SuperJerk

Yeah, and its so horrible. Why, just the other day I had to drive through the beautiful countryside to get somewhere. And with traffic as heavy as it was, it took me a whole 20 minutes to go 20 miles! It was awful. I just can't stand it here. How I long to live in an overcrowded costal city with deadly weather and overpriced housing. Please, God, end my life now. I can't stand it anymore.

Says you!

Cinderella Man got an 84% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It. Sucked. Ass.

Yeah, what was the point of that? He was the only man in America who'd never eaten a Whopper? Kind of a ridicules claim considering the whole point of advertising the product is to get people to eat it who've never tried one before. Then when they found Herb, and he ate the sandwich, we were supposed to believe EVERYONE had tried a Whopper. That's going to sell sandwiches HOW? As if someone in the audience was thinking "Man, everyone in America's eaten at Burger King at some point...even me. Even though I don't remember ever eating there, I should eat there." I just don't get it.

You need to let go of the whole "Jedi have to expect something in order to sense it" circular argument you've been feeding me for the last half-a-page. It doesn't make any sense.

You make a pretty good case for expecting the filmmakers to sell you on the film before you'd see it, then you mention going to see Waiting and The Longest Yard, which put out horribly unfunny commercials, thus destroying your own argument. The only commercial I've seen for Waiting features a guy spitting in people's food. Somehow that's more appealing that a movie about space outlaws protecting a little girl from an evil assasin? Serenity isn't even a comedy and its commericals were funnier than Waiting. You'd rather watch a guy spit in people's food than space outlaws protecting a little girl from an evil assasin? As far as this "someone famous has to be in it" argument...If that's really a prerequisite for you to see a movie, then you're missing out on a lot of really great stuff. I can't blame you for not seeing it if that's the case. If you didn't like "Firefly", then you're not going to like Serenity. That's having a little more informed opinion than saying "I didn't see it because I didn't know any of the actors."

My mortgage is less than that, and I've got a 3 bedroom split-level with a deck and a 2 car garage. People think midwesterners are dumb, but we're not the ones getting hit by earthquakes and hurricanes, and paying half our monthly income for a hole in the wall or paying $3 a gallon for gas.

Thank you so much for making that connection.

Ironically, the star of Serenity and the star of Waiting were in a TV show together. A movie doesn't have to have big stars in it to be any good. Serenity was far better than many of the star-studded shitfests Hollywood cranks out every year. I don't get your attitude at all.

This is pre-Desert Storm. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The movie takes place DURING Desert Storm. I don't suppose any of you bashing this movie have actually SEEN IT have you? Didn't think so.

You just totally pulled that out of your ass. Seriously, "percentages and feeling"? WTF? Is that how Obi-Wan sensed Alderaan getting blown up, because he was focussed on training Luke? Is that how Vader sensed Obi-Wan on the Death Star, because he was focused on where the Millenium Falcon came from? Windu could sense Anakin's feelings from the second his 8 year old ass took the Jedi SATs back in EPISODE I, but he suddenly couldn't sense Anakin wasn't about to attack him? WINDU DROPPED HIS GUARD. As a result, he got turned into Coruscant Fried Chicken, extra crispy recipe. Palpatine was totally owning the guy until the window broke, and could've won the fight at any time by hitting Windu with something and knocking him out of the open window, or avoided attack by simply running away (using some of that super Sith speed we saw earlier in the scene). Instead he stayed his ground in order to make himself look like the victim and talk Anakin into joining his team. Palpatine > Windu. End of story.

1. Chloe 2. Lois 3. Mrs. Kent 4. Lana

Serenity has as much in common with Star Wars as Saving Private Ryan has in common with Casablanca.

I thought the office spots were clever.

Not 'round here. I got people with advanced degrees making $6.50/hr where I'm working. That IS higher than minimum wage, which is my point. And advanced degrees in what exactly? The minimum wage has no effect on oversaturation of certain career field which would lead to people wth advanced degrees being underemployed. Source?

So...Batista goes from drawing 325,000 buys with Triple H to drawing 233,000 with JBL? There's a lesson here. Also, glad to see ECW outdraw GAB. There's a lesson there as well.

Conservatives on Roberts: A nominee should be judged by their qualigfications, not by their ideology. We want judges that will interprete the law, not bring a political agenda to the Supreme Court. Conservatives on Miers: "We're left gathering shreds of evidence in trying to determine how the candidate would vote on the key issues of the day." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/07/miers.ap/index.html

If this was a regular sword fight, you'd have a point. However, you're talking about people who are finely tuned to the Force. A Jedi should be able to sense an attack coming from any direction, even the one they aren't expecting. Windu dropped his guard because he thought he'd won. And Palpatine was hardly defenseless, given how he could've used the Force to smack Windu through the window with a desk or a couch at any time (see the later battle with Yoda).

The flaming Jedi corpse streaking across the Coruscant skyline suggests otherwise.

Ok, elaboration: I was agreeing with the "sense of closure" bit. What I meant was that it was somewhat like a season/series finale (since there never really WAS one for Firefly) in that there was closure, whereas the last episode of Firefly was lacking in closure. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh. I see.

I see your point, since "not to shabby" is too subjective a term to really be able to agree or disagree over. I was mostly just expressing my distaste for "Commander in Chief". Take this week's show for instance. President Geena has to nominate a new VP, so who does she pick? The guy she ran against for VP in the last election. They show a flashback to the VP debate where the guy basically admits that the only reason he's on the ticket is because he's a retired general and the nominee he's supporting is thought of as a wimp. Hollywood writers may consider this an example of witty writing, but in reality the guy'd get kicked off the ticket faster than Tom Eagleton at a psychiatric convention. The subplot involved the oldest daughter losing her diary, and everyone's in panic mode over it because it may contain damaging information about President Geena. However, turns out the youngest daughter had it the whole time, as revealed in a cute scene that I'm sure was stolen from an episode of "Full House". The youngest daughter's only role on the show seems to be to say and do cute things, and I was ready to murder her within 15 minutes of the show's opening. Next week's show apprently revolves around how the oldest son's now the popular choice for girls at his school to "loose it" to, since he's now the First Son. I bet Mary Cheney sure wishes her dad had to assume the presidency. I wasn't kidding when I said this show was "West Wing" meets "7th Heaven".

Raising the minimum wage spikes the unemployment rate almost ever single time its done. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The last time it was raised we added 11 million jobs over the next 4 years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Improper cause and effect relationship. Raising the minimum wage kills jobs at the bottom of the economic ladder. Whether or not other jobs are created due to growth in other sectors is an unrelated matter. Seriously, who pays the actual federal minimum wage? Market forces have been doing a pretty good job raising entry level pay on its own since the last hike.

Raising the minimum wage spikes the unemployment rate almost ever single time its done.

Okay, let me explain this as simply as possible: I've watched "My Name is Earl". I've also watched "Commander in Chief". "My Name is Earl" is a better show that "Commander in Chief", in my opinion. Therefore, I believe that it is unfortunate that "My Name is Earl" gets less viewers than "Commander in Chief". Unless you want to step up and defend the honor of a show you have NOT seen, and explain why "Commander in Chief" deserves its better rating, please allow me to have my opinion. Yes, I'll admit it. My earlier post was my opinion. That should've been easy enough for people to figure out based on the fact I was making a value judgement without quantitative evidence. I don't think anyone needs you pointing out that something I said was my opinion. I think people can figure that out on their own. Where we have another problem is when you correct me and tell my opinion is wrong, and then fall back on other people's opinions to justify it. I honestly don't give a flying crap what the critics have to say about "Commander in Chief", because I have my own first hand experience to go by. The show isn't as good as "My Name is Earl". Thus: the ratings for "My Name is Earl" are shabby, in my opinion, because they are smaller than those of a show which less people should be watching due to poorer quality.

You have no idea what I'm talking about. Please stop abusing pronouns.