Am I the only one who saw that as clearly bad acting? Like someone play acting drunk and doing a poor job?

I invite you to look at the BAC tables:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

At over 0.30 this dude should have been unconscious or having trouble standing, and his motor skills seemed fine. Now, some hardcore alcoholics are able to have higher BAC with less lethal effects from decades of drinking, but I'm pretty sure this was just a gimmick to portray Ron Paul supporters as drunks.

Watch him walk at the end, and his ability to lean back with arms cuffed behind his back. There is no way he was 0.3 BAC.

>> ^budzos:

I have to reply to this. According to YOUR logic, we should all just eat McDonald's or NASA food-paste all the time, rather than steaks or natural foods. And we would all be gourmands. It's all food and one should never be on a high horse, right?
Some people might like to eat McDonald's from time to time, or all the time in some cases. The honest ones will admit that it's shit and is not in fact a steak nor does it have any of the potential of something not so rigidly bound by shitty material, shitty standards and an isolated context, etc. And the people who NEVER eat McDonald's are quite right when they say McDonald's is SHIT FOOD even though they're not trying to insult or feel superior to the people who eat it.
So, relax. Wrestling is idiotic. That doesn't mean I think you or any wrestling fan is idiotic. That's just your ego (and possibly your stupidity).
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^budzos:
"For those who say that wrestling is fake."
But, wrestling IS fake. Why does every wrestling fan argue a straw man against this point? We're not saying "wrestling is a figment of your imagination" you [name-calling is bad]. We're saying there's about as much point to watching wrestling as there is to watching little boys playfight in the front yard. Except I'm pretty sure watching my two nephews tussle is less brain damaging.
Listen, wrestling fans: We REALIZE they're actually jumping around and stuff. We're not accusing all wrestlers of being robots, or holograms. We mean the FIGHT IS FAKE. We realize it might hurt to do some of those moves. Those FAKE moves.

Then using this logic why match movies? We KNOW they are fake so there's no point right? Guess what? The story is fake, just like wrestling. The acting is, well fake just like in wrestling. And the fights in a movie? You guessed it, FAKE! JUST LIKE IS WRESTLING! Get off your high horse pal. It's entertainment! If you don't like it, then don't watch it. But don't look down your nose at those of us who do enjoy watching it because you're no better or smarter than we are.



Wrong. That's not anywhere near "according to my logic" sorry to say. Where did I say we should all watch wrestling all the time? I said some people like to enjoy it and we that do don't need pretentious ass holes looking down at their noses at us because of the form of entertainment we chose to enjoy. One man's trash and all that.

I never said it wasn't crap either. In fact I agreed that it was fake and pointed out that it's no more fake than the movies and TV shows every one enjoys. I don't need to relax. I'm sick and tired of all the jerks on this site who think they are the quintessential "experts" on what type of music, movies, TV shows, etc is/are good or worthy of their godlike attention and everything else is crap. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean WE ALL have to not like it. Say you liked dub step for instance. I don't really consider that music. But you don't see me going around pointing it out every time someone posts a dub step music video on the sift, do ya?

I also find it hilarious how everyone rails on how fake wrestling is, but fake fights in movies and TV are perfectly OK to watch. Makes no fucking sense. All wresting is is bad skits with bad acting and some fake movie/stunt fighting. Some of us like it. We as fans KNOW it's fake. They (the wrestlers) KNOW it's fake, and they (the wrestlers) KNOW that we KNOW it's fake. But part of the fun is seeing how good at FAKING it they are. Nice move insulting my intelligence. Class act you are.

The claim for Arabs right to the land is stronger because they did not leave the area (as a group). They are also not as diluted genetically from their original ethnicity(s) (shared with Jews, who are of multiple ethnicities, but mainly of Arab decent).
Zionism is the support of the Jewish state, not necessarily the support for it's expansion (although that support is strong in Israel). That means all Israelites are Zionists, unless they are traitors to their own country and are working to end the Jewish state, there aren't many if any of those people in Israel, they would be stoned to death. I'm not sure what definition of Zionist you are working with, it must be different from mine. Not all Zionists are expansionists, and there is nothing in the word that requires poor treatment of others.
To answer Boise_Lib: Because these children are required to serve in the army, actively supporting the state, they are Zionist, whether by choice or by birth. They have the right to leave AFTER their service, or before if their parents leave Israel, so like any child, they are at the whim of their parents and forced into their belief system whether they believe in it or not. This means I was partially wrong in my statement and I will revise it..., all adult Israelis are there 100% by choice.
I love the 'you are just wrong, I can't be bothered to tell you why' mindset. It really doesn't help your argument or help sway my ideas, it gives the impression that you really don't have anything to point at as 'wrong' you just don't like what you read. If you really can point out any inaccuracies I would like to know so I can learn or clarify, but I think you are simply reading in what you want to argue against.
I'm flabbergasted by your idea that (to paraphrase) 'we only send $2.5 BILLION a year, that's not much'. It shows clearly that you aren't being logical or reasonable in the least. If we are going broke fast (and we are), why should we be sending 2.5 BILLION to ANYONE? Especially if your contention, that it isn't a large part of their budget and they don't need it is correct, why bother sending them a dime? There are certainly others we could send that money to and do FAR more good, like Africa.
Anti-Zionism might help, anti-Semitism probably not so much. Pro-Zionism is certainly hurting things by supporting one sides expansion while ignoring the atrocities that causes the Palestinians. As I previously wrote, anti-Semitism often is a by product of anti-Zionism, where the anger at the Zionists is misapplied to only and to all Jews. Therefore, Zionism creates anti-Semitism, rightly or wrongly. I am not an anti-Semite, I am an anti-Zionist...being human, sometimes the two are confused or convergent but not intentionally on my part.
The BEST solution in my eyes is a diplomatic one that stops the expansion and solidifies borders, and one that gets us OUT of the conflict as a nation (if the nutjob born agains want to send their own money, that's their business). I don't see that as the ONLY solution, and obviously neither does Israel, since they are not negotiating in any serious way, and instead continue to expand and provoke, expand and provoke. The Palestinians on the other hand have been pushing for solidified borders for decades and continuously agree to them only to have "settlers" (invaders) move into the land as soon as the treaty is signed. This gives them the moral high ground to me, but does not mean we should be involved.>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^newtboy:
Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.
Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.
Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.
There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

@newtboy

"Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad acts are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?" Yes, we can definitely agree on that.

@chilaxe and @mxxcon thank you for the supplementary information.

>> ^newtboy:

Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.

Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.

Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.

There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Does her MBA at Villanova constitute a Masters in Bad Acting?

The bad acting is all that gives this away. I thought the jokes were on par with the actual show.

When CGI is used right, it is awesome. With new facial mo cap techniques it can even look almost lifelike. But yes there are certainly times (to often these days) that CG is used as a crutch to carry a film, such as the newer Starwars movies. Actors spent so much time on green sets where cars were just green foam blocks they sat on and they spend almost their entire time talking to nothing, it produced only bad acting and painfully unrealistic CG characters.

I think Avatar was a success because there was very little 'actor to cg' interaction. Most the areas were sets instead of green screen so actors could immerse themselves into their part much better. Sure there was plenty of green screen in the movie. The forest areas, riding on the raptors,etc but it was just the right mix.

I'm to much an old school B movie fan. If you can do something with actual sets and miniatures, with only CG where you really cant do it otherwise, you'll have a much better movie than actors spending all their time sitting on blue foam talking to empty space.

I'm thinking fake??? Kinda looks like bad acting...and why would bathtub guy allow his friend to actually call for help?

I know what you mean. I think it is the Drama Club/Theatrical Persona. Those kids sometimes never stop "actingperforming". Make that "bad acting".


>> ^DarkenRahl:

Something about her rubs me the wrong way, but kudos to her for being comfortable in her own skin. That's tough for everybody.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials, Philippe Mora' to 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, Werewolf, Philippe Mora' - edited by BoneRemake

Tags for this video have been changed from 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials' to 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials, Philippe Mora' - edited by BoneRemake

Tags for this video have been changed from 'howling 3, III, bad acting' to 'howling 3, III, bad acting, Imogen Annesley, 1987, marsupials' - edited by BoneRemake

This is retarded.

From what I've seen and read, this woman is basically trying to turn peoples fetishes into a stage show.

Frequent masturbation, defication and urination on-stage, coupled with naked dancing and bad acting.

She's not trying to be an artist, she's trying to be famous. She lacks talent, therefore she draws a crowd by doing stupid things that you'd generally only see on special websites.

I'm not against a person doing those things, but don't put it on a stage and try to pass it off as art... at least not theatre art. I go to a theatre, I expect to see something of value and merit. Someone who can sing, dance, or deliver lines in a meaningful way.

This qualifies more as an upscale porn-shoot.