Nightwing

I heard about his diary in another article. Apparently, Joker finds AIDs to be hilarious. I think that actually might be a Grant Morrison comic. I could swear I remember reading that in a comic somewhere.

Relying on Niedermeyer for this season is a bad idea. From what I've heard, he's definitely not playing next season, no matter what. And don't they have to clear more cap room due to some sort of 'tagging' thing with the contract? I've heard they might move Beauchemain out or someone else, which would be a bad move.

Indeed. How narcastic of him.

Wow. I changed over to Sportscenter after the Red Wings game and suddenly I'm being bombarded with this trade. I thought they were honestly done after Renteria, but damn it if Ilitch isn't willing to build a winning team. A damn good owner, and a man who is able to get a good GM that can make these sorts of moves. So what fraction of A-Rod would we get if we went for broke and spent the entire Marlin's budget right now? A fifth, maybe a fourth if we're lucky and feels charitable?

Huge shootout right now in Tampa. Both teams need this, but Ottawa needs it so much right now to stop the losing streak.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/6_burning_questions_TDK.html Got missed with all the excitement about the viral marketing.

Taken from another forum, and it worked: 1877 530 CABS (From the Cab Website, http://www.gothamcab.com/) then press star (*) and type in 6773 to get something. Edit: Go here to find a dedicated group of guys unearthing things about the dozen or so websites that are currently up. Damn, this is a fun marketing campaign!

This thread is fail, and so are you. Also, as a Lions fan (God, I can't believe I admitted that), there's no way that last catch should have been upheld. He never had clear control of the ball inbounds.

Absolute Watchmen is worth it for both the improved art and the absolutely great extras. Reading Moore's original ideas are great for the original characters are great. And on V for Vendetta: That quote nails it so exactly on the head. I don't like Bush at all, but I didn't want to see one of my favorite stories dumbed-down into what essentially was an extended rant against neo-cons. The changes made in the movie range from stupid (The entire conspiracy subplot) to story-killing (The change in the ending and the change in the character of the Chancellor). Seriously, read the book and you'll understand so much better why some people utterly despise the film.

Wow. A week or so ago, I decided to try out that Tip website that the paper gives you? Gave my email and my phone number. Well, today, while I'm napping after class, I got a call on my cell. Basically I got a 3-minute verbal threat about why I shouldn't be harassing the police that are out there, risking their lives. It was easily the most surreal thing because I didn't look at the number and realize it was unknown number and suddenly someone was bitching me out and threatening me. It also talked about some evidence, but I can't remember the evidence number offhand (the reception in my room was miserable). It probably relates to what Rando found.

This movie can't succeed. It's a story that is totally built for a mini-series, not a two, two-and-a-half hour movie. V for Vendetta was the only hope for a Alan Moore movie working, and that was ridiculously fucked up by the Wachowski Brothers.

Oh my, you couldn't be more wrong on that front. This is what The Joker should look like. Based on what? Certainly not the character's history. He's a psycho but he's also meticulous and quite the perfectionist. He's not just a crazy guy who wears makeup. He's a guy who has a fucking permanent smile burned into his skin. We don't get that, but we do get some herpes bubbles on the side of Ledger's mouth. HOW EDGY. First, you're wrong: The Joker is meticulous, but a perfectionist? He's more of an egotist if anything. Think about it: If someone told him something was wrong with his plan, what would be the first thing he'd do? Probably shoot the guy for questioning him. Then he might correct it, depending on the severity of the flaw and his mood at the time. Smile burned on his face? I don't remember that in his origin story. Skin bleached, yes. But the smile is his and only his. He never had it burned on, not in the movie or the comics. Unless you can give me a story cite (My own would be The Killing Joke, where he shows no sign of being 'burned' and he actually frowns and looks sad at one point), I think you're simply mistaken. The whole "burned face" idea is a more recent idea, though that picture doesn't show it off as well as it could. I think there are some earlier pics that show it off much better, but c'est la vie. At any rate, I like the costume. I don't think it's a complete fuck-up: The make-up is a little bit sloppy, but frankly I like it being a bit different as this is a different look at Batman. Think about Scarecrow: They only gave him a mask, but can you honestly say they "completely fucked him up"? For the style of film they are doing, where they are putting a more realistic version of Batman out there (I believe you called it "EDGY!"), I think it's fine. Him having perfect makeup wouldn't fit the universe he's in (though his clothing, in my opinion, is absolutely fantastic).

Your answer doesn't fit any logic. Pull the means off perfectly, but ruin the reward to fool the people? They wouldn't have to fool people if it had looked like they were right about WMDs. If WMDs had been there, there would be far fewer questions about Bush's invasion of Iraq than there are today. If anything, it'd only help to hide a conspiracy because less and less people would be looking into it. Again: If you can convince American citizens to kill thousands of your own people, how can you not convince some of them to bury some WMDs to frame one of the most reviled characters in recent history? It doesn't add up. Leaps in logic? I ask, in all seriousness, to point a few out so we can discuss them. I also like that you say "With an open mind". Again, trying set other people up as "Sheeple" will only hurt your claims. Heck, look at my 'debunking' with yuo On Philip Zelikow: Is it because of his writing about a "Drastic need for scaling back civil liberties and other such things" 3 years earlier? Coincidences like that have occurred before. Ever heard of Morgan Robertson? Or is it just because he was a Bush staff member? If I'm missing some other sort of conspiratorial thing here, fill me in. I'm not up on all the new ones... Again, completing the means but completely botching the reward doesn't add up.

No no no no no... I didn't mean to suggest that. I simply used them because you're right (Examples being T.R. in Latin America, the Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere", Britain's relationship with its commonwealths, etc), and it's only proper to use them when arguing for or against them. I'm not trying to bring you into this.

1) Lincoln: He probably faced the darkest time of all and managed to hold the North in the war, despite its early losses. Had he survived for a second term, I'm dead sure that this would be indisputable as you'd miss out on a lot of failures of Reconstruction with his 'Forgiveness First' policy. 2) Washington: Setting precedent definitely counts for something. Washington, basically from scratch, started creating the precedents for this office. The man could have been a King, but he settled for just the Presidency. 3) T. Roosevelt: The final president that is almost universally loved. He was honest, stubborn, a brilliant speaker and a great leader in general. His investment in the United States Navy along with essentially kicking Europe out of the Americas established the US as a World Power and also gained us a bit of prestige (That would be squandered later on). 4) Jefferson: Along with getting Louisiana, he didn't follow Adams by being harsh on Federalists. If he had passed vicious revenge laws for the Alien and Sedition Act, we would have a very different political system. 5) FDR: He didn't end the Depression, but he helped us survive until WWII. Most of all, he was a fantastic speaker and someone who could truly inspire people, which is what we needed first in the Depression and then in World War II. You can disagree with his programs, but you can't disagree that he held the United States together in a critical time in our history. Honorable Mention - Harry Truman: This is more because I personally agree with a lot of things he did. Kicking MacArthur out because he was getting too high in the britches, his unwavering (if blunt) honesty, his role in helping create the UN, and his post-war performance, to me, were excellent.

God damn it, that post is entirely a fuck-up. That's why you don't rush things before class. Jingus: That was me not erasing part of his own post. I was in a hurry and didn't get nearly everything right in my post there. Anyways, a better representation of my views. I stand by my "You can't completely blame him" statement. Your argument doesn't prove anything, since it doesn't prove that there wouldn't be terrorism elsewhere if we weren't occupying Iraq at the moment. Yes, a majority of it is occurring in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that the US mainland or other targets aren't being considered (Jingus already gave us examples). The fact of the matter is 9/11 showed that terrorism can be amazingly successful. Even if it fails a hundred times, one success like 9/11 is worth that sort of risk. I have a hard time believing that terrorism wouldn't be a problem Post-9/11 if we weren't in Iraq. Iraq simply provides an easily accessible spot. Of course, a lot of the violence isn't even about the US when it comes to Iraq as it is about ethnic differences, but then again I never said that Bush was completely exempt, only partially. I don't think we are empire, nor really a 21st Century equivalent. The number of military bases across the world doesn't prove anything as we aren't actively using them to influence our neighbors. The fact that a lot of nations really like the economic effect having a US base (Mostly in providing jobs) would tend to argue against that as an Imperialistic Oppression device. If I had to define us, I'd rather keep the moniker of Superpower. Our sphere of influence is huge, but it's hardly absolute, as has been proven in the post-Cold War age in the UN: We are out there in the cold often enough, and our allies are hardly absolute. Poland (OMG HUGE PLAYER IN IRAQ) wouldn't be able to back out if we had an Imperialistic relationship with them like Britain and its protectorates and holdings (India, Canada, etc). I'm not even sure if "Sphere of Influence" is something we can use accurately nowadays with the global economy and communication being so different than it was back then. By that definition, China and Japan have a massive amount of influence as well due to their economic strengths. They aren't empires. They're big players, but I'd hardly call them 'Imperialistic' powers. Calling people Imperialistic nowadays seems more 'buzzwordy' than anything else. I don't believe in these big conspiracies. The way the War in Iraq has been handled is the easiest tool to debunk the idea: There are few wars that are as unpopular and mishandled as this one. If 9/11 had been set up presumably, so that we could invade places like Iraq, not planting weapons in Iraq is such a moronic failure it is simply breaks the logic. Why shoot yourself in the foot on such a slam dunk, especially when it is far less likely to encounter whistleblowers? Planting weapons in Iraq, if that had all been planned out with the expert hands that had executed the 9/11 attack (in record time, no less), should have been a simple set of moving a few things and getting someone to bury them. We were still searching up to a year after we invaded and held the country, so it's not like they had to bury them immediately or on a strict time-schedule. To botch things so badly as to completely ruin holding that you've obviously planned for and even killed your own countrymen for... God, I can only hope that a few people got killed for leaving the cargo behind on a runway.

Exactly.

I guess I'll take your word for that? I don't know what's worse though, living under an asshole, but in reasonably peaceful conditions or having a bigger asshole blowing the fuck out of your neighborhood and killing your children and destroying your city and letting criminals run wild all over the country. Military installations don't prove anything, though, because we haven't exerted any sort of control via them on the 'subject' country. Besides the fact that we didn't force these installations in (actually, we're normally welcomed in, since we create a large amount of jobs for the locals), we've failed to use them to directly influence anything. I mean, if this were actual imperialism, and we took your quote to heart, how in God's name could the UN possibly vote against us? You fail to realize that one of the prime tenants of Imperialism is powerful control (normally absolute) over another country's political process. We don't have that through our military bases. Sorry, but Jingus highlighted the exact right part. Calling someone a 'sheep' will just get you called 'crazy' in return. And I still don't see where we are an Empire when the world can so easily toss us down like this. I mean, we must be a really shitty Empire to let people just stray away from us like this. Personally, "Superpower" is much more accurate, because we simply don't have the land-holdings of an Empire. Wow, what a jackass to completely miss the point of what I said. 9/11 doesn't simply limit people to attacking us through the United States, but all over. Regardless, it shows that a massive terrorist attack can be successful. If another one hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that there still isn't the chance (Nor does that mean there haven't been attempts). But regardless, it showed that a terrorist attack can be insanely successful if pulled off correctly. It doesn't matter where you pull it, as long as the target is the same. This idea that "Well, it wasn't in the country, so it's not the same" ignores the point that I never specifically said "domestic terrorism". Wow, way to avoid the dare there. I like the fact that they can pull off 9/11 in such an incredibly efficient way, but can't do something simple in Iraq like plant chemical weapons (Which is arguably easier). I mean, they couldn't find any whistle-blowers to just outright killing 3,000 American citizens, but trying to plant evidence to overthrow a horrible dictator? Whoa, we have to draw the line somewhere, right? It just doesn't make sense. How can you pull off something so objectionable as 9/11 but screw up the slam dunk in Iraq?

Wait, I've seen how this South Park episode goes...

I'm looking forwards to hearing where exactly that part of the movie begins. I watched it and thought it was pretty illogical throughout: Jingus brings up the great point of this is a flawless, incredibly run conspiracy... that is getting caught and revealed to the public by a guy on the internet. And I'll also agree that if the NWO's plan to run the world was through the League of Nations, this is one shitty organization with little control on their subordinates. Seriously...

lol. so you mean that absurd amount of sectarian violence in Iraq due to our imperialist invasion has nothing to do with an increase in terrorism? how many times have we been attacked since 9/11? it's not like the government allowed that to happen anyway... right? lol, you missed where I said "I can't fault him completely" for the rise in global terrorism. I never said he was innocent. Also, I tend to count Iraqi violence within the issue of the Iraq War rather than global terrorism in general.

Yeah. Though Katrina has really been building for years with the levees, all the people in charge have to take part of the blame there. On Global Terrorism: I can't fault him completely as terrorism just hitting an upswing in my opinion. After the success of 9/11, it's hard to see why people WOULDN'T try it. But governmental spending, ineffectual domestic policy, and massive corruption will definitely stop him from being remembered well. Anyone want to bet how much gas falls after he's gone?

Thank Jesus. If they do a Live-Action Justice League movie, it shouldn't be linked to Batman or Superman. Perhaps at the end they could hint at 'important new members', but I'd like a JLA movie to focus on some of the Under-Appreciated Leaguers like Flash, Green Lantern (I also agree this needs to be Hal. If you want a Black character, take Black Lightning or even Mr. Terrific. But Hal deserves some love in a non-comic book outlet), Green Arrow and Black Canary, etc.

I haven't been following it, but it's Brubaker, so it's definitely worth checking out. I love his work on Captain America and Iron Fist right now.

Thank God we didn't lose to Columbus last night. We don't need a 4-game losing streak in the Conference to start up now. I'd wager that, right now, the Central is the most dangerous conference in the NHL. I don't know where these teams have been waiting, but Chicago, St. Louis, and Columbus have suddenly become serious threats and the Predators are managing to hold on after having most of their team sold off in the off-season. Oy.