>> ^Sagemind:

Funny - I actually expected a lot more - in the way of comments on this one...


The thesis of his doc is far too nebulous and subtle. That's not to say documentary viewers do not have an appreciation of subtlety. Heck, I'm lousy with the stuff! But who really cares whether age-segregated ministry is multiplying or dividing the church? If you're going to make a documentary about religion that you intend people to watch, the interesting question isn't about age-segregated ministry, for goodness sake. The interesting question goes a bit deeper than that, I should think.

Take Scientology for example. You think the upcoming documentary about Scientology is going to center on the question of the efficacy of print vs. new media advertising? Or do you think it'll be about something else?

Not only was his comment egregious, it was also abominable, atrocious, awful, base, beastly, beneath contempt, conspicuous, contemptible, crass, deplorable, despicable, detestable, dire, disgusting, dreadful, excessive, extreme, fetid, filthy, flagrant, foul, glaring, grievous, gross, hateful, heinous, horrible, horrid, hyperbolic, incontinent, infamous, inordinate, intemperate, intolerable, lamentable, loathsome, lousy, marked, monstrous, nasty, nefarious, noisome, notorious, obnoxious, odious, of mark, offensive, out of bounds, outrageous, pitiable, pitiful, regrettable, reprehensible, repulsive, rotten, sad, scandalous, scurvy, shameful, shocking, shoddy, sordid, terrible, unconscionable, undue, unmitigated, unqualified, unreasonable, vile, villainous, woeful, worthless and wretched. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
burdturgler had every right to pull out the ban hammer. That statement is disgusting and has no place on this site, let alone this decade. Who still says shit like that? It's 2011 for Cthulhu's sake.
Also, @blankfist, do you really not see the difference between "nigger" and "cracker"? I sense you do, but if not, I'd be more than happy to elaborate. Also, trying to make this into some kind of political argument is beyond lame. Shame on you. You should know better.

Whatever, selfrighteousfuturetoday. What he said wasn't that egregious. And certainly not worth a ban. I stand by that.

"Excuse me, is this the line to Mr Video?"

I went to heaven and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

Propaganda piece for Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. Peter Joseph does a good job at recognizing problems but a lousy job at offering solutions. The Zeitgeist movement is about sacrificing individual sovereignty for the sake of a one-world vision. Joseph assumes everyone will abandon their own self-interest in the name of some global interest.

I have 2 problems with the Zeitgeist movement: 1) Morally, altruism is incompatible with freedom and individual rights. Man is not some sacrificial animal here to serve the collective group. 2) It's completely unrealistic. Everyone is always motivated by their own self interest. It's part of our DNA. Changing that is impossible.

Now what I'm really curious about is if Joseph really believes this bunk or if he's serving a greater agenda. Wonder who funded this most recent film. From a cinematic standpoint, it's pretty good.

>> ^deathcow:

Congrats! That is awesome! All I got from the sift was a lousy T shirt!


i didnt even get the t-shirt.
but i did get this:


*edit:stupid embed wont work
*dbl edit:qwiz is a god

Congrats! That is awesome! All I got from the sift was a lousy T shirt!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Ugh. As funny as this could be, it fails to recognize a single premise: If the rapture were to truly come, life on Earth would be a living hell, according to scriptures.


Not to mention if the rapture did happen, you'd kinda have to admit there probably is a god/jesus/etc. Hopefully he wouldn't be as much of a dick as the bible makes him out to be, but you still gotaa imagine that we'd be in for a pretty lousy time from here on out.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Ugh. As funny as this could be, it fails to recognize a single premise: If the rapture were to truly come, life on Earth would be a living hell, according to scriptures.


Not to mention if the rapture did happen, you'd kinda have to admit there probably is a god/jesus/etc. Hopefully he wouldn't be as much of a dick as the bible makes him out to be, but you still gotaa imagine that we'd be in for a pretty lousy time from here on out.

Most of these guys are lousy at bjs.

Moore - despite his rampant hypocrisy - makes a valid point in the sense that capitalism has become corrupted. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century the robber barons controlled government, and made laws so they could do whatever they wanted. Then the progressive movement worked to establish a vertical wall around powerful centralized government as a means of countering crony capitalism's unholy domination of the weak federal government. Also, they established & promoted unions as a means of increasing worker power and bettering their conditions.

But as with anything, incresed power in a sector of society results in corruption. Unions were rapidly overtaken with corrupt leaders. The more powerful federal government VERY quickly became corrupt and open to bribery, graft, waste, and 'outside-in' crony capitalism in collusion with unions. We are in a position today where the federal government has become so powerful, so corrupt, and so out of touch that it is as bad as the robber barons ever were.

Corrupt corporations & industries know where the power is, and smear money around Washington to get laws that favor their objectives. Without the corrupt federal government, the repeal of Glass-Steagall would have been impossible, and America could have entirely avoided the housing bubble and resulting collapse. Without corrupt unions and their evil alliances with government, we could have entirely avoided all these "unfunded liabilities" that are crushing our budgets.

Moore is right. We aren't broke. There is 4 trillion dollars we the people can take away from the corrupt federal government. There is also as mucha s 16 trillion dollars we can take away from lousy contracts with corrupt unions. We can balance our budgets in a year by cutting federal spending so that it is ONLY allowed for consitutionally mandated functions like defense. We can balance state budges by voiding every single union contract ever written, eliminating preposterous 'for life' benefits, and starting over with logical, limited, VOTER APPROVED contracts where unions are taken out of the equation completely.

As someone who has spent almost zero time reading up on education policy, but who's a total junkie for reading politics, I can explain why the current merit pay/charter school/standardized testing thing is pretty transparently a load of horseshit.

Let's start with who's in favor of it. Is this a popular idea in the Washington press corps? Yes, undoubtedly. Do they ever back good policy? I've never known them to. Conservatives love it, as do the perennially "moderate" Democrats. More bad signs. As for Waiting for Superman, all my pinko-commie friends tell me it was made and promoted by big money interests. That's not good, either.

Where else in the world do they have an education system like this? How's it working for them? Not having researched it, I can't answer that question, but no one who's for it ever says "look at how well <some country>'s education system works! We should copy them!" However the people who oppose it, like Ravitch, point to Finland, and the fact that it's almost entirely the polar opposite of what the big money wants for America, and Finland is almost always ranked #1 internationally for education.

Mostly, I just hear more union-busting in a lot of this talk. Ravitch sounded like she did too -- it's all about rooting out the "bad teachers", as if our education system's sole flaw is a lousy crop teachers that are bilking the system, with the aid of the eeeeevil teacher's unions.

It can't be poverty and budget cuts, noooooo, that'd mean admitting those dirty fucking hippies are right yet again...

(snip of BRP profane rant)

Well - if that plunge into logic doesn't lay out the sides then nothing really will.

Look - this isn't difficult. Judaism banned homosexuality under judeic law. Now - those who are not religious would argue that such a standard was established by evil men. Those who believe that God exists & has a plan for his children would accept that these rules ("Commandments" if you will) were established to help the mortal family to know the ins and outs of what God expects his children to do or not do for their own happiness.

So homosexuality was wrong both under Judaic law, and Judaic moral belief. This is not in question except by people who are trying to reverse-engineer history in order to justify their own world views. Christ did not come along and say, "That was wrong". Quite to the contrary. Christ doubled down. Judaic law commmanded people to not commit sexual sin. Christ didn't say, "It's OK now as long as you love each other..." Nuh-uh. Christ said, "He who LOOKETH upon another woman and hath committed adultery in his heart." The lesson is clear. Judeaic law was trying to command & control people with "don't do this" rules. Christ was trying to teach people to not even THINK about doing the wrong thing.

What does that say about homosexuality? People who think Christ or God would be "OK" with it are lying to themselves. Sexual sin is sin and needs to be forsaken. Period. That never changed. Christ told the adulteress, "Go thy way and SIN NO MORE". He did not say, "Go thy way and I don't care what you do as long as you love them."

So yes - like ANY moral sin - you can love the sinner and hate the sin and labor to correct it. It doesn't make you a bigot. It doesn't mean you're a hater. It means you see people who need help, and you try to help them.

As far as this chick goes - phht. If she's even LDS (which isn't a given), her argument is full of holes and we've got an actual LDS guy who says she's full of bologna with her claims of "being cast out". Is such a thing possible? You'd have to ask the guys in SLC about that and not this chick. As far as the Mormon church's opposition to Prop 8? I saw that more as a means to prevent a lousy law from happening. The gay community needs to come up with a plan that addresses their wants (equal rights) without stepping on the definition of marriage and protections for those who hold to a traditional view. When that happens they'll find they have a better shot compared to these half-@$$ed bum-rush votes on lousy, flawed legislation.

@blankfist
re #2: Screens will not go over 300 dpi, because higher fidelity is wasted on our lousy eyes. 300 dpi on a 22" screen will be about 6000 x 3000px. On 27" it will be 7000x4000. I think the 300dpi mark might become a new marketing standard like apple is pushing "Retina display".

Ipad 2 or 3 will be 2048x1536 and marketed as Retina Display, even though it's only ~280 dpi.

re #12: My money's on Roy Scheider being the guy who passes away, since he passed away in 2008.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.