disqusgaaittdubb--disqus
NameWithheldByRequest
disqusgaaittdubb--disqus

And I never said you said I had to support or like her. I don't hate her, though, you're wrong there. I don't like her policies, there's a difference. I think you've misunderstood my point. Hillary Clinton was the second most disliked politician in the country, and according to some polls, the most distrusted

It wasn't just the Bush administration, who's foreign policy I opposed, but also Obama, who continued and expanded Bush's wars. The reason I made the points above is because Hillary Clinton supported each and every one of them. I don't think she's exclusively responsible for the mess the country's in, it was a

Yeah, like I said, on social issues, she was OK. On economic and foreign policy, not so much…

Her supporters indulged in a lot of wishful thinking. Hillary's poll numbers against Trump were always mediocre, averaging out to 1-2 percentage points during the campaign (although they tended to rise and fall, sometimes wildly). Given Trump's overall repugnant nature, this should have raised red flags. It didn't.

Her lack of male genitalia has nothing to do with it. I didn't support Mitt Romney or John McCain either, and I assume they had penises. I know it's difficult for Hillary supporters to wrap their minds around, but I objected to her neoliberal economic policies as well as her neoconservative foreign policies. On social

Not just her campaign, which I agree was absolute shit. No, she was the embodiment of the Establishment, with its neoliberal support for bogus "free trade" deals and outsourcing and deregulation (don't forget, it was Bill Clinton who deregulated the banks, gutted welfare, helped pass NAFTA, and so on), as well as the

I think most Americans would prefer not to invade and destroy Libya, bomb Syria, arm Saudi Arabia and support their genocidal war against the people of Yemen, "confront" Russia and China, overthrow leftist governments and install murderous right-wing dictatorships all over the Third World, and so on. If the only thing

Ironic. Hillary could only ever be a viable presidential candidate in a world of fantasy.

Why do bad things happen to vile pieces of shit?

"And, yes, because you were probably wondering, she will touch on the 2016 presidential election."

I've had previous encounters with Bogira, like about a year ago. And while typically I would forget about it because who gives a fuck what some random poster says. But this one stands out. She claimed to be some kind of academic, but knew nothing about the topic under discussion. Then, for whatever reason, after

"…even with the knowledge that it will eventually result in The Phantom Menace."

"I’m done with evil male characters who play god."

Yes, I agree. Sometimes the problem is that the filmmaker is himself a fanboy and wants to be as faithful to the source material as possible, which ends up hobbling the film. A good example of this IMO is Peter Jackson. I'm reminded of Jodorowsky's comment that he "raped" Dune when he adapted it (I, of course, condemn

If that's true, and it probably is, then maybe we should consider not adapting it to the screen. Quite honestly, every adaptation of Dune has foundered because of its unwieldy length and elaborate backstory. I suggest maybe making a prequel, where all the fluff and world-building is adequately explained before

If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong about the timeline here, but I read the Pizzolatto spent something like a decade conceiving and writing and rewriting season 1. If so, then we may need to give him a few more years to work on season 3…

Yes, I agree. It's a very simple story, but it's also weighed-down with a ton of fluff. Unfortunately, the fanboys will probably demand that any film adaptation must include a lot of it. What they fail to understand is that, while in-depth world-building works in a novel format, it's the kiss of death for a movie.

If Jackson could keep the running time of his movies under control, I might consider it. As it stands, I'm not prepared to pay good money for another Hobbit-like trilogy snooze-fest.

I don't have a problem with someone criticizing Jill Stein. I do have a problem with someone deliberately misrepresenting Stein's position, especially when such a smear is easily disproven by simply looking at what Stein has said. What's disheartening is seeing so-called "leftists" defend Oliver's smear or trying to

See ya, troll.