This is a great movie.

Noodle slurping scene. Delicious.

>> ^bobknight33:

And MSNBC isn't on it knees slurping OBAMA juice? Give me a break.




No, they are not.

Maybe they're not frothing at the mouth to regurgitate any half-baked horseshit conspiracy BREAKING NEWS story about muffins or cigarettes or secret UN camps like FNC, but MSNBC has close to as many negative stories about Obama as Fox does.

You probably won't read any of these statistics, since the little "liberal media" fantasy world you've created will crumble around your feet, but here you go:



(this is a study from August 2010, but it's no diff today, and maybe worse)

• During the past 90 days, MSNBC has run a total of 1,193 stories about Obama with only 44% being positive while 55% were negative towards the President. The positive to negative ratio is -11%

• In the past 90 days, FoxNews has run 2,064 stories about President Obama, 46% were overall positive and 53% overall negative. The ratio of Positive to Negative stories is -7%



Also, how the fuck does Anon expect to "shut down" Fox? I don't get it

>> ^bobknight33:

And MSNBC isn't on it knees slurping OBAMA juice? Give me a break.
>> ^TheFreak:
>> ^fuzzyundies:
Their comeuppance should be delivered by ... the power of free, informed markets.

Yeah, you let me know if you ever find any free and informed markets.
Fox is nothing but the proganda wing of the republican party preying on week minds. Take them down.

And MSNBC isn't on it knees slurping OBAMA juice? Give me a break.

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^fuzzyundies:
Their comeuppance should be delivered by ... the power of free, informed markets.

Yeah, you let me know if you ever find any free and informed markets.
Fox is nothing but the proganda wing of the republican party preying on week minds. Take them down.

That takes all the fun out of slurping the spaghetti.

I don't twirl the fork when I eat spaghetti anyway, too much time and work. I just get some on the fork, put it in my mouth and bite off the excess (you perverted fuckers are going to have fun quoting that one out of context).

>> ^Enzoblue:

In the book it seemed to me Loras loved Renly like a subject loved his king. I guess since Martin is onboard with this series that it may have been more. Definitely wasn't man gravy slurping gay though.


No, this is wrong. You should reread it. They are both gay in the books. It is meant to be something you have to puzzle out, like "J" is "L" and "R"'s son. On your reread, you will realize that George put in a ton of clues for you. Rainbow Guard. Loras never leaves Renly's side. Renly loves bright colors. Renly never consummated his marriage, and everyone believes it. Even things that Renly and Loras say to each other can be taken as one thing, but meant another. Speaking of that, many of the jabs and derisions that Littlefinger and Varys point in their direction are also clues.

It is easy to read Martin's books and miss how much he is putting into each sentence. It really comes out only after you have read them a few times. In some sense, he is a master at foreshadowing.

Anyway, my advice is to read it again.

In the book it seemed to me Loras loved Renly like a subject loved his king. I guess since Martin is onboard with this series that it may have been more. Definitely wasn't man gravy slurping gay though.

My two bits:


Characters: All perfect with the exception of Catelyn(not pretty enough), Littlefinger(just a bit off), Hodor(was young in book, not 50+), and Danerys(too doe eyed, but growing on me), Ilyn Payne. The others, especially the Stark boys, Tyrion, Viserys, Cersei and Varys were exceptionally casted. Gems like Aemon, Florel, Bron and Septa Mordane blew me away.

Adaptation: Expected mostly, story offs are reasonable for the most part, (the Others are now called White Walkers, etc).

The bad: the scaling I think, the hands tourney was no bigger than a Ren faire sideshow as was the Dothraki wedding. In the book they were epic. Also that wedding was done during the day and so was the birth of the dragons, which was off-putting. I didn't feel Drago's army was anywhere near 30k.

The downgrading of the dire wolves is disappointing, (they were such a huge spiritual role in the book), but they require CG and that's costly I guess. I hope they're saving that money for the dragons.


The petty: Having Tyrion apparently knocked out during his first battle, in book he fought bravely. Having Danerys immune to fire.

The Unforgivable: Having the knight of the Flowers gay for Renly, including a scene of him sucking him off, even dubbing in the slurping sounds. Pathetic. In book Loras might have been gay, but Renly was a playboy and even married.

All in all I was hoping for a breakthrough in cinematic skill, (like the Rings), but got the budget restrained version. I'll take it though.

The thing is people belive in this dumb fuck mith that people with lots of money worked for that money.

they allso belive that fincail succsess is a skilled or something that good people achive , they are totaly ignorent to the fact that the biggest fincail rewards are for people that work out how to best Game the system not people that best contribute to socity.

the perpouse of money in our modern system is to allow for the ruling few to remain in absalut comfort and power , Not as a covenant bartering tool as it was intended.

>> ^peggedbea:

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.
2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage)
>> ^bobknight33:
So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.

2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage) a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for.

>> ^bobknight33:

So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?

Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?

I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.

Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.

Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.

There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.

And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

>> ^quantumushroom:

The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.


You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.

I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".

Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Snopes.com

You should add it to speed-dial and also make a bookmark. You seem to always be contrary on any political subject.

Which causes me to believe you're nothing, but a reincarnated troll from Videosift past. If you're trying not to troll, bring up some factual evidence and not semantics. Your quote does NOTHING for this issue other than showing us that you are most likely: a birther, tea-partier, and Donald Trump lover (in just three weeks; you haven't even heard his bad stuff yet--he'll make everyone at the Republican debate look like a saint by comparison, by the time they finish with him)...

He thinks a TV show helps him. Who is he Sarah Palin? Even the hairpiece has a comb-over (forward). Atleast someone like Bruce Willis isn't paranoid about it; he took it in stride and made it a part of him, a strength.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Those who suspect Obama isn't a naturally born citizen by a mile. There's overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Providing a birth certificate won't easily end all speculation. If birthers won't accept the overwhelming facts that prove he was already out there, another piece of paper won't make one ounce of difference. Bill freakin' O'Reilly even dismisses birthers' claims. If this one simple fact can't be accepted by someone, how could you ever have a meaningful debate with them about anything?!

Look, we can debate economic theory all day, but the fact that Trump and other birthers get traction with this crap is absolute idiocy, and points to the acidic partisanship in this country. I used to joke that I bet that if a person from either the left or right said 1+1=2, the other would swear it didn't. I thought I was being humorously hyperbolic. It's not a joke anymore. That's what exactly is happening here. It's pathetic.

And your platitudes about tax policy don't help either. You're indicting progressive taxation and a basic social safety net. Both have been in place at a basic level since the New Deal, and you're claiming that can't work?! It most certainly can if done right. The US has been the most economically successful nation on earth for the majority of that time. It's basic historical fact you're arguing against to make an ideological point.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Oh yeah. America's economy is in the toilet because half of it is composed of worthless, parasitic bottom feeders 'slurping up entitlements'.

It couldn't be because the biggest corporations are paying less than zero income tax while they outsource jobs overseas, or that Wall Street scammed millions of people out of their retirement funds and homes, or that the Republican party has been puppets of the oil and military industrial complex for decades and has squandered billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to 'make the world a more democratic (read pro-American business) place'.

No, it's definitely the fault of the poor.