while there's no doubting Snyders technical skill, he really has no original ideas at all. This movie played like it was written by a 14 year old boy. Let's have hot chicks! with guns! fighting samurai! with more guns! and dragons!

Honestly, I went into it expecting mindless fun, so my standards weren't high. But not only was it boring, it was downright creepy, like watching an old man hit on a teenage girl.

edit: actually while I'm on this soapbox.... the costumes on the lead actress were borderline paedophilia. And she was rubbish.

Again, mostly teenage girls listening to over-produced and under-composed music corporation products and less actual artists.. Seems to be the norm in all of these videos.

I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.
Like I said, I don't like choosing a side when we have only half the story, but common sense leads me to side against the two officers body-slamming a skinny old dude. If he had just thrown somebody from the scooter, where is that person? If he had a weapon, why are the officers not seen putting an object into evidence?
The reaction of the crowd and the behavior of the officers after the take-down indicates that the worst thing that the guy could have done was mouth off and maybe take a weak-ass swing at one of them.
I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but you gotta come up with something realistic. I was the one throwing out possibilities for the video where a cop tackles a teenage girl, but this crosses even my line of acceptable police precaution.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.


He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.

Like I said, I don't like choosing a side when we have only half the story, but common sense leads me to side against the two officers body-slamming a skinny old dude. If he had just thrown somebody from the scooter, where is that person? If he had a weapon, why are the officers not seen putting an object into evidence?

The reaction of the crowd and the behavior of the officers after the take-down indicates that the worst thing that the guy could have done was mouth off and maybe take a weak-ass swing at one of them.

I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but you gotta come up with something realistic. I was the one throwing out possibilities for the video where a cop tackles a teenage girl, but this crosses even my line of acceptable police precaution.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wait, this isn't a bouncy, white teenage girl. I'm confused.

Illogical and prejudiced, yes. And also arbitrary and rather dumb in how you desperately try to rationalize your discrimination.

You imply that gay people have the right to marry since they can still marry a person of the opposite sex. But having the right to marry means exactly having the right to marry who you want. This is where you should have used your brain, applied your reasoning to other situations, and pondered if it actually made sense. For example, suppose black people were not allowed to marry each other, and the powers that be tried to pull the same trick you just pulled by saying black people can still marry any morbidly obese white person they want. Would black people have the right to marry? Absolutely not. Suppose a government claims its people have freedom of speech since it does not preempt any attempts at speaking; instead it just goes around, after the fact, and punishes anybody who said something it dislikes. Do the people have freedom of speech? No.

The issue of definition is a non-issue. Any language that has a population of native speakers is undergoing constant evolution. You must be religious, since you think words are sacred, and apparently magical. (They must be magical, if words defined in one age have the ability to correctly dictate morality into the unknown future.) Again, we can imagine this applied to race, i.e. marriage defined to be between "a white man and a white woman".

You seem to imply you'd be okay with it if there was a different word and corresponding laws. I doubt that, it sounds like a grasp for a rationalization. But lets suppose that actually happened. The end result would be exactly the same. The vast majority of the population would continue to use the word "marriage" when talking about same sex unions. The people against gay marriage would be the most likely to use the word "marriage" because their real concern is the act, not the word; the issue of sacred word definition was only ever an excuse, one which they would not want to give up. They would claim that legalizing gay marriage under the phrase "civil unions" was merely a bureaucratic trick, and rightfully so since the body laws concerning straight marriage and gay civil unions would be identical except for the phrase used to name the act. And after a few decades, the dictionary publishers would update their definitions to match the language people actually use: mar riage (mar-ij) n. the state in which two people are formally united for the purpose of living together(often in order to raise children) and with certain legal rights and obligations toward each other. (straight forward adaptation from the Oxford American Dictionary)

And finally, whether it is a choice or not has absolutely no bearing on the morality of it. All that matters, in general, is whether an act causes harm to non-consenting parties. Gay marriage does not. That means, as far as morality is concerned, being gay or straight is merely an issue of aesthetics. Therefore, you getting irked over gay marriage is quite similar to a teenage girl, who upon seeing another teen girl whose shirt and pants do not match, becomes irate that another person would dare wear something that she personally dislikes. Please grow the fuck up.



>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Aniatario:
"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"
^Right..

Who's stopping gays from getting married?
Truth is, nobody is stopping them from getting married. There is no test or query when getting married. Nowhere in Canada or the US are you asked if you are gay or not when getting married.
Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?
Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.
If the problem is wanting similar legal privileges for a union between two men or two women as there exists for marriages, then pursue changes to the law, not the definition.
I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.

I agree with what you are saying, particularly the part about Fox accidentally admitting they have chosen sides, but I think you are misunderstanding what Jon said. He didn't deny that the violent political rhetoric may have had some part in this. To me it seemed that he was saying it is tempting to draw a "straight line" between the two things, but we need to remember that no matter how much our gut tells us it is so, we don't have evidence to assign blame for the shootings to anyone but the crazy PoS shooter.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I think he's wrong about drawing a line of causation.
-=Hypothetical analogy incoming=-
Assume we've got a set of teenage girls,
Girl A at school dislikes Girl B
Girl A starts spreading rumors about Girl B
Girl C is emotionally and mentally unstable
Girl A randomly comes into contact with Girl C and passes along said rumors
Girl C confronts Girl B about the rumors and a fight breaks out because, again, Girl C is unstable
There was no way for Girl A to know that Girl C would follow through in the way she did. Regardless, Girl A started a series of events that eventually led to Girl B getting beat up.
Ok, try the same thing with Fox pundits who are basically promoting slanted and ethically unsound journalism (aka LIES).
Fox = Girl A
Whoever is in their cross-hairs (pun intended) = Girl B
Random Crazies = Girl C
Now before anyone on the right gets on my case about this analogy, consider this: The CEO of Fox announced he wanted his pundits to quote "Tone down the rhetoric and hope the other side does too." How can an objective news organization have "a side?" It can't.
What we really REALLY need is good, honest, journalism. The problem is people dont know how to recognize what credible journalism is, and fear usually trumps intellect so the emotional hoopla that Fox jams down people's throats is gobbled up like the tripe it is.

I think he's wrong about drawing a line of causation.

-=Hypothetical analogy incoming=-

Assume we've got a set of teenage girls,
Girl A at school dislikes Girl B
Girl A starts spreading rumors about Girl B
Girl C is emotionally and mentally unstable
Girl A randomly comes into contact with Girl C and passes along said rumors
Girl C confronts Girl B about the rumors and a fight breaks out because, again, Girl C is unstable

There was no way for Girl A to know that Girl C would follow through in the way she did. Regardless, Girl A started a series of events that eventually led to Girl B getting beat up.

Ok, try the same thing with Fox pundits who are basically promoting slanted and ethically unsound journalism (aka LIES).

Fox = Girl A
Whoever is in their cross-hairs (pun intended) = Girl B
Random Crazies = Girl C

Now before anyone on the right gets on my case about this analogy, consider this: The CEO of Fox announced he wanted his pundits to quote "Tone down the rhetoric and hope the other side does too." How can an objective news organization have "a side?" It can't.

What we really REALLY need is good, honest, journalism. The problem is people dont know how to recognize what credible journalism is, and fear usually trumps intellect so the emotional hoopla that Fox jams down people's throats is gobbled up like the tripe it is.

/me screams like a *teenage girl too.

This is so mind-blowing I'm going to pee any second now...

At first I'm thinking WTF?!? big time, but towards the end I realised that this is just a recruitment propaganda piece. I bet a lot of teenage girls or their parents would welcome such a glamorous opportunity to advance their lifestyle. As for the reality once they're signed up, guess it'll be like any other military training. I doubt they'll get to be dropped from the sky on a mobile traffic direction platform during their careers, in fact I doubt we'll be seeing common usage of those platforms if indeed we ever see them again at all!

your description of the pink goop gave me images of dr. who rushing to save some amorphous alien race with intents that are both benign and malicious, but wholly misunderstood.


In reply to this comment by srd:
I'm very suspicious of pink goop. It may become alive and sentient in your body. Or creep out of the stomach right into your arteries where it will breed.

I keep having this mental image of Calvin (of Hobbes) at lunch in school telling Susy that it's Protozoa Spread with extra Amoeba Juice...

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i think it's marshmallow cream. possible aerated marshmallow cream. but it's certainly something i don't think you should expose your bowels too.

In reply to this comment by srd:
Well, I've seen the fluff, and to be honest, I still couldn't tell you what it is. Except seriously, deeply disturbing.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
it ended in small children crying and teenage girl having an exasperate piss attack because I DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE HELL FLUFF WAS and a 4 year old can't explain it.

I'm very suspicious of pink goop. It may become alive and sentient in your body. Or creep out of the stomach right into your arteries where it will breed.

I keep having this mental image of Calvin (of Hobbes) at lunch in school telling Susy that it's Protozoa Spread with extra Amoeba Juice...

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i think it's marshmallow cream. possible aerated marshmallow cream. but it's certainly something i don't think you should expose your bowels too.

In reply to this comment by srd:
Well, I've seen the fluff, and to be honest, I still couldn't tell you what it is. Except seriously, deeply disturbing.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
it ended in small children crying and teenage girl having an exasperate piss attack because I DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE HELL FLUFF WAS and a 4 year old can't explain it.

i think it's marshmallow cream. possible aerated marshmallow cream. but it's certainly something i don't think you should expose your bowels too.

In reply to this comment by srd:
Well, I've seen the fluff, and to be honest, I still couldn't tell you what it is. Except seriously, deeply disturbing.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
it ended in small children crying and teenage girl having an exasperate piss attack because I DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE HELL FLUFF WAS and a 4 year old can't explain it.

Well, I've seen the fluff, and to be honest, I still couldn't tell you what it is. Except seriously, deeply disturbing.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
it ended in small children crying and teenage girl having an exasperate piss attack because I DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE HELL FLUFF WAS and a 4 year old can't explain it.

marshmallow fluff is only a thing in the up north.
in the south we don't touch that shit, unless its to make fudge or rice krispie treats. and we don't call it fluff.


i remember moving in with my aunt in connecticut (briefly) as a teenager and babysitting my cousins and having them ask me to make them peanut butter and fluff sandwiches. it ended in small children crying and teenage girl having an exasperate piss attack because I DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE HELL FLUFF WAS and a 4 year old can't explain it.