spiny norman

Action & Adventure: The Seven Samurai Comedy: Hannah and Her Sisters Crime & Gangster: Vertigo Drama: Viridiana Epics & Historical: The Seventh Seal Horror: M Sci-Fi: ET the Extraterrestrial War & Westerns: The Big Country

But the cancer was in remission/gone completely at the time of the affair?

A friend of mine has the role of Cyclops, so I can say that that's definitely not just a rumour. I don't know if I'd be looking forward to this were he not in it, though, but I'll have to go see it. Unless your friend is James Marsden, I'm not going to care too much. Nah, he's 22 but looks about 15, so they're going for a very youthful Scott Summers, I'd suggest.

A friend of mine has the role of Cyclops, so I can say that that's definitely not just a rumour. I don't know if I'd be looking forward to this were he not in it, though, but I'll have to go see it.

I've seen this. It's good, but is so thematically rich that I can't help but rich some of the themes had been developed further. Likewise, in drawing two great characters in Joker and Harvey Dent, Bruce Wayne/Batman seems almost relegated to the sidelines - I think he could've used a bit more character development. Nevertheless, excellent film, and leagues better than (the really very good) Batman Begins, which basically feels like child's play next to this.

So this is the #9 film on IMDB right now.

Eh, I don't know about that. Sucks that Johnson kinda got the whole Vietnam thing pinned on him when most of the blame belongs on Kennedy and the assassination of Diem. And that his secretary of state continually advised him in the wrong direction. And when you consider the War on Poverty, Medicare and Civil Rights, I think you come to the conclusion that the claim truly is baseless.

He was certainly the worst Democrat president of the past century.

No, I'm not saying you should adhere to a generalised concept of liberal policy. All I am saying is that I find it questionable that so many Obama supporters (who presumably are liberal themselves) ALL take a stance that is inconsistent with the "playbook". I never said it was, I just questioned the defence of Obama's position on it from most people here. Given McCain said the same, obviously it will not be an election issue at all. Though I must say, as an Australian observer, if a party here came out with such a position, I would find it very difficult to give them my vote.

No doubt it's a terrible crime. However, John F. Kennedy (a liberal) began phasing out the death penalty for any non-murder crimes. The Supreme Court placed a ban on capital punishment for child rape, with the opposition in the Court coming from its four conservative Justices. Now Obama (a liberal) is coming out on the side of those conservative Justices. It is a stance that is in opposition to the general liberal position. Therefore, I find it a little hard to believe that so many people here who very vocally support Obama would also support his position on this. It comes across, to me, as though they are just going along with whatever he says and blindly agreeing with it.

Namely his favouring the death penalty for child rapists, which most of the people here seem to have tried to defend. However, given it's something that does seem an anomaly in his political beliefs, I don't find it particularly likely that it is likewise an anomaly in the political beliefs of those who support him. Truthfully, such a suggestion is pretty fucked up, as far as I can see it.

Can I snigger at all the Obama supporters here trying to justify all of his policy stances, even when, such as now, he's completely wrong? You can support somebody without still supporting them to the absolute, you know.

I only say that because I honestly feel she is fucking her party over for her own personal gain. Not that personal gain is foreign to politics, but when the world knows you are disingenuous... come on. I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone I know is so self-serving. That's my own reasoning. But you can, in good conscience, vote for the person you think'd be a better president, based on their policies and whatnot? Is that so novel an idea?

I don't think that was ever the case. I'm going to assume you're referring to Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy and Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter. Though I'd massively disagree, mainly with Eisenhower (though Kennedy to an extent), and especially Johnson. I disagree. While I'm not too fussed either way by Obama/Clinton - either way I think there'll be a good president - there are other reasons to nominate her. Also, I disagree with those saying she doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table, as those that do are the same people who abuse her for being a de facto VP to her husband - you can't have it both ways.

Realistically, though, when was the last time we had a president better than Clinton? It's not just W Bush who makes him look good. He'd probably make a top five presidents of the 20th century list.