Obsidian

Much of it is that, too. I love to antagonize partisan idiots and destroy their arguments. Nine times out of ten they won't listen, but it's fun to be a dick and blow the wind out of their sails.

I love people who are "offended" by thing. It shows such "caring" on their part.

Well, it comes with having a sense of integrity, ethics and, you know, a SOUL.

Asking me not to be a douche about these things is like asking me not to breathe oxygen. I hate displays of stupid ****.

Dammit. I just found out my sister posted something rather dumb on Facebook. I could easily rebut her, but I risk starting a fight, and she and I are rather close. I don't want to risk that, but at the same time I feel compelled to confront and demolish any displays of ignorance I see. This is a no-win situation.

Let's move to Canada.

 

Oh, my god. I've seen people on Facebook and Twitter talking about moving to Canada after Obama's reelection.

 

I think this is the case in every election. And, just to be fair, when Romney was ahead in electoral votes, the Dems in my newsfeed (at least the ones who didn't understand the always-blue west coast was going to turn things around) were saying the same thing.

Yeah, but the difference is, Canada is, in a lot of ways, exactly what most liberals want, so it makes perfect sense that they'd consider Canada. While it is practically the embodiment of everything that the right-wing loathes. Which is why it's hysterical to see the wingnuts screaming about moving to Canada, given that Canada has everything they imagine Obama is trying to bring to America. Hence my sarcastic joke about it being a wingnut paradise.

Guys. I think hate America. I really think I do.

Welcome to the club, my friend.

Of course, I hate humanity in general, but Americans are human (as far as I know, anyway), so it still counts.

Let's move to Canada.

Oh, my god. I've seen people on Facebook and Twitter talking about moving to Canada after Obama's reelection.

Universal healthcare, legalized pot (medically, anyway), same-sex marriage, gun control, a small military. Yeah, it's a wingnut paradise, alright.

There are MANY flaws in libertarian thinking (I abandoned my brief fling with libertarianism when I realized that), but the big one is the overly naive world view. LIbertarianism depends on people being much more noble and ethical than they truly are. The idea that people will treat each other with respect, act ethically and morally at all times, WITHOUT being coerced into it via the threat of force, is just starry-eyed optimism that denies human nature. It's the same flaw that is at the core of those who support Communism as well, strangely enough. Both depend upon the existence of a perfect humanity that simply does not exist.

But, Letsgo, many people on the 'left' understand that the 'free market' is a myth, and an impossibility. The government does business within the market, and as a rather major contributor to the market, it is inevitably going to have a substantial impact upon it, and therefore have a good deal of influence over how said market operates.

Given that, there is no inconsistency. As you cannot have a market free of government interference with a government that does business on the market, then supporting taxation and such is not a contradiction, but a natural outgrowth of that understanding.

Bush, at least, was never accused of rape and murder.

Yeah, only of committing (or at the very least, allowing) terrorist acts against the United States and of being a genocidal madman...

 

Clinton got the same allegations from the right. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the fringe right was screaming that it was engineered by the Clintons to justify the implementation of martial law. And that's not even getting into the dirt slung at Hillary, who got it worse than any of the three Presidents did.

I wouldn't say Bush Derangement was worse than that directed at Clinton. Bush, at least, was never accused of rape and murder (unlike Clinton. Remember the Vince Foster thing?) But, I do agree that it is a problem that plagues both sides, to differing degrees however, and that it's a problem that just keeps growing.

See, what Cerina posted is exactly why I say that the right wing is far more deranged over Obama than the liberals ever were over Bush. As stupid as the left acted with W, at least their derangement descended from blowing out of proportion things that Bush actually did, or that actually happened under his watch. The right wing, lives in a fantasy world, and the things they are deranged over concerning Obama, have no actual basis in reality (quite often contradicting it in fact), but exist purely in their own diseased little minds.

It also makes me want to see Obama win reelection, just to see them lose their minds even more.

Letsgo, when you first go to the site, on the first page, there is a map of the US. Just click on the state you want to see, and it'll show you the results.

Seriously, Pong? How can you take Libertarians seriously?

I take soft libertarians seriously when it's at the federal and executive level. And if you remember, I actually gave Joey and Ryn crap about Johnson when he first entered into the discussion, because I wrongly assumed he was sort of toll-road, potheaded, dogmatic free-market-solves-all freak you typically get with libertarianism. But he's not.

 

If you look at his record as governor of New Mexico, he clearly thought the government had some useful purpose for people, which he supports. And he helped to improve the efficiency of state programs while vetoing pet pork to the tune of a billion dollar surplus. The guy's not a freak, he's a supra-genius!

 

Fair enough. I still find it hard to justify his membership in the Libertarian party, however. Johnson may be a rational person, but it doesn't change the fact that his party is as full of nutcases as the big Two are.

Seriously, Pong? How can you take Libertarians seriously? Not only their absurd naivety, but the fact that they support economic policies that enable many of the very things they oppose (such as the Drug War. Who do they think benefits from stronger Drug penalties? The weapons manufacturers who make the arms used to fight the "Drug War', and the corporately owned prisons that benefit directly from having more people in jail, and thus push for stronger and stronger anti-drug laws, so that they make more money by housing more inmates. Private prisons that exist thanks to libertarian 'free market' economic policies), and yet aren't self aware enough to even realize that fact.

I cannot buy what they are selling, no matter what.

This is the newest from Tea Party nuts on my feed who I went to high school with. I really thought my classmates were smarter than this.

 

A link to a news article about the wedding ring Obama wears and the comments range from interesting to I always knew it!

 

http://www.wnd.com/2...-god-but-allah/

 

That was just awesome. "Obama is a Muslim" paranoia at its absolute finest.

See, that's the reason I kinda want an Obama victory. It'll drive people like that even further into derangement. And I find that fun to watch.

Does that make me a bad person?

The TV Movie took place in 1999 (even though it aired in 1996), and it was implied that the 9th Doctor was born right before the events of 'Rose' (he hadn't even had a chance to see what he looked like until he got into Rose's house), which was in 2005. So, the Eighth doctor was around for about 6-7 years. The 7th Doctor, therefor, would have been around for 12 years, making him the second longest incarnation of the Doctor in-universe.

One very subtle bit of development occurred in the episode, and most people didn't seem to notice. The Doctor revealed his true age (1200 years old). I wonder if that's going to play a part in the finale.

The thing about the Avengers and the Marvel movie universe is, endless possibilities. An Avengers film series could theoretically go on for decades, even after the current actors leave. They could just bring in new heroes (not that I'd want them to, but they could). And countless possible tie-ins. A Luke Cage move, Iron Fist, Captain Marvel, Spider-Woman, etc.) The possibilities for future movies is immense.

The Doctor and Queen Nefertiti in the future, on a spaceship, with dinosaurs....

Yeah. That was awesome. The premise alone was so absurdly wonderful that I had to tune in, but it really fulfilled on the promise. More of that, please!

Kang is pretty formidable too. He's invaded Earth more than once.

Problem is, given that his origin is tied in to Reed Richards and Doctor Doom (they are both his anscestors), he may be off limits, as the rights to a Famtastic Four film are held by someone else (same reason they could not use the Skrulls in 'The Avengers', They are considered Fantastic Four enemies, and unavailable for that reason.)

My seven year old would agree. He laughed many times!

He's got good taste. I've chuckled at superhero films before, but there were a couple scenes I just couldn't contain myself. Even the Hulk-punch of Thor/beatdown of Loki -- and I tend to find physical humor pretty unfunny.

Yeah, I'm not a big physical comedy fan either, but the bits of it in this movie WORK. Probably because it fits the character involved so well.

Loki's plan was to hurt Thor. Thor cared about the Earth, about the people on it, so Loki was going to hurt as many people and cause as much devestation as possible simply out of spite and jealousy. Everything he did was just a means to that end.

And I ****ing loved the movie. While not perfect (no movie is), and with a few minor nitpicks, it was still one hell of an awesome film. As Pong said, it was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a while (Hulk's beatdown on Loki was particularly hilarious), the dialogue was snappy and interesting for the most part, every character got adequate screen time (Although I would've liked to have a little more focus on Hawkeye and Black Widow, one of the aforementioned nitpicks), and the intrapersonal conflicts on the team was engaging. I rarely see a movie more than once in theatres, but I am definately going to do so with Avengers.

Noooooo the Silurian episodes were the worst but managed to get saved by the killing off of Rory at the end. After that it is the Dalek episode, great idea to reboot them as they are now, just a poor poor story.

 

RTD had better finale stories, Moffat has better layering of storylines and they both (kind of) suck at resolutions.

 

I cringe just thinking about the end of the third series. 'DOCTOR....' Bleh.

I didn't have much problem with the Silurian episodes. They were not great, but I wouldn't call them horrible. Just kinda 'bleh.'

Moffet's worst episodes are, at their least, mediocre. Davies' worst were truly bad.

RTD's run was decent, as long as he was kept away from a keyboard. He would build up strong and interesting arc, and then blow it it at the last minute with anti-climactic, or just plain idiotic, resolutions "Journey's End", anyone?.

As to bad episodes... I'm sorry. While Moffat has had some not-so-great episodes, nothing during his tenure has even approached the level of awfulness of 'Love and Monsters', 'Fear Her', 'Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks', 'Aliens of London/World War III' or 'The Lazarus Experiment'. 'The Lodger', arguably the worst episode during Moffat's run, may not have been great, but it was Citizen Kane compared to those RTD eps I mentioned.

I kinda agree about the DC characters. Individually, they're kinda seared into the American conscience as campy, but I see no reason that they wouldn't work as an ensemble. Their powers are no more "one trick pony" than any of the X-men's are. I think if a film writer came in who would really focus on "humanizing" the DC characters in a way that people don't expect, it would work brilliantly. But then of course, people would be mad that they're not getting the live action version of the campy, cartoons they've grown up with.

Which is part of my point from before. Marvel films are easier to do, and their characters translate to film better, because they aren't as established in the minds of people, in the way that DC ones are. DC heroes have been around for decades longer than 99% of Marvel's, and have many more stories with them, which makes it harder condense down into film form. They are also better known, and permiate the culture more. They have a certain image, which makes it harder for them to break out of that image when it comes time for a film than Marvel's, who have the advantage of being largely obscure, and therefor fewer preconceived image problems on the part of the audience (who outside of comics had heard of Iron Man before the movie? Almost no one.). Going in to a Marvel film, the audience is less likely to have a set idea in their heads about what they should expect than a DC one.