You're a tool. Shrek is 90 minutes of lame pop-culture gags and poor fairy-tale satire packed into an over-expensive CGI animated film. Go read Terry Pratchett for a real laugh, and Toy Story for comedy/story with real resonance.
This IS a strawman, but you still touch on something that bears responding to. You DO realize that modern American Conservatism, as incarnate in the Republican party is a total abortion? Republicans are no more against "put(ting) that responsibility in the hands of a large powerful central government so they don't have to worry about it" than Democrats are. Indeed Bush himself has exponentially increased the power or the executive branch, the discretionary spending powers of said branch and the overall size of the government to an outrageous extent as has never been seen before. That's a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
HAHAHA Not fuckin funny ass. This joke has never been funny. It's an old joke. It's also in poor taste. It's also not funny. Have I mentioned how old and not funny it is? Cause it's both of those things with a vengance. I always wonder, what kind of un-funny dumb fuck pulls out that old chestnut and waves it around with an idiot grin on their face? Only an idiot dumb fuck I'm guessing.
OLD. BORING. NOT FUNNY. And yet you got modded so high. Tacky bastards.
No, dipshit, that's not my "opinion". That's the facts of the case, te result of several month of investigative work unveiled in a CONGRESSIONAL HEARING. These are the facts CONCEEDED TO by a mostly Republican comission. http://www.9-11commission.gov/ FREAKIN' READ THE THING. It's right there in pdf format. Then, read the transcripts of the pundit shows from the sunday following the release of the report. There you'll see several dominant Republican Senators pleading Mea Culpa, blaming the 'intelligence' community for inadequacies and mistakes. There was NO working relationship between Osama and Iraq. End of fuckin' story. As for as "connection"? Maybe you havn't seen the famous photo of rumsfeld and repransentatives of the Taliban shaking hands. Many countries including ours have been approached by terrorist regimes. IRAQ did not support them.
WOW. You REALLY didn't RTFA did you? One of the most clear indigtments against the war that once and for all called "bullshit" on the Iraq/Osama connection and YOU manage to completely misread the damn thing. AND you get moderated a 5. Clearly by other fuckwits that didn't read it also. LISTEN CAREFULLY: There was 'contact' but NEVER ANY DEALS. NO DEAL, NO REASON FOR WAR.
I LOVE rhetoric. It's so flexible. One minute a Republican claims Democrats are clearly all fatcats. The next, they're not, and they hate the rich. The next they eat children but the next they support the creation of welfare children to kill the children of the rich.
You're confused and full of it. The republican party has gone so far afield from traditional conservatism they can't find an ideology that isn't a reflexive attack.
Wow./. is the only place where pure anecdotal evidence could possibly get modded this high. You've really convinced me: Ritalin is useless and a help to noone. See, I know this now because there was this one guy on/. who was a zombie, and he said it was useless.
You had poor dosage. And there are other drugs that could help or supplement.
No, it's a lame boring stereotype. Lame and boring as in, not funny, told a zillion times, takes a retard to laugh at, makes teller look like an asshole any way you cut it.
It's a stereotype because that's what the word 'stereotype' means. It's a:
"A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image."
and
"One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type. "
Look, now you made me get out the dictionary. Does calling it a stereotype make it any less true that many asians have problems speaking "L"'s? No, but it does make the point that it is a generalization... of lame, boring, unfunny one.
Consider this. The backlash against Political Correctness is so fervent that people are litterally twisting the truth to justify LAME FUCKIN' JOKES and other asshole behavior. I believe that PC culture is often a form of censorship however. That's why I believe people that tell LAME FUCKIN' JOKES should be told that they're being un-funny and should shut the fuck up for that reason alone.
I read down-thread a little. Something I've come to believe about jokes like these. It's not that the parent is guilty of un-PC behavior punishable by death, but that these kinds of jokes are rarely funny. This gag was no exception.
The problem here are crap jokes based on lame, boring stereotypes or generalizations. Not necessarily the stereotyping or generalization themseleves.
I submit as proof : the Wayan Brothers; entire body-of-work, 99% of Jamie Fox's comedy abortions, the plain racist comedies of yesteryear.
Is it likely people are confusing their knee-jerk reactions to a lame fuckin' gag with a sense of moral outrage?
That really wasn't his point. He's clearly spouting tired conservative rhetoric. Listen people. Noones going to jail for hate crimes that weren't racially motivated. It doesn't happen. It's a bullshit 'scarecrow' that 'enemies of political correctness' use to make it sound like reverse discrimination is enslaving white america.
The belief that 'hate crimes' are indistinguishable from 'ordinary crime' is predicated on a lack of common fucking sense. Yes, It's possible to commit a crime independant of racial motivation. But it's almost always obvious when race is a motivation. It's like porn. You know it when you see it. It's not just a 'thought' crime.
Yours is likely a reaction to percieved (and imagined) injustices wroght by "political correctness run amok" and NOT actual case examples, legal theory, or sound common sense.
You don't really know anything about homosexuals do you? Ir only what you read in your Church's hate-speech pamphlets. Homosexuals do not hate heterosexuals. This is the oldest, stupidest stereotype. It's not true. It is an ignorant generalization. In fact, it's so patently inane, that repeating it only makes you look more like a dumb-fuck. Open your eyes man. Shit, even if you watch some 'homosexual propaganda' (as you radicals call it), you'll see that there's never more than a toungue in cheek joke about 'despising' straights.
Goddamn man. Are you really that naive?
What you need is a paradigm shit in your thinking. Consider: if, by your logic, homosexuality is a 'disease' (a truly despicable theory), then, by extension so too is heterosexuality a 'mental disorder'. It's a 'setting', a 'parameter', a 'feature'. Some people are set one way or the other just like they might be kind or impolite. And YES Sexuality is a liquid thing. It can be changed and does. In fact, healthy people might have a wide variety of sexual tastes. But hey..Congradulations. You've just belittled all forms of human sexuality by calling this amazing, adaptive, beautiful thing we call sexual preference a 'disease'. You've now marginalized the entire human population, straight or gay.
The point: there is NO right or wrong when two people who love each other, that are of age, unrelated, and willing make love. THAT's God's plan.
Why don't you seek immunization for your 'disease' - ignorance.
That happens to be a completely impossible action. It's also hypocricy. Sexual orientation that are so innate (be it genetic, chemical, or uprbringing) that hating the sin is paramount to hating the sinner. Were the tables turned, and you were being called hate-filled slurs for your heterosexuality... something you likely NEVER had any decision in, you'd call it hate speech.
"Fairies" is hate speech. It is directed toward the 'sinner' not the sin. Jesus' message is that of love and understanding. He was also the new covenant and should be a beacon for Christian as how to act... not as how to judge... you know... lest you be judged? The new covenant should provide the way to deepened understanding of Christ's vision of the world - that of love.
You use Jesus as a reason to spread hate. How do you think he would feel about that?
Creationism is science like my ass is presidential material.
Creationism is not empirical. It is not repeatable. It is not provable. It is not math. It is not researched by millions of scientists the world over, at the cost of trillions of man hours and trilliions of dollars. It is not science. It will never be science. What it espouses is purely religious hum-drum that has been prettied up by contrarian ass wipes that fancy themselves scientists. Not by actual scientists (read: people with impressive degrees and the published works to prove them)
Polemics For Dummies anyone? PUHLEASE! I'm at best a moderate and often a social liberal (although, if my girlfriend had her way, I'd be voting for Nader *shuddeR*) Your partisan BS is stinking up this thread. Deal with the issue at hand, make up a response that is actually... I dunno, A RESPONSE? What I demonstrated : A calm, rational response to the coffee house musing of one political correspondent. What the parent thread brought to the conversation : Jack and Shit. It's not THEM vs. YOU. Liberal/Conservative = All in your head....
Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again
on
Japanese Balloon Battle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
RTFA. Really, the author CLEARLY notes that the balloon incident is clearly an arguable reason for wartime censorship. He's trying to give some context to the debate. He never makes it "comprable" to the abuse scandals. It's always clear that he's speaking to the "public memory" about these issues. Despite what snarky/. history buffs believe, these kinds of things aren't widely remembered. They SHOULD be remembered BECAUSE they give context.
I think you've suffered a "catastrophic" failure in readin comprehension. You're one of those people that forget, 1/2 through reading anything that they author CLEARLY stated his intentions and goals in writing such a document.
Here's a counter example: Nutrition info from McDonald's
Spurlock makes a point about how it IS available on the web page, but also points out how most of the developed world DOESN'T have internet access. Yours is a typical "wired"/. mentality. You think the whole world has access and is saavy enough? His random sampling of stores has shown that the stores either obscure or DON'T carry health info.
As to your other responses: Spurlock was NOT going for the absurd. There are ACTUALLY people who eat fast food like that. Obviously you'll refuse to believe that because you're a shill and naive, but there are many people WITHOUT the common sense, or the will power to STOP eating. STILL Spurlock NEVER denies the role of personal responsibility.
Spurlock's 'rule' about supersizing was NOT to imitate a mindless consumerism. It was to show that MCD's has NO qualms about irresponsibly shoving their toxic sludge at consumers in amounts that noone should eat.
I'll read up on this Soso Whaley. Spurlock himself interviews a man who eats an obscene amount of Big Macs and isn't gratuitously obese. Why isn't he unhealthy? These kinds of things are genetic as well. But you say "common sense" dictates that an all McD's diet is unhealthy, sure, then what kind of message is Whaley sending? Furthermore, what interest could YOU possibly have in defending a company that knowingly does shite like this? Is it just some knee-jerk conservative reaction to our sue-happy america? Consider a moderate's response.
Someone filling their face with McD's is not living an active lifestyle. McD's job is to sell more crap burgers. Therefore McD's is not interested in your health. That's common sense. They don't have to put big fuck-off signs on their windows saying "Exercise is Unamerican" to contribute to a major health DISASTER.
How's this for "common sense". The free market (which I support) should punish those who seek to harm the consumer by selling crap in quantities that they purport to be healthy. That's not some flaming liberal reaction. That's a moderate's reaction to a MAJOR CRISIS.
Do you realize your self-righteous rant has NOTHING to do with the actual fast-food debate. CLEARLY comsuing fast food is a matter of personal choice, and personal responsibility. NOONE is arguing that. If you'd bothered to read Fast Food NAtion or watch Supersize me you'd know: personal responsibility is the paramount reason for AN INDIVIDUAL's own unhealthiness. What the books and the movie DO say is that these companies go out of their way to obscure health facts (that should be readily available), market their shit to kids, and offer such poor quality food as to be a health hazard. Yes, noone has to eat it, and NOONE is playing the victim (except for those 2 girls that sued McD's for making them fat, their lawyer is interviewed during the movie and it's very fucking obvious his interest is purely monetary).
You sound like an apoligist and a shill for the fast food MAN. Watch the movie and open your mind, but when you do so keep your brain in check: NOONE is absolving the eater of their own responsibility.
You're certainly astute. It will be crap, just like the second one was right? The second Toy Story, which is so good as to be one of the best movie sequals ever made. Pixar's films are amazing not only because of the astounding graphics, but because of the STORY. I doubt they'll drop a movie out there that doesn't meet their hight standards.
First of all fucknut, he's not being PC about it. Rape is not not funny. It is debatable if murder is worse than rape. many who have been raped would rather have been killed in the incident.
Why should anyone tolerate tasteless speech? Do you REALLY think you're remotely funny when you say shit like that? You're not. That guy sounded like a sick fuck when he said that.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a tool. Shrek is 90 minutes of lame pop-culture gags and poor fairy-tale satire packed into an over-expensive CGI animated film. Go read Terry Pratchett for a real laugh, and Toy Story for comedy/story with real resonance.
This IS a strawman, but you still touch on something that bears responding to. You DO realize that modern American Conservatism, as incarnate in the Republican party is a total abortion? Republicans are no more against "put(ting) that responsibility in the hands of a large powerful central government so they don't have to worry about it" than Democrats are. Indeed Bush himself has exponentially increased the power or the executive branch, the discretionary spending powers of said branch and the overall size of the government to an outrageous extent as has never been seen before. That's a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
HAHAHA Not fuckin funny ass. This joke has never been funny. It's an old joke. It's also in poor taste. It's also not funny. Have I mentioned how old and not funny it is? Cause it's both of those things with a vengance. I always wonder, what kind of un-funny dumb fuck pulls out that old chestnut and waves it around with an idiot grin on their face? Only an idiot dumb fuck I'm guessing.
OLD. BORING. NOT FUNNY. And yet you got modded so high. Tacky bastards.
No, dipshit, that's not my "opinion". That's the facts of the case, te result of several month of investigative work unveiled in a CONGRESSIONAL HEARING. These are the facts CONCEEDED TO by a mostly Republican comission. http://www.9-11commission.gov/ FREAKIN' READ THE THING. It's right there in pdf format. Then, read the transcripts of the pundit shows from the sunday following the release of the report. There you'll see several dominant Republican Senators pleading Mea Culpa, blaming the 'intelligence' community for inadequacies and mistakes. There was NO working relationship between Osama and Iraq. End of fuckin' story. As for as "connection"? Maybe you havn't seen the famous photo of rumsfeld and repransentatives of the Taliban shaking hands. Many countries including ours have been approached by terrorist regimes. IRAQ did not support them.
WOW. You REALLY didn't RTFA did you? One of the most clear indigtments against the war that once and for all called "bullshit" on the Iraq/Osama connection and YOU manage to completely misread the damn thing. AND you get moderated a 5. Clearly by other fuckwits that didn't read it also. LISTEN CAREFULLY: There was 'contact' but NEVER ANY DEALS. NO DEAL, NO REASON FOR WAR.
I LOVE rhetoric. It's so flexible. One minute a Republican claims Democrats are clearly all fatcats. The next, they're not, and they hate the rich. The next they eat children but the next they support the creation of welfare children to kill the children of the rich.
You're confused and full of it. The republican party has gone so far afield from traditional conservatism they can't find an ideology that isn't a reflexive attack.
Wow. /. is the only place where pure anecdotal evidence could possibly get modded this high. You've really convinced me: Ritalin is useless and a help to noone. See, I know this now because there was this one guy on /. who was a zombie, and he said it was useless.
You had poor dosage. And there are other drugs that could help or supplement.
"Or is it only funny because Christians are fair game for ridicule?"
Get off the cross, we need the wood.
Are you saying that you aliens have a fevah, and the only cure is more cowbell?!
Cause that would be funny.
No, it's a lame boring stereotype. Lame and boring as in, not funny, told a zillion times, takes a retard to laugh at, makes teller look like an asshole any way you cut it.
It's a stereotype because that's what the word 'stereotype' means. It's a:
"A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image."
and
"One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type. "
Look, now you made me get out the dictionary. Does calling it a stereotype make it any less true that many asians have problems speaking "L"'s? No, but it does make the point that it is a generalization... of lame, boring, unfunny one.
Consider this. The backlash against Political Correctness is so fervent that people are litterally twisting the truth to justify LAME FUCKIN' JOKES and other asshole behavior. I believe that PC culture is often a form of censorship however. That's why I believe people that tell LAME FUCKIN' JOKES should be told that they're being un-funny and should shut the fuck up for that reason alone.
I read down-thread a little. Something I've come to believe about jokes like these. It's not that the parent is guilty of un-PC behavior punishable by death, but that these kinds of jokes are rarely funny. This gag was no exception.
The problem here are crap jokes based on lame, boring stereotypes or generalizations. Not necessarily the stereotyping or generalization themseleves.
I submit as proof : the Wayan Brothers; entire body-of-work, 99% of Jamie Fox's comedy abortions, the plain racist comedies of yesteryear.
Is it likely people are confusing their knee-jerk reactions to a lame fuckin' gag with a sense of moral outrage?
That really wasn't his point. He's clearly spouting tired conservative rhetoric. Listen people. Noones going to jail for hate crimes that weren't racially motivated. It doesn't happen. It's a bullshit 'scarecrow' that 'enemies of political correctness' use to make it sound like reverse discrimination is enslaving white america.
Tired, boring, false.
The belief that 'hate crimes' are indistinguishable from 'ordinary crime' is predicated on a lack of common fucking sense. Yes, It's possible to commit a crime independant of racial motivation. But it's almost always obvious when race is a motivation. It's like porn. You know it when you see it. It's not just a 'thought' crime.
Yours is likely a reaction to percieved (and imagined) injustices wroght by "political correctness run amok" and NOT actual case examples, legal theory, or sound common sense.
You don't really know anything about homosexuals do you? Ir only what you read in your Church's hate-speech pamphlets. Homosexuals do not hate heterosexuals. This is the oldest, stupidest stereotype. It's not true. It is an ignorant generalization. In fact, it's so patently inane, that repeating it only makes you look more like a dumb-fuck. Open your eyes man. Shit, even if you watch some 'homosexual propaganda' (as you radicals call it), you'll see that there's never more than a toungue in cheek joke about 'despising' straights.
Goddamn man. Are you really that naive?
What you need is a paradigm shit in your thinking. Consider: if, by your logic, homosexuality is a 'disease' (a truly despicable theory), then, by extension so too is heterosexuality a 'mental disorder'. It's a 'setting', a 'parameter', a 'feature'. Some people are set one way or the other just like they might be kind or impolite. And YES Sexuality is a liquid thing. It can be changed and does. In fact, healthy people might have a wide variety of sexual tastes. But hey..Congradulations. You've just belittled all forms of human sexuality by calling this amazing, adaptive, beautiful thing we call sexual preference a 'disease'. You've now marginalized the entire human population, straight or gay.
The point: there is NO right or wrong when two people who love each other, that are of age, unrelated, and willing make love. THAT's God's plan.
Why don't you seek immunization for your 'disease' - ignorance.
That happens to be a completely impossible action. It's also hypocricy. Sexual orientation that are so innate (be it genetic, chemical, or uprbringing) that hating the sin is paramount to hating the sinner. Were the tables turned, and you were being called hate-filled slurs for your heterosexuality... something you likely NEVER had any decision in, you'd call it hate speech.
"Fairies" is hate speech. It is directed toward the 'sinner' not the sin. Jesus' message is that of love and understanding. He was also the new covenant and should be a beacon for Christian as how to act... not as how to judge... you know... lest you be judged? The new covenant should provide the way to deepened understanding of Christ's vision of the world - that of love.
You use Jesus as a reason to spread hate. How do you think he would feel about that?
Creationism is science like my ass is presidential material.
Creationism is not empirical. It is not repeatable. It is not provable. It is not math. It is not researched by millions of scientists the world over, at the cost of trillions of man hours and trilliions of dollars. It is not science. It will never be science. What it espouses is purely religious hum-drum that has been prettied up by contrarian ass wipes that fancy themselves scientists. Not by actual scientists (read: people with impressive degrees and the published works to prove them)
Apparently "Christ-like" behavior includes acting like an ignorant hate-filled redneck.
Polemics For Dummies anyone? PUHLEASE! I'm at best a moderate and often a social liberal (although, if my girlfriend had her way, I'd be voting for Nader *shuddeR*) Your partisan BS is stinking up this thread. Deal with the issue at hand, make up a response that is actually... I dunno, A RESPONSE? What I demonstrated : A calm, rational response to the coffee house musing of one political correspondent. What the parent thread brought to the conversation : Jack and Shit. It's not THEM vs. YOU. Liberal/Conservative = All in your head....
RTFA. Really, the author CLEARLY notes that the balloon incident is clearly an arguable reason for wartime censorship. He's trying to give some context to the debate. He never makes it "comprable" to the abuse scandals. It's always clear that he's speaking to the "public memory" about these issues. Despite what snarky /. history buffs believe, these kinds of things aren't widely remembered. They SHOULD be remembered BECAUSE they give context.
I think you've suffered a "catastrophic" failure in readin comprehension. You're one of those people that forget, 1/2 through reading anything that they author CLEARLY stated his intentions and goals in writing such a document.
HA! PROOF you didn't see the movie:
/. mentality. You think the whole world has access and is saavy enough? His random sampling of stores has shown that the stores either obscure or DON'T carry health info.
Here's a counter example:
Nutrition info from McDonald's
Spurlock makes a point about how it IS available on the web page, but also points out how most of the developed world DOESN'T have internet access. Yours is a typical "wired"
As to your other responses: Spurlock was NOT going for the absurd. There are ACTUALLY people who eat fast food like that. Obviously you'll refuse to believe that because you're a shill and naive, but there are many people WITHOUT the common sense, or the will power to STOP eating. STILL Spurlock NEVER denies the role of personal responsibility.
Spurlock's 'rule' about supersizing was NOT to imitate a mindless consumerism. It was to show that MCD's has NO qualms about irresponsibly shoving their toxic sludge at consumers in amounts that noone should eat.
I'll read up on this Soso Whaley. Spurlock himself interviews a man who eats an obscene amount of Big Macs and isn't gratuitously obese. Why isn't he unhealthy? These kinds of things are genetic as well. But you say "common sense" dictates that an all McD's diet is unhealthy, sure, then what kind of message is Whaley sending? Furthermore, what interest could YOU possibly have in defending a company that knowingly does shite like this? Is it just some knee-jerk conservative reaction to our sue-happy america? Consider a moderate's response.
Someone filling their face with McD's is not living an active lifestyle. McD's job is to sell more crap burgers. Therefore McD's is not interested in your health. That's common sense. They don't have to put big fuck-off signs on their windows saying "Exercise is Unamerican" to contribute to a major health DISASTER.
How's this for "common sense". The free market (which I support) should punish those who seek to harm the consumer by selling crap in quantities that they purport to be healthy. That's not some flaming liberal reaction. That's a moderate's reaction to a MAJOR CRISIS.
Do you realize your self-righteous rant has NOTHING to do with the actual fast-food debate. CLEARLY comsuing fast food is a matter of personal choice, and personal responsibility. NOONE is arguing that. If you'd bothered to read Fast Food NAtion or watch Supersize me you'd know: personal responsibility is the paramount reason for AN INDIVIDUAL's own unhealthiness. What the books and the movie DO say is that these companies go out of their way to obscure health facts (that should be readily available), market their shit to kids, and offer such poor quality food as to be a health hazard. Yes, noone has to eat it, and NOONE is playing the victim (except for those 2 girls that sued McD's for making them fat, their lawyer is interviewed during the movie and it's very fucking obvious his interest is purely monetary).
You sound like an apoligist and a shill for the fast food MAN. Watch the movie and open your mind, but when you do so keep your brain in check: NOONE is absolving the eater of their own responsibility.
Once I recognized the quote, I had me one of the best laughs today. That show deserves more awards.
You're certainly astute. It will be crap, just like the second one was right? The second Toy Story, which is so good as to be one of the best movie sequals ever made. Pixar's films are amazing not only because of the astounding graphics, but because of the STORY. I doubt they'll drop a movie out there that doesn't meet their hight standards.
Your lack of taste is showing. I'd be embarassed if I were you.
First of all fucknut, he's not being PC about it. Rape is not not funny. It is debatable if murder is worse than rape. many who have been raped would rather have been killed in the incident.
Why should anyone tolerate tasteless speech? Do you REALLY think you're remotely funny when you say shit like that? You're not. That guy sounded like a sick fuck when he said that.