disqusgaaittdubb--disqus
NameWithheldByRequest
disqusgaaittdubb--disqus

Well, first of all, I don't have anything to prove to you or anybody else. Sorry. And second, I never claimed that anything I've done has had any great impact on anything. And, finally, I don't care what Oliver does, only to the view of some of his fans that it has any significance in the real world. If you find

Sure, if you want. The difference is, I don't have a gaggle of fans fellating me on a daily basis and shouting to the heavens just how impactful I am. In fairness to Oliver, he's said on multiple occasions that nothing he says or does should be taken seriously, because he's merely a comedian. Truer words were never

Geraldo must be quaking in his boots. I remember when Oliver went after Trump during the election, and we all know how that turned out.

It's not like the comic goes away by the movie being made.

Once again, I have to ask, where is this mania for adapting comic books coming from? Do we really need these adaptations? Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the Dark Knight Returns and Year One movies, but if they'd never existed, I would be fine with that. Is every work of literature we love doomed to become a

Sure, but, in the past, he sold the film rights to works he owns, and he got paid by the studios for those rights. (I was being somewhat hyperbolic in my previous comment to emphasize a point.) Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic to Moore's position, but he wasn't shy about selling such rights to movie studios in

Yeah, I get your point. However, as a film, Watchmen is enjoyable, if a rather shallow and superficial take on the graphic novel. That fanboys should get their panties in a bunch over such a film is silly. I prefer Alan Moores' attitude to these adaptations: tell anyone who'll listen you disown these films as you walk

What is it with all the Watchmen hate? Seriously, I am a fan of Moore's work, and absolutely love the graphic novel, but I also never expected any film to live up to it's source material. As a result, when I saw Snyder's adaptation, I was pleasantly surprised, not because it was a brilliant adaptation of the graphic

She'd better hurry. The Blaze—and conservative media in general—is hemorrhaging money, kept afloat by billionaire ideologues' largess for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with good business sense. But even Glenn Beck can't beg enough money from his wealthy benefactors to keep producing his idiocy. This

Yeah, that was definitely something I didn't foresee. Because it's fucking stupid. And while we're on the topic of stupid, so is riding into a shoot-out on a horse. I mean, shooting from horseback is insanely difficult, but riding headlong into the middle of a heavily armed gang of cold-blooded killers is a recipe for

Rather, many work hours spent perusing TV Tropes…

As soon as I saw the coffin, I knew that Sasha had taken the poison. When I saw the Scavengers inside the walls of Alexandria, I thought, why would Rick trust this group to let them come into the town? I knew that they would turn on the Alexandrians, because the show can't kill Negan just yet. As for Rick and Karl

Sure. You're right. But if you're doing stuff like funding social programs, it also falls under the rubric of "social issues." Anything could potentially fall into the economics category, like e.g. foreign policy or a military buildup. IMHO, issues like social security or universal health care are better thought of as

I agree with you about the mainstream media and voter suppression, but I'd also argue gerrymandering, the repeal of the Voting Rights Act as well as the Citizens United decision that allowed the campaign to be flooded with dark money had a lot to do with Trump's victory. I don't think the FBI's reopening the email

You can look up Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record for yourself. The fact that you can't muster even a minimal rebuttal suggests that you have no idea what she's actually done. And, by the way, if RT is reporting this, and I wouldn't know because I don't watch it, unlike you apparently, then that doesn't mean

Whereas your talking points are straight out of the McCarthyite handbook. And if by "pro-Russian" you mean I'm against starting World War Three, then, you're goddamn right, tovarishch

I think it might have something to do with the fact that not very many people know her record. If you bring up specific policies that she's supported over the years, a lot of people are shockingly ignorant. You don't know how many times I've had to inform Hillary's supporters of her policies…

Hillary never saw a military intervention she didn't love. She supported the NATO attack on Serbia in the '90s; the Afghan and Iraq wars after 9/11; Libya, which you already mentioned; the coups in Paraguay and Honduras; the coup in Ukraine; she supported radical jihadists trying to overthrow Assad in Syria, and

I could say the same for yours, except it doesn't even contain slogans, let alone specifics.

Sure. If she'd run a competent campaign, and if she hadn't alienated Bernie supporters, and if she hadn't picked neoliberal Tim Kaine as her running mate, and… Well, I'll just say that, as the campaign progressed, it was obvious to a lot of people that Hillary was making a lot of serious mistakes, and that she and her