SuperJerk

Shepard also put a right-wing comedian in his place on air for saying McCain's loss was the media's fault.

I need to vent my frustrations specifically about the governor of our "largest" state and her complete inability to go away and stop getting on my nerves. She's been on TV pretty much non-stop since she lost over 10 days ago. For example... This is the woman who, in perfect seriousness, tried to argue that because Vladimir Putin's plane flew over her state on his way to the U.S. (wouldn't it make more sense to travel from Moscow to Washington D.C. across the Atlantic Ocean?), she had special insight into U.S. foriegn relations. Are we really this news-starved in this country that we've made this nitwit a permanent member of the political establishment? I understand her appeal, though. She appeals to 2 types of people: 1. People who have no real idea what it is the president really does, and thus are convinced ANYONE can do the job, therefore, they just want someone they can relate to in office. 2. Conservative ideologues who will support anyone who takes up their mantle, believing that person will go along with whatever policies go along with their perspective. Both of these mindsets are dead wrong, as disproven by the last 8 years. Someone, please, convince me I'm wrong about her and explain what value she brings to national politics.

Fox News hit an all time low by editing this old clip: and putting it in this new story: When you take a 6-month old clip, edit it so it looks like the person is saying the exact opposite of what he really was, and then claim someone just said it this weekend, you are not a news network.

Someone wanna recap? I really don't want to watch the video.

You are probably right, but their disdain for the lower class never seems to be limited to the unemployed. Corporations always get a more sympathetic ear from them than the working poor, despite the fact that corporate subsidies and special tax "incentives" are in no way morally righteous than things like food stamps and the earned-income tax credit, no matter what logic you use. I'm not trying to contradict you at all, just using your comment as an opportunity to grind an axe.

The "personal responsibility mantra" of the modern American right has never had an consistency or internal logic, other than as a means to rationalize making the behaviors they condone legal, and the behaviors they do not condone illegal. It is a corrupt, self-serving philosophy that resembles their intellectual forebearers William Buckley and Barry Goldwater in only the most superficial ways.

In response to this excellent post (the whole post, not just the spot-on conclusion I quoted), I'm going to re-state my opinion...and be less of a douchebag about it this time. You make some really good points, because this movie is certainly an action movie version of Watchmen, rather than the psychological drama that Moore wrote. I'm left wondering what this movie might have looked like had Martin Scorcese directed it, or the late Stanley Kubrik had made this his next film after "Full Metal Jacket." I disagree about Akerman's competence, though there were better women to play this part (I'm curious who others would have picked). Jude Law is Veidt would have been a really good choice. I obviously enjoyed it a lot more than you did, because the things you didn't like--mostly valid criticisms--didn't bother me as much as they bothered you. I think 3 or 3.5 out of 5 is a more realistic score for this movie. It was on par with earlier comic adaptations like Tim Burton's "Batman," but not quite the spot-on representation of the spirit and themes as "The Dark Knight." I don't dislike Burton's "Batman," but obviously "Dark Knight" was better. I don't dislike Watchmen, but it could have been better for many of the reasons you mention.

Sometimes I am redundant and repeat myself.

I frankly don't understand his point of view. His argument is self-contradictory. If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways.

"Nevermind."

In context of the book, it actually makes more sense than it sounds.

Czech's having a Howard Zinn moment.

Stewart is taken more seriously by the mainstream press than Olberman, Hannity, and O'Reilly combined. Okay, that probably proves nothing.

Political philospohy, perhaps? One of the cornerstones of Republican-flavored conservatism is that the people who are on top deserve to be because they made better choices in life.

Are the pursuit of material goods and private property what Jefferson was referring to when he said "pursuit of happiness"? Not necessarily. He was paraphrasing John Locke, except Locke said "life, liberty, and property." If pursuing property makes you happy, then fine, but they are not synonyms. Also, as we've debated, no part of the Obama agenda is actually socialism: government ownership of industry. No one is talking about abolishing private property. So, yeah, Beck's a retard.

I think everyone gets something different out of the book, or at least like it for different reasons. My high opinion of the movie is probably because it stayed faithful to the things I liked best about the book. Other people who had other themes resonate with them that weren't handled as well by the movie probably didn't like it as much.

You can cherry-pick the Bible to support almost anything.

Not from a reliable source, but apparently that shotgun wedding isn't going to happen after all. http://www.starmagazine.com/news/15341?cid=RSS

Being rich and powerful isn't what makes Rush an elitist. Considering yourself God's gift to AM radio and attributing others' differences of opinion to jealousy over your fame...THAT makes you an elitist.

I'm horrible in the Watchmen thread? Motherfucker, I'm horrible in EVERY thread.

I agree. I cringed during that part, especially the way the lines were delivered in a cutesy "wink at the audience" sitcom kind of way. I could totally buy the ending except for Dan lecturing Adrian and that part.

Excuse me while I shed a tear. Probably about half the people on this thread are just making lists of percieved differences between the book and the movie. There's no denying this. My opinion was that the quality of the movie and its faithfullness to the book are two separate issues that people are confusing. A movie doesn't need to be 100% to a book in order to be good. If this thread got sidetracked at all, it was by people who couldn't shut up about the book. Get off the "I hate SuperJerk" bandwagon for a minute and you'll realize I've got a point. Also, for all of you who said I didn't use irony correctly in my joke, fuck off. I was right. An actor playing Nixon wearing too much make-up is ironic because it goes against the expectation people have (at least educated people who actually know something about history) about Nixon. What really happened was NOBODY GOT THE REFERENCE until I explained it, but nobody wanted to look dumb so I got incorrectly attacked by 4 different people (and you think I'm obsessed?) for a mistake I made that wasn't really a mistake. I'm sure if four people in a row told you that grass was purple, you'd be a little annoyed too.

I see what you are saying now. I'll need to consider the benefit of lower home prices versus the problems this will cause for the parts of the economy that rely on new home construction and purchases to drive them. Can you explain further what you think the beneficial effects of housing deflation will be? I want to consider all sides of this.

I suspect the same way he rationalizes Ronald Reagan's support for tax increases, gun control, and nuclear arms reduction.