Nightwing

In 2, Obi-Wan and Anakin were just way too combative with each other. 3 had a great balance, but had them bickering endlessly, which was irritating. I agree with Sith-Phantom-Clones. Sith: It was like a 7.5 out of 10, almost an 8. It was great... after Palpatine was found out. The whole Kashyyyk thing was horrible and stupid, as it is completely out of nowhere and is basically something constructed to lure in fans. I can see how that meeting went: What point was there in showing Kashyyyk? Oh well. And Grevious, after being built up as a complete badass... is undone relatively easily, with most of his fight being a fucking chase. Of course, Anakin's turn (Which some people seemed to not understand and ripped, but I thought was one of the best done and deeply compelling features of the movie) was fantastic, and Order 66 was incredible and actually emotional. The fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan is also probably the best in the series, even better than Luke and Vader, simply for the built up emotion and watching them pull out all the stops. Along with Yoda and the Emperor duking it out (Which might be fanservice, but had a purpose), it was one hell of a trip to the end. The birthing scene was unconvincing, but you expect that from Portman at this point in the series. I didn't even mind the scream at the end. Phantom: 6.5 out of 10. Watching it after getting away from the initial disappointment, it isn't nearly as bad as I remember it. There are two things that really, REALLY bring things down. 1) The age of certain characters. Come on, Lucas: An elected 14-year old queen? I know this is a spaceship movie, but I do have a limit on believability. They could have always started her off as a princess and THEN made her a queen, but I suppose that didn't come up. And Jake Lloyd should have been shot. That was a horrible, horrible performance even for a child. These people needed to be 16, 17 years old, maybe a little bit more. Ewan McGregor was 27, so you could put enough age between the two to get a believable "Master/Student" relationship just by looking at them. Yeah. 2) Too much shiny CG. Jar Jar can be included, though he wasn't that hard to tune out. But the CG in this movie just took me out of it. I love miniature work because it gets a more realistic texture, and most CG just comes off as too perfect or detailed. But this movie had a lot of great characters. Padme was standable at the very least, and her bodyguard guy was kind of interesting (Though he was replaced with a similar looking, but different black guy in the second film. That was kind of odd.). But Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon were incredible: I don't care about the continuity error, Liam Neeson was absolutely brilliant as a Jedi Master. Darth Maul was cool, and Sidious' mysterious entrance in this was perfect. Even the Trade Federation, despite being goofy, were decent villains. As an individual movie, it wasn't too bad, but in the series, it probably didn't do enough to set up future events. Clones: 5 out of 10. This was horrible, and it even introduced a few cool characters. In particular, Dooku was great, and I didn't mind Jango too much, but I did mind basically annihilating Boba Fett's previous story. I liked that he, like Han, wasn't a part of this whole big Jedi deal and stood on their own. Obi-Wan and Anakin are WAY too catty and irritated with each other. I can understand a little bit of "student/master" competition, but it's just way too overplayed, as well as Anakin's thirst for power. No subtlety at all. I don't think I even need to mention much more about the Love plot save it absolutely blew. And while I liked the whole Asteroid thing, it isn't as good as the one in Empire, and almost devalues it as it was far denser and the characters didn't seem to have much a care about flying loops through it. I thought the Clone battle sucked, and the Jedi Free-for-All wasn't that good either (Padme's whole thing on the chariot pretty much describes the crappiness of most of that scene). People walking across a giant PLAIN and firing at each other? With rapid-fire lasers? Anyone else see how that might be some sort of tactical error? It all felt tacked on, in the end, like it was supposed to make up for the lack of a story and plodding pace that the rest of the film had. In all honesty, the film needed more Dooku (Heck, they probably should have introduced him in Phantom to establish him as a sort of 'Outrider' kind of Jedi with a large political following) and it needed to get to the Clone War quicker. At the time it might have seemed better, but when the bitterness about Jar-Jar and Lloyd wears off, this film looks more and more like the worst of the bunch.

... Food man?

Unless, of course, that's the guy fucking you up. Then you're just beyond boned, because he doesn't even NEED the gun...

Frat Parties would turn into Frat Rebellions. Let's just stay away from that possibility.

Yeah, definitely, but the Both are great examples of excellent anime that doesn't resort to a lot of delaying.

Ahahaha... he does sort of remind one of Graydon Creed. "¿Qué hice a usted?" "You were born!"

If you stopped right at 70, you're going to have a real treat for Episode 71. It's arguably the most entertaining fight of the entire series (And one of the best anime fights I've ever seen).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washingt...amp;oref=slogin I don't know why McCain voted against this torture ban today, given his vocal opposition to torture thus far in this campaign and in debates with the other candidates. It is pretty baffling. The only reason I could guess why is that he knew it was going to be vetoed anyways... but that's more of a reason to vote for it. This is going to be nice ammo for the Democrats.

I'm not sure he could swing that many states out West, only because those states are 1) Traditionally very conservative, 2) Is close to McCain's home ground, 3) Obama isn't that good. I think Obama stands a better chance in places you mentioned like Virginia (where he can use the large African-American base) and the Midwest, like Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri. Especially in Ohio, where his economic hopefulness might reach a few more people than it normally could due to the hard times. I'll give you Nevada, though. McCain could take Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, as he's more appealing as a moderate Republican than most Republican Candidates in the Northeast. I think he almost definitely has New Mexico, if only due to proximity. Depending on how the Democratic Party deals with them, I'd give the Republican Party Florida and give them a better chance in Michigan than they've had the last few years. If Obama's serious troubles with the Latino vote continues, McCain might have a marginal chance at California... but that's very wishful thinking.

For me, it's the slightly-pressed up nose. Anyone else wonder what Stephen A. Smith is going to say after today?

Completely off-topic, but does anyone else think that Henry Waxman (The Chairman) looks like a giant mouse? And man, no one is coming out of that looking good.

Wow, such bitterness from a 24-year old. I didn't realize you could become crusty in such a short amount of time. Is this because I pointed out the minor flaw in your "McCain is like Gerald Ford" comparison a few pages back? God help me for questioning the incredible wisdom of snuffbox! Christ, get off your own dick. Let's start from the beginning of your list: The "Democratic Surrender" line is just the same as "Vietnam-esque Quagmire". The Republicans started it, and Democrats went to the easy fallback line. It's something both sides have been playing with for a while now, and I frankly don't care much about it. Both aren't true, and both are hurting any work being done over there. I just don't care enough about it because everyone is playing the same card, except for Ron Paul who plays the "American Empire" card. So it's all political maneuvering at the cost of Iraq. But I have to give special recognition to Republicans for starting that whole Goddamn mess. I already talked about McCain talking about Romney's "record" on Iraq. He got a free pass on that, which is wrong. But I never claimed he didn't like or spin things. I just said he didn't lie out his ass the entire time, and from what I've seen, he's tried to avoid talking so that he doesn't have to lie. Look at his immigration policy, for God's sake. If he was lying out his ass, he's obviously not lying about the right things. I know there are others (I do pay a decent amount of attention to factcheck.org), but I haven't seen anything quite as bad as the "Iraq timetable" thing. Most of what I've seen from his camp isn't horrible spin, and for the most part has fact behind it. From factcheck.org, he's gotten off quite well (Romney gets FRIED, though, worse than anyone. Man...), but his own faults have been recognized. But I haven't seen anything yet that qualifies as "Lying left and right". I accept a certain amount of lies or spin in a campaign. It's going to happen, which is (again) why I put the qualifier "cleaner" for this year's campaign. This doesn't mean I believe them, but I recognize that they will be there no matter what. No one in this campaign is completely clean. Let's look at untouchable Obama completely taking "100 Year War" completely out of context as well. Keeping troops there in a peaceful environment is something both Obama and Clinton support as well, and yet we see it as one of the biggest talking points the Democrats have been using. Or how about implying the other is a secret Republican? Politics isn't clean, and it will never e completely clean. But the current candidates are cleaner than the ones we have. Finally, the only thing I can find on McCain and Paul is McCain saying "Eisenhower didn't bail out on Korea", which actually is true, considering we still have a ton of troops over there. Unless, of course, you want to disagree with that, oh infinitely wise snuffbox. If you have any you yourself want to talk about, please mention them. And just to note: It's not like Ron Paul hasn't had his own share of 'spin', either. How about the fact that he (Along with every other Republican) continues to suck on Reagan's dick when he publicly talked about completely dissociating himself from the man in 1987-88. I actually respect that move (considering Paul's values), but everything for the Republican Party begins and ends with Ronald Reagan (He's like Superman!), so he's turned around on that, apparently, supporting one of the biggest spenders ever. So I guess you aren't as politically in-tune as I am, even though I never actually tried make that claim. So feel free to feel sorry for yourself a little longer, good buddy!

Lying left and right? I'm not sure about that.

I'm not too sure about that. If this campaign has shown us anything, it is that people aren't reacting to the same things they used to: Money, in particular, is not working like it used to. Negative Campaigning is another part of that: People didn't react well to McCain grilling Romney about a "Timetable", people didn't like Bill Clinton in South Carolina. No one reacted well when Hillary and Obama went to each other's throats in the three-way debate. A large-scale "race-baiting" campaign is not something that I think that the Republicans want to do, because it's going to garner ridiculously bad press and lose independents, which are John McCain's biggest strength. I'm not saying that this is going to be a squeaky clean campaign (I'm sure both sides will get their shots in), but it feels like Americans are finally tired of the blatant slander ads out there, so you are going to see a cleaner campaign than in recent years.

First off, it's "more" informed, but "better" informed. Grammar and reading wasn't exactly your forte back in grade school, eh? I'm assuming grade school because you have all the eloquence that someone with just that sort of education might possess. As if young teens don't have access to the internet, or the newspaper. And Glenn Beck is no more a source of "national coverage of politics" than CNN, local news, or-here's one- FUCKING GOOGLE. It's not like this is just one person saying it, Marv, it's EVERYONE in the thread. You're a headache and a nuisance to the thread. Please, do us a favor and stop posting so damn much. I said I check the internet, which last time I checked includes google. Mostly because when you check the internet, you misquote and completely misinterpret whatever you found. You can find it online nowadays anyways. I read the paper on a consistent basis in High School. I'm a bit odd, but kids are a lot more politically active nowadays than they were back in the 90s. Not only that, but using a fucking grade school comparison is beyond inane. Did Rush change his programming recently to cover these sorts of things? Wait, I think you're just talking out your ass. Yeah, that's it. That's like saying "Say what you will, but Jim Rome devotes most of his show to sports stuff instead of this stupid primary bullshit." That's his fucking job, you half-wit. And we never questioned the quantity in which he shovels political bullshit in comparison to other bullshit, but the fact that he's shoveling bullshit in the first place. You shouldn't even consider talking about 15-year olds until your critical reasoning age reaches double digits.

That pretty much sums up your entire tenure in this folder. I know I've met better informed 15 year olds than you. At least I know they can read.

how the hell does a 15 year old know their political affiliation? I remember when I voted for Ross Perot in my Elementary School Election 16 years ago because I liked his cool charts. Because normal 15 year olds of the 21st (And even the 20th) Century are, as proven by most psychologists, able to understand laws, morals, and the consequences that come with them. Comparing them to you thinking Perot's charts were cool designs to put on your helmet is the sort of retardation... well, that we've come to expect from you.

Definitely looking that way now. She has to stop some of Obama's momentum, and it looks like Wisconsin is going to have to be that state. With her deputy campaign manager resigning tonight, it just looks worse and worse. You can feel the wheels coming off.

McCain takes Virginia. He'd better learn to motivate his voters this time, as I'm sure he would have won this state handily if he had actually made an appearance there. Huckabee's "Get Out the Vote" campaign was definitely impressive. Not nearly as impressive as the kick to the ovaries Obama just delivered to Clinton, but it's quaint in its own way.

With two more Democratic Debates coming up, you have to wonder how Clinton and Obama are going to play them. Is Clinton going to be more aggressive, or is she going to try and maintain the "Good Will" feeling she put off in the last one? Is Obama going to play safe, or is he going to try and put it away.

Virginia is shaping up a lot like Missouri for McCain and Huckabee (That is, it's going to be close until the urban centers), but man... it's going to be hard to stop Obama now. He's got the momentum and, most of all, the time. It was Hillary's nomination to seal on Super Tuesday, and even taking all the liberal establishment strongholds couldn't do it. I know the Clintons are expert campaigners, but I think they met their match: Someone more charismatic and more inspiring than they are.

Did you just read what you wrote? They'll be 18 by the General Election. Since they'll be voting in the General, why not let them choose their candidate?

Edit: Got the post in late. Darn it. Marvin sucks, etc etc...

What was wrong with what he said? Mostly because the entire statement is sort of an ambiguous "What-If" using very simplified examples for something that's fairly complex. I understand his argument, and honestly agree that something like a GPI would be better, but his examples just made me roll my eyes. Yes, you can do that for a little while, but not for too long, let alone indefinitely without improving something like the workplace, wages, etc. Diminishing returns sort of guarantees that. It's not a good reason to put a lot of doubt on the numbers. Overall, I suppose the entire post sort of struck me as a "Watch out for the fat cats!", and the evidence presented was "Meh" by my standards. I understand that Corporate America takes its cut before anyone else, but his little economic discussion left a lot to be desired. That explain much?

Obama is on pace, or at least seems as such. With the hard stuff past him, he's raising more money and has more momentum behind him. He's a better campaigner overall, and he can eliminate the 'name recognition' advantage Clinton has in the end. And again, it's rumors, mostly coming down to if they really need those votes at the Convention. I was just wondering who else may have heard that.