes, but this is what you need to be "OK with it"?
I'm okay with Bond having no scar on his face, not smoking and/or with blond hair but not with him being a black man.
That's like making Moby Dick a great black whale instead of a great white whale.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 6:08 pm to Jake88
quote:
I can't believe this stupid thread is still going.
Agreed.
quote:
Who gives a rat's arse about a ridiculously cheesy film series.
I will fight you, Jake.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 6:09 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
That's like making Moby Dick a great black whale instead of a great white whale.
I don't know about all of that.
Page 18 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News