<scooby>
ree-roo?

Thanks, dc.
In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*promote I could watch an extended length of this

>> ^VoodooV:

I like how @shinyblurry admits to the power of suggestion, but clearly has decided one way.
Two things I found interesting is that in @mtadd's clip:
1) the chanting occurs right AFTER Ryan just gave a long speech, AND Romney props him up for it so it would certainly be reasonable for them to chant Ryan.
2) the audio is just plain shitty, though it is odd that right before the moment of interest occurs, the volume goes up (sadly, it just amplifies the shittiness of the audio instead of making things easier to hear). I can certainly see how you might think you hear Romney, but one thing that does stand out is that despite how similar their names sound in that context, you never hear the "ney" part of Romney's name in any of that chanting. Ryan Ryan, RomNEY, RomNEY. You just never hear any of that emphasis on that last syllable, which suggests they're saying Ryan.
In the end though, it just really doesn't matter and it just proves my previous post. They're going for the sensationalism. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's a manufactured controversy designed to stir people up. Just like the birther phenomenon, just like whatever it was in Bush's suit when he debated with Kerry. It's just like Fox getting caught encouraging and directing the tea party protests and making it seem like there were more there than there actually was. It's manufactured outrage.
The reality is that Romney is losing because he's boring and out of touch and he hasn't presented any concrete ideas and he needs Ryan to stir people up (gasp..more sensationalism vs substance, whoduvthunkit) It wouldn't matter if you caught MSNBC red-handed doctoring the video, it doesn't change the reality.
If anything, giving this controversy air time is still a net negative for Romney. You're just playing the same blame game the right is accusing Obama of. Doesn't make Romney look any better even if MSNBC held a press conference and admitted to a coverup. "And I would have won if it weren't for that meddling press" Ut oh Scooby Do!
You're picking at nits while the house is burning down all around you.
It's not an issue of left vs right, it's an issue of low ratings, or high ratings. end of story.


I decided to believe what the crowd was reported to say, as well as the people who were actually there said happened, and also what my ears hear:

@3:35 p.m.: Ryan pauses for a moment while the crowd begins to chant, “Romney, Romney, Romney …”

@3:36 p.m.: Mitt Romney begins speaking to the crowd. Asks them to chant, “Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan …”

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/setup-underway-for-romney-rally-at-airport/nSLFM/

Even the New York Times reported it accurately:

After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off.“Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for “Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!” They did.

“There we go,” he said, pleased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-to-start-campaigning-together-more-often.html?_r=2&

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/

As far as your commentary goes, I can agree with what you're saying generally. This is all about rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic. You are speaking of some corporate conspiracy, I am speaking to the Satanic power behind the conspiracy. I just think it's interesting that the sift got a kick out of the clip as it was falsely portrayed, and aren't actually interested in what really happened.

I like how @shinyblurry admits to the power of suggestion, but clearly has decided one way.

Two things I found interesting is that in @mtadd's clip:

1) the chanting occurs right AFTER Ryan just gave a long speech, AND Romney props him up for it so it would certainly be reasonable for them to chant Ryan.

2) the audio is just plain shitty, though it is odd that right before the moment of interest occurs, the volume goes up (sadly, it just amplifies the shittiness of the audio instead of making things easier to hear). I can certainly see how you might think you hear Romney, but one thing that does stand out is that despite how similar their names sound in that context, you never hear the "ney" part of Romney's name in any of that chanting. Ryan Ryan, RomNEY, RomNEY. You just never hear any of that emphasis on that last syllable, which suggests they're saying Ryan.

In the end though, it just really doesn't matter and it just proves my previous post. They're going for the sensationalism. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's a manufactured controversy designed to stir people up. Just like the birther phenomenon, just like whatever it was in Bush's suit when he debated with Kerry. It's just like Fox getting caught encouraging and directing the tea party protests and making it seem like there were more there than there actually was. It's manufactured outrage.

The reality is that Romney is losing because he's boring and out of touch and he hasn't presented any concrete ideas and he needs Ryan to stir people up (gasp..more sensationalism vs substance, whoduvthunkit) It wouldn't matter if you caught MSNBC red-handed doctoring the video, it doesn't change the reality.

If anything, giving this controversy air time is still a net negative for Romney. You're just playing the same blame game the right is accusing Obama of. Doesn't make Romney look any better even if MSNBC held a press conference and admitted to a coverup. "And I would have won if it weren't for that meddling press" Ut oh Scooby Do!

You're picking at nits while the house is burning down all around you.

It's not an issue of left vs right, it's an issue of low ratings, or high ratings. end of story.

>> ^ReverendTed:

dead


Fixed and thanks.

Put your money to good use.

http://www.amazon.com/Scooby-doo-Phonics-Book-Reading-Program/sim/0439664799/2

http://www.amazon.com/The-Spelling-Book-Teaching-Children/dp/0872071928


>> ^bobknight33:

Well it is the truth.
Hear is another. Corporations have Millions and Millions of dollars are sitting idle afraid of OBAMA and his policies. If OBAMA wins that money will stay idle or be invested overseas. If OBAMA looses that money will be a title-wave of economic activity the likes we have not seen in years.

If you want a job vote Romney
If you want to keep you job vote Romney.
If you want to loose you job vote Obama.


>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^bobknight33:
Nothing wrong with what this man said.
Obama - Is always the same. Marxist Socialist Muslim loving anti American.
I rather go with a American flip flopper than a Marxist Socialist Muslim loving anti American.

yeah, because that argument is working out so well for the campaign. Why stop there? I think he has a black top hat and a furled mustache too. Damnit Obmaa! quit tying that damsel to the train tracks and cackling maniacally.
So what are you guys going to do when Romney loses? The Republicans have made it their singular goal to get rid of Obama, when that fails, and you know it's going to happen. That really makes the Reps seem impotent, doesn't it.

Nibbler/Scooby-Doo/Megatron/a gazillion other famous voices snarling into a garbage can? Cool!

Frank Welker

This really creeped me out. I don't mean the contraception ideas of this guy.
At First I thought they used an still image for him. I mean look at him not moving any muscle in his face, except his eyes for over 10 sec. It's like one of those old scooby doo wall pictures where the eyes followed your movements... Only much more scary, because it can talk.

Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent. People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three

No one is going to throw things at you. Reading is a very individual experience. Not everyone is going to or has to like the same stuff any more than they have to like the same clothes or food. Your tastes in literature are just different. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally felt that every Harry Potter book (after Azkaban) could be cut in half and it would have made a far better reading experience. But to some people that would be blasphemy. I got sick of JK "The Exposition" Rowling pulling the Scooby-Doo revelation of the "Old Man Jenkins du jour" mystery at the end of every book. She took chapters and chapters to do it - sometimes hundreds of pages - and she's so addicted to exposition that she invented entire plot devices just so she could do more of them (Pensieve, I'm lookin' at you). But to some readers that was good stuff. Me - I skimmed right past it. If Tolkien's descriptions of terrain, histories, and such bog you down then just skim 'em.

Sometimes I feel bad that some folks don't get the same soul-rush I get from LOTR's language though. But there it is. You either appreciate that aspect of a text or you don't. To some people JRR's perfect craftsmanship, literary power, and brightness of theme/setting have no value - just as Rowling's redundant expositions mean nothing to me.

When I walked out of my first showing of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I was pretty jazzed. I felt the movie (while having flaws) still managed to capture the essence of the story which was loyalty, honor, and sacrifice in the face of temptation and darkness. I heard some gal talking to her friend walking out of the movie saying how boring it was, how stupid parts were, and how the whole thing dragged out way longer than it should. Two different people with totally different opinions about the same thing. One person saw value, depth, and goodness. The other was just bored. Same logic applies to the book.

...trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors... With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own


Yes, anyone would look superb in serious, melodramatic Oscar bait like "A Leauge fo Thier Onw". Why did they think a comedian could summon the requisite gravitas for such a serious subject? Were they trying to make fun of women's sports? Is there no crying in baseball?

Castaway.. That movie sucked. Five minutes of movie 'packed' into two hours.


Yes, if only he did better at acting there would have been more plot. Maybe he could have acted out some lasers and explosions for you. I don't think Tom Hanks is super amazing - and certainly not always - but he did a good job with a hard role in Castaway. I mean, sure, obviously you could just drop Forrest Gump in there and it's the same film, but what can you do. He's only one man.

Why don't you tell us who the great, currently active actors are, friendo? I've heard people (seriously) suggest scenery-chewers like Pacino or Denzellle. Sean bloody full-retard Penn? Jack Nicholson? OK. I like Jack Nicholson. But he's one dude and he's just barely still alive let alone active.

For my money, the best performance of the last decade was Matthew Lillard in the Scooby Doo movie (whatever the Hell it was called). Not gonna lie: it wasn't a great film. But flawless performance by Lillard. He was Shaggy. What else can you ask for in an actor than completely inhabiting a difficult role like that? Drop frickin' Sidney Poitier or Orson Welles in that movie and sure maybe it becomes watchable, but I doubt they nail the role like Lillard did.

I also don't like the show - but mostly because it just isn't FUNNY. I've watched entire episodes and never so much as chuckled. It just doesn't have any real zip. The rebooted Scooby Doo cartoon has more humor in it. And what they are doing to Bugs Bunny is just a crime. He has gone from being a wise-guy protagonist to being a flavorless straight-man. He isn't funny at all.

But I have to disagree (a little) on Daffy. Daffy was only the 'clever, crazy' character for about a third of his animated shorts - and those were all in the beginning of his career as a character. After a while, he shifted from 'crazy/clever' into a variety of roles. Heck - he was even the 'bad guy' in a lot of the Speedy Gonzalez shorts.

I agree with you. I liked him a lot better when he was absolutely zonkers. Some of my favorite DD shorts are the ones where he is an obnoxious, loony pest and Porky Pig is the frustrated by what he's doing. Those were where Daffy was at his best.

The video is OK. The show really just blows chunks. It takes some of the funniest cartoon characters America ever created, and turns them into an episode of Seinfeld without the humor. Hopefully they figure this out at some point and fix it. I like the Road Runner / Wiley shorts though - they actually are funny and keep the characters true.

It's like watching a case scene from Scooby-Doo

i call em scoobie snacks

I did this morning. No response yet.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Contacting the person in charge of this very specific webdomain (chadely.com) would be an easy way to clear up this mystery. Or we could bust out the Scooby snacks and hop in the mystery mobile. Either way....