Cowboy Bebop got me into the Seatbelts, FLCL got me into the Pillows. Good music and good anime always go together.

Is that voiced over by the cowboy guy from the Big Lebowski?

And...sausages.

Did not see many movies this year, so I've only got 6 total on my list, which you should be thankful for, because I can't write film reviews worth a damn. Thanks for posting your list Sarzy, you've got great taste.


The Good

1) Drive - Awesome, like a more commercial, modern day Vanishing Point. Minimalist, tightly paced male action-fantasy with art-house nuance and an effectively simple score by Angelo Badalamenti. A real human being... and a real hero....

2) Super 8 - A nice homage to the Speilberg of the 80s, with some violent Abramsisms tossed into the mix. Not as deep as Spielberg, but still a great time at the theater.


The Bad

1) Harry Potter: Part 7: Part 2: Part 1 - booooooooooring

2) Melencholia - boooooooooooring. Remember when Lars Von Trier used to make good movies like Dogville and Dancer in the Dark? No more. The movie focuses on a loathsome, uninteresting family during the last few days of the Earth's existence. Very little happens. Then they die. The opening credits are beautiful and have more to say than the entire rest of the film.

3) Cowboys & Aliens - Complete failure to combine some tried and tested elements (The Western, Sci Fi, Harrison Ford and Jon Favrau).


The Ugly

1) Sucker Punch - It's a bold, beautiful, ambitious and highly imaginative disaster. Ridiculously stupid story. If you like terrible movies, this is one to put on your list. Supposedly the directors cut is even better/worse.

That guy chased it from the back of the endzone and stopped it on the 10 yard line! Why can't the Cowboys players show some drive?

Manvel HS played Aledo HS this past weekend at Cowboys stadium. Got stuck behind the caravan driving to dallas.

Well someone doesn't want to see he cowboys get to the playoffs...

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^braindonut:

Some people watch too many cowboy movies and dream of getting to play hero... I'm surprised he even called 911.

He wanted to make sure his "heroism" was properly recorded for posterity.

Some people watch too many cowboy movies and dream of getting to play hero... I'm surprised he even called 911.

And the absolute best part?? He's wearing the identical coat that one of the gay cowboys wore in Brokeback Mountain. Look it up. True story.

>> ^quantumushroom:

AHEM.
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Entertaining? Yah.
Cute? Don't think so.

That's what I said about your mom.


HAY OOOH !



You link to a poster of a smiling cowboy with his boots up, that speaks for itself.

mamas don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

I don't understand why they have to fire him...just enforce the anti-escalation policy. It's not like the criminals are going to say "gee, they did fire that guy who shot back at us...maybe that Walgreens isn't so bad a company, we shouldn't try to rob from them again.

Just sends a shitty message, The defense attorney makes a great point. Submit and risk getting killed or get fired and lose your livelihood.

Of course, carrying and firing the weapon creates the same risks though too. I really want to support concealed carry, but for every one person who would use conceal carry responsibly, there are ten fucking idiots who would do something stupid. Too many fucking wannabe cowboys and heroes