SuperJerk

Let's add these perverted shreds of logic to this comment... ...and you've got the makings of one scary line of reasoning.

Emmett Tyrrell is trying to resurrect the Swift Boat controversy. Bad enough he's bringing this crap up again, but he's such an awful writer as well. CNN.com really scrapes the bottom of the commentary barrell by posting his and Molly Ivins' crappy writing.

Resist the pressure, Bob. So many people on this board made it sound like the best movie ever, but I was sorely disappointed when I finally saw it. Maybe I just couldn't align myself to its unique style of quirkiness, but I absolutely don't get what was so great about this movie.

I can't believe its been that long.

It could just be the black costume, Brock is set up as a character, and then Venom actually appears in 4.

I should hurt you for reminding me that movie ever even existed.

Same here.

I *loved* this movie. Everything about it worked. Routh, Bosworth, and Spacey were all great. Loved the revised title sequence and the fly-by at the end. I marked for the Gotham reference, but I'd have marked harder if the Mt. Rushmore in Luthor's model city had Zod, Ursa, and Non's faces on it, though. I'm just wondering how the hell Lois thinks she got knocked up, unles she started dating Richard White immediately after the events of Superman 2.

Stumbled upon this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprica_%28TV_series%29 Anyone else heard about this?

Weren't there people on this board that defended "White Chicks", though?

"Best...thread...ever!"

"I was once a man! Once a man!!!"

Despite his famous fiery rhetoric, he lost 3 times. Being a great American and being a good candidate aren't the same thing. If anything, they're opposites. Richard Nixon comes to mind. That's not entirely what I'm doing. All I said was that he was better than most candidates because he came within 3 points of winning. Most presidential candidates don't even get nominated by a major party, let alone come within 3 points of winning the popular vote. This "Kerry was a horrible candidate" crap is a bunch of nonsense. Obviously he wasn't a great candidate, because he lost, but he did far better than people who I'd consider to be one of the worst candidates...or even the worst nominees for that matter. Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis were all worse nominees than Kerry, and those are just guys who've in our lifetime! Huh? Bush got 51% of the vote. That puts him pretty far down on the list.

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU FIT THE HARRY OSBORNE GOBLIN, VENOM, SANDMAN, & GWEN STACY INTO ONE FUCKING MOVIE!?!?!?!?!?

Empire Strikes Back, though that training sequence made up 1/4 of the movie and didn't involve generic rock music.

It sounds to me like someone came up with an idea for a show about some woman who has herself turned into a vampire in order to infiltrate the world of the undead and avenge the death of her brother, and just Blade tacked on as a selling point.

Only in imaginary stories and alternate universes.

He was better than most (i.e. anyone who ever got less than 48% of the vote in a 2-man race). We were all pissed that Kerry didn't respond sooner the the Swift-Boat crap, but I doubt any of the people who bought into that garbage were ever actually going to vote for him in the first place. The way Bush was milking 9/11 for his own personal popularity pretty much assured he'd be reelected.

Care to elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you're talking about because that was a period with a lot of political transitions, not all of them good for the Democrats but good for war-fatigued folks. The war dereailed LBJ's reelection bid, and Humphrey's candidacy never got out from under the shadow of the war. He was a pro-war candidate in an anti-war party. His public support for Vietnam waivered towards the end of his campaign, but no one ever seriously thought he'd do anything in Vietnam that Johnson wasn't already doing. The analogy isn't exact, of course, because the incumbent president that started the war isn't of the same party as the people who are split over it. The war's unpopularity will probably hurt the Republican candidate more than it hurts the Democratic candidate, but support for it could hurt the Democrat just enough to cost him enough support on the left to cost him the election. In order to win, the Democrat must find a way to placate the people who want to immediately withdraw without actually promising to do that.

I feel that Bayh does have the best chance of winning. Why, though? Because he's a vanilla centrist? I don't suppose I've heard anything terrible about him, but I haven't heard anything dazzling about him either. Much like Indiana, he's just kind of there. Is that why? DO they reckon he ain't no high-falutin' blue-state snob? I'm basing this purely on his impressive resume and track record of appealing to people from both parties. On paper, the guy's an incredible candidate, and this early on, that's really all I have to go by. Of course, so was Thomas Dewey.

George Herbert Walker Bush was an excellent president.

I thought this was worth mentioning.

My only knowledge of this film is from 10 years ago when this MILF I worked with told me this movie made her hot. Thus, it must be good.

I cried during "Armageddon," but for reasons that had more to do with me wanting my $7 back.