Jump to content
TSM Forums

SuperJerk

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    9706

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SuperJerk

  2. Posted · Report reply

    I'm noticing a clear pattern:

     

    Stage 1: Rush says something controversial.

     

    Stage 2: Famous politician says something critical of controversial statement made by Limbaugh or of Limbaugh (though not by name) for saying it.

     

    Stage 3: Limbaugh lashes directly out at the person by name for saying it, and criticizes the person for not being as great as he is.

     

    Stage 4: Person apologizes to Rush for the misunderstanding.

  4. Posted · Report reply

    Not only did you idiots over-analyze the movie, but now you're over-analyzing jokes about the movie. Keep up the good work, guys.

     

    By the way, one thing that really bugged me about this movie? There were no word balloons over people's heads. That was in, like, almost every panel of the comic, but Snyder didn't do it at all! Completely ruined the spirit of the book. I also didn't like how the characters weren't all outlined in black ink.

  5. Posted · Report reply

    By the way, when I said "Jesus Christ" in my earlier post, I wasn't literally talking to Jesus Christ, but using a common figure of speech. Even though none of you were alive when Jesus was, I expected people to get what I meant. But since no one knows me personally, I guess I shouldn't take that for granted.

  6. Posted · Report reply

    Oh, Jesus Christ.

     

     

    See, there's these things today called "jokes." Maybe you've heard of them?

     

    They're not always literally true, but there's enough truth in them that someone could find them humorous. By this standard, even though it literally wasn't Richard Nixon wearing too much make-up (because he died 15 years ago), it is funny to hear people SAY Nixon was wearing too much make-up because of the role not wearing make-up on one occasion supposedly had on his political career.

     

    Like for example, if I said "your mother is so old she farts dust", your mother probably doesn't literally fart dust, but because you're mother might be percieved as old, and dust is usually associated with things that are old have been sitting around for along time. You could argue that it literally wasn't true, but that isn't necessary for the joke to work.

  7. Posted · Report reply

    I'm still seeing a lot of "this was bad because it wasn't exactly like the book" logic, which I frankly don't agree with. This is the most faithful reproduction of a comic book story (yes, I'm calling it that because it was originally published as a 12-issue series) ever made. Film has different strengths and weaknesses than comics do, so a 100% faithful translation is impossible. Many people are being hypercritical because every single thing wasn't exactly like it was in the book, instead of judging it on its own merits.

     

     

    I'm finding the irony of people bitching about Nixon's make-up especially amusing.

    You're gonna have to explain what's ironic about it. The old-age makeup was pretty bad. I wanted to reach out and remove globs of it from Gugino and the actors playing Nixon and Kissinger.

    With Gugino, I think the look they were going for wasn't that she was a 60-year-old woman, but she was a 60 year-old woman who wears too much make-up and tries to look younger than she is (the clothes she wore in the 1985 scenes clearly reflect this).

     

    The percieved irony of everyone saying Nixon was wearing too much make-up is a reference to his 1960 presidential debate with John F. Kennedy.

  8. Posted · Report reply

    I disagree. It's one thing to say we shouldn't be concerned. It's another to say that we shouldn't be propping them up and supporting their bad decision, whether they were properly given the facts or not. People get swindled all the time. And I don't think it's ever a good thing. But, I don't think that I should be forced to pay for their bad decisions or even bad fortune. I am not responsible for insuring their financial success.

     

    First of all, unless you're single-handedly financing the mortgage bail-out, you really don't have room to say "I don't think that I should be forced to pay". The American people are collectively paying for this, and even that's arguable since its going to be financed with debt. No one is going to send you a bill in the mail for this thing.

     

    Second, you still don't seem to get how keeping more foreclosures from happening in the future helps the country overall economically. Whether the benefit outweighs the cost is a debate that needs to occur, but we're not doing this to insure "their financial success," we are doing this to keep the crisis from getting worse.

     

    We have a real problem is this country of people not recognizing how the effects of economic and social problems tend to hurt not just the people originally affected, but often spread to the rest of society.

  9. Posted · Report reply

    Oh yeah, I get that part. I just think it's interesting to look at the origins of terms and see the attitudes which created them. The British insult "common" traces back to a mindset where many of the aristocracy literally believed themselves to be a superior form of life as compared to the peasantry. Not saying that same belief is still prevalent now, but it was so strongly held for such a long time that we still have lingering echoes such as this.

     

    Actually, "white trash" is another good example. An American term which is passively racist, implying that it's necessary to note that this particular trash is caucasian. There aren't any identical euphemisms for other races, no "black trash" or "yellow trash"; the inference is that you normally wouldn't expect a white person to be this trashy.

     

    As for the chick in question, she's basically like Paris Hilton, except old, fat, not rich, and presumably even more lacking in any talent or redeeming features which would excuse her celebrity? Wow. The UK has even worse reality television stars than we do.

    This is probably the smartest thing I've read all day.

  10. Posted · Report reply

    Saw it last night. It was very good. Not great, but very good. It definitely was a little too lengthy.. but I think that was more be being tired than anything else. The movie-ending was fine, IMO as well. I don't think the GN ending would've worked as well to be honest.

     

    Also, I didn't see the problem with Nixon's makeup or Sally Jupiter's makeup either. They looked perfectly fine for the type of movie this was - think Marv or the Yellow Bastard in Sin City. I guess people just need something to nitpick about. Though I definitely would've liked them to at least explain Rorschach's mask.

     

    I bet Rorschach's mask will be explained in the director's cut. I got the feeling there was probably many people in the audience wondering "why does this guy's mask have ink that moves?", and some people were probably puzzled by Bubastis in the film as well. Since they never explained Veidt's genetics technology in the movie, I bet some people were thinking "there's a blue tiger with horns for no reason."

    I did that with the tiger. I had no idea why the tiger was there and figured that maybe it had something to do with the temple. It was very random for me.

    In the book, Viedt was really into genetic engineering.

  12. Posted · Report reply

    The point Stewart made was that Santelli was saying the home buyers (i.e. "losers") should have known better, when the public was being bombarded with bad information by the network he works for. He was right, too. I have a big fucking problem with putting all the blame on individuals following the advice of experts and getting screwed, while the so-called professionals who traded the bad debt around the financial industry and told us all that everything was going to be fine are treated like innocent victims.

     

    And there was nothing populist about being an ignorant Social Darwinist loudmouth.

     

    You cannot hold Santelli responsible for everything that goes on on the network he happens to work for. He doesn't run the thing and can't tell people like Jim Cramer to stuff it unless he's given a chance to respond to Jim's comments. This is asinine.

     

    No, he isn't to blame for all of the bad information out on his network, and that wasn't the point. The point was given how much bad information was out there, is he really justified to call people who got caught in this mess "losers"?

     

    Santelli is basically saying we shouldn't be concerned with people about to be foreclosed on, and completely ignores the negative effects all of these additional foreclosures will have on lending institutions and everyone else's home values.

     

    Santelli is saying, "I wasn't immediately affected, so I don't care." Is he too dumb to see the effect this problem will have on everyone else in the long run? (Given the history this country has of not recognizing how the effects of economic and social problems tend to spread to the rest of society...not is he probably really that dumb, but he has a lot of company.)

     

     

    Regardless of who is spouting what information, people can't just blindly take what "experts" have to say and follow it.

     

    In the medical industry, they call that "malpractice". Lawyers call it "fraud". For some reason its illegal when THEY do it, but not when bankers and stock brokers do it.

  13. Posted · Report reply

    Come on, really....half of you are complaining it was too long, and the other half are complaining about too much being left out. Huh?

     

    Yes, it wasn't as good as the book...because you can go into a lot more depth in 300 pages than you can in 3 hours. Having said that, even a watered-down Watchmen movie was better than 90% of the super-hero movies out there. You had all the important elements there...and I agree with the choice to not include the

    fake telepathic squid from outer-space that destroys New York

    . Besides the ending, the changes were superficial.

     

    My only complaint was it seemed like they were trying to make the epilogue funny instead of ironic, then it cut to a song that I didn't feel was the right choice for what should have been a sobering moment.

  15. Posted · Report reply

    David Frum wrote an interesting piece on hy Limbaugh is bad for the Republican Party.

     

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1

     

    Notice that Limbaugh did not say: "I hope the administration's liberal plans fail." Or (better): "I know the administration's liberal plans will fail." Or (best): "I fear that this administration's liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do." If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh's words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being "headlined" was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh's face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support.

     

    Then, exacerbating the wound, Limbaugh added this in an interview on Sean Hannity's Jan. 21 show on Fox News: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Limbaugh would repeat some variant of this remark at least four more times in the next month and a half. Really, President Obama could not have asked for more: Limbaugh gets an audience, Obama gets a target and Republicans get the blame.

     

  17. Posted · Report reply

    To be fair, Stewart also mentioned their populism angle over the course of the segment. To say that it wasn't acknowledged is a little silly.

    I believe it was mentioned ironically. I know Czech thinks Stewart panders to populism himself, but going for a cheap laugh and calling victims of a nationwide mortgage scam "losers" aren't equal in my book.

     

    They totally missed the signs. It doesn't take Jon Stewart to discover that.

     

    Jon Stewart shouldn't have to be the one to point out the hypocrisy of condemning others for not seeing things you didn't see yourself, but unfortunately cable news isn't very good at policing itself.

  18. Posted · Report reply

    The point Stewart made was that Santelli was saying the home buyers (i.e. "losers") should have known better, when the public was being bombarded with bad information by the network he works for. He was right, too. I have a big fucking problem with putting all the blame on individuals following the advice of experts and getting screwed, while the so-called professionals who traded the bad debt around the financial industry and told us all that everything was going to be fine are treated like innocent victims.

     

    And there was nothing populist about being an ignorant Social Darwinist loudmouth.

  21. Posted · Report reply

    Fun with Polls:

     

    84 percent saying the national economy is in poor shape and just 3 percent viewing things positively.

     

    I guess 13% were all like "WTF is an economy?"

     

    More than a third (37 percent) of the public expect economic conditions to improve in the next 12 months, compared with 29 percent who think things will be worse.

     

    And 33% doesn't know.

     

    Majorities of Americans think too much has been spent so far to help rescue large banks in danger of failing and domestic auto companies facing bankruptcy. A somewhat surprising majority (56 percent) supports nationalizing large banks at risk of failing—a policy the Obama administration has shied away from.

     

    ZOMG SOCIALISM~!!!!!

     

    And fewer than half of those polled (49 percent) say they support Obama's proposal to allow the expiration of tax cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 at the end of next year. (Forty-two percent say they oppose ending these cuts.)

     

    And 9% just shrugged their shoulders and went back to playing Halo.

     

    58 percent of Americans believe that Republicans who have opposed Obama's economic-rescue plans have no plan of their own for turning the economy around.

     

    The other 42% just started saying "Ronald Reagan" over and over.

     

    by a large margin—51 percent to 40 percent—Americans say they value bipartisanship in Washington over getting things done quickly.

     

    > the financial well-being of 300 million Americans.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    Well, I'm glad THIS is finally settled...

     

    A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer...

     

    ..."This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion.

     

    The lawsuit didn't even use Obama's legal name but called him "Barry Soetoro," the name he went by while attending elementary school in Indonesia. It's one of many that has been filed claiming Obama is ineligible to serve as president.

     

    Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.

     

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...94mlewD96O5TV03

×