Except Wolverine was horrible. Really, really bad. For people who were fans of the characters, the movie completely got the characterizations wrong. For people who just wanted to see a good movie, the writing was atrocious and the story was just weak.
Then, Comic Book Guy, you need to get some prunes, some pot, some Colon Blow, and lighten up.
Wolverine is struggling because it sucked. People went to see it and warned their friends away because, though there were some good elements to the movie, it was terrible, as a whole. Horrendous script and patchwork story - it was a movie by committee
Sounds like the boilerplate, written-before-they-actually-see-the-movie reviews from the usual whiney-assed-titty-bitches. You know, the sort of pretentious crap Siskel & Ebert would spew when they watched a popcorn movie and would treat it like it was supposed to be Masterpiece Theater.
How many people injured themselves walking into a door at McDonald's? How many by tripping over the sidewalk? Do they get to sue McDonald's for not padding every part of every building where people might get hurt?
If merely bumping the door results in shattering your perfectly healthy spine? Then it's your fault that you bumped the door, and McDonald's fault for having a hazardous door when they know people will bump into it.
They say the fucking coffee was hot. Everybody knows what "hot" is. You can feel it through the styrofoam. If you are so stupid to put the coffee in a place where it could EASILY spill and hurt you, you deserve what you get. Just like you shouldn't have a lawsuit against someone if you run across the highway and get hit.
Oh Lord deliver us from Libtards. You should be asking what McDonalds was thinking in serving a beverage, meant to be drunk immediately, that was so hot it would cause third degree burns.
Those were 700 injuries, not just complaints. And McDonalds own research showed that they knew serving the coffee that hot was a problem, but they did it anyway to save a few bucks.
Yeah, it is actually. As McDonalds own research showed.
We should also put foam rubber on all sidewalks, because someone could trip and fall and break an arm! That's just negligent, having hard things on the ground! And keep cars from going faster than 5mph.
I suppose you were one of the idiot executives at Ford who thought it was no big ideal that the Pinto's gas tank could explode in 10 mph collisions? Because that's an appropriate analogy, as opposed your blathering BS about rubber sidewalks.
No one ever mentions the fact she was holding the cup of coffee between her knees.
Because that was 1) never in question and 2) irrelevant to the case. She didn't sue because the coffee was spilled, she sued because McDonalds was serving a hazardous product that caused severe burns requiring skin grafts.
No, it just shows how 'nanny state' mentality comes about, and that there are at least 700 people too incompetent to handle coffee in that area and time period.
No, this shows how asinine Libertarian fucktards are. Of course it was the lady's fault that she spilled coffee on herself. That was never in question. The obvious point which you obviously ignored is that spills will happen with beverages. All the time. Hence they shouldn't be served at a temperature hot enough to melt the skin off your legs, requiring skin grafts and years of treatments.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
No, the point of the lawsuit was that spills will happen, and that you shouldn't have to worry about the product causing massive 3rd degree burns. You should be able to get a cup of coffee without having to think about avoiding skin grafts.
that the woman shouldn't have had an open cup of coffee between her legs to begin with was why the award was halved.
But that's the only part that the media covered...that she dropped coffee on herself. But that wasn't the point of the lawsuit - it was because she got third degree burns, down to the bone. And as you say, the company knew that most of their customers wanted to drink it right away.
So what's been bandied about as the epitome of frivolous lawsuit is actually an example of a GOOD lawsuit. Because spills will happen (your fault), but you shouldn't be at the risk of 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts (McDonald's fault).
Unions are fantastic for even non-union employees.
Fixed that for you. Because if a union has a significant presence in an industry, it will drive wages up for other workers in the same industry. Why would you work for Hyundai for $15 an hour in Kentucky when you can move to Michigan and make $28 per hour for Ford? Only the non-union employees don't have to do any of the work or make any of the sacrifices that union workers do (strikes, paying dues).
Unions are often bad for those with less seniority but better performance.
More claptrap. There is nothing about unions that prevents you from being rewarded for hard work or creativity - see professional athlete unions, director's unions, screenwriters unions, actors unions...
Unions are often bad for the taxpayers.
No, because union members make more money, thus paying more taxes in addition to putting more money into local economies. What's bad for tax payers? Ludicrously low rates on capital gains, estates, and top income brackets.
Unions are often bad for the citizens that have to deal with the terrible elected officials that the unions push.
As opposed to the politicians pushed by big business, like Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay and of course George W. Bush? How did they work out for us again?
So on the question of private schools providing the same services for less money, I can take that as a "no".
There is absolutely no justification in thinking that isolating teachers from competition makes them better teachers.
Depends your idea of "competition". If you mean making people who spent 4+ years getting a masters degree in education to battle it out for peanuts, good luck with that. If you mean you want your taxes raised to offer the best teachers a six figure salary, that's something else.
But how do you define "best" anyway? No doubt you've had some classes where there's a D average - but that's because the teacher is tough and you learn a great deal from him or her. Or had classes with a B average, but not because you're all brilliant scholars - it's because the teacher doesn't give a rats ass and lets the class take open-book tests.
Having your life belong to the group (community, tribe, race), is the hallmark of collectivism
And how does your life belong to the group, in any way shape or form, a part of socialism?
which is the basis for Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
Do you frequently confuse complete polar opposites?
On the other hand, owning your own life, being free to exercise your judgment freely and self-responsibly (respecting others equal rights) is the hallmark of Capitalism, and was an end-product of the Enlightenment.
Here's some nice antidote to that Laissez faire kool aid you've been drinking. Regulation and government services weren't started up for shits & giggles, but because the lack of regulation & services were getting people killed and wasting money.
You do not need "studies" to beg the government to allow you to have the freedom to choose how your children are educated. I want the freedom to choose my childrens' education because they are my children, not the governments. It is not up to the government to decide what and how they think.
Really, I wasn't aware that the government had recently banned private schools and home schooling.
Right now I am forced at gunpoint to pay for government schooling - but I should not have to.
Wrong. You derive an enormous societal benefit from public schooling, regardless if you home school your kids or have a ton of money and send them all to private school - or have no kids at all. It means less crime, a higher literacy rate, a middle class, more educated workers and more customers with more money in their pockets for whatever business you are in or are invested in. Which is in the the interest of even selfish, self-centered, shortsighted elitists.
Regarding the "millions of parents unable to send their children to school", that is first of all a specious argument, since the government has a coercive monopoly on the education system. In a free system, there could be all kinds of education you could purchase, from Wal-Mart levels to 5th Avenue levels. Having competition would increase choice, reduce cost, and improve quality - just as it does in the most free elements of society (e.g. technology and retail)
So 50+ million Americans can't afford basic health insurance, yet will have no problem spending thousands per year per kid for private schooling?
More fundamentally - just because someone needs something does not mean they have a claim on my life to provide it to them. It is not my purpose in my life to serve the needs of others, and you and your "gang" (the public, the majority, the tribe) have no right to force me into such servitude.
Sounds like you need to pack up your stuff (don't forget your box of bootstraps!) and move out to the new Libertarian paradise.
Too bad the facts don't meet your female chauvinist storyline:
Here's those "deadbeat dads". They account for 11% of those custodial mothers who do not receive child support. 11%. With all the ballyhoo, you would think that these make up the majority. Instead, the represent just slightly more than one-tenth of the total. How about those fathers who run and hide? Well, they are part of that 11% figure. They make up almost 6% of those who do not pay child support. Not quite the exodus that we are led to believe occurs. If we look at the whole population of custodial mothers, we see that "deadbeat dads" account for only 7% of the population. Only 3.5% of fathers cannot be located (which are included in the 7% figure). These are not the figures we think about when we see "deadbeat dad" articles bannered across newspaper headlines. It is time to stop making policies based on myths and distortions. It is time to recognize that single fathers are like any other group of people out there; the vast majority of them are good, loving people who will happily care for and love their children. Why have we been so willing to believe the worst of these dads? Why have we accepted the negative images without question?
Oh, and a higher percentage of mothers owing child support are "dead beats" than fathers.
And I put "dead beats" in quotes because these people aren't actually dead beats, but dead broke. The majority of those who don't pay, can't pay because they just don't have the money.
How about this - as soon as a majority of non-custodial dads start doing more in terms of child support than legally mandated by the courts, then we'll have sympathy for how "unfair" the family court system is.
No, how about THIS: have automatic consequences for interfering with visitation rights. If a non-custodial parent (usually the father) falls behind on his child support payments, he faces garnished wages, having his car towed or license suspended, or even arrest. And states are very serious about collecting child support as they get matching federal funds. Whereas the automatic penalties for interfering with visitation are: jack and shit, and Jack left town. A custodial parent has the state at his or back for collecting support. A non-custodial parent can look forward to endless court appearances and attorneys fees to enforce visitation.
You have the right to your own opinion "paul", but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And the fact is that fatherhood is real long on responsibilities yet real short on rights. And that's bullshit, straight up.
My favorite scene is the one with the jetski's in the pond at the Washington Mall.:)
At the beginning there's a comparison between some redneck and his X wives/girlfriends and a "proper" couple. The proper couple keep putting off having a kid for this or that reason, while Cletus produces offspring with just about everything female he can (if I recall correctly, that includes some of his own kids, and potentially himself).
Sure, but on the other hand, taking a Male Pill that doesn't reduce pleasure will make these rednecks feel like God - they can hit anything that moves, and not worry about knocking a girl up (STD's not withstanding). Real life James Bond, baby!
And if that doesn't work, it should sink in the first time their wages are garnished for child support.
Women's rights are generally favoured in these circumstances because pregnancy and labour generally have a far greater effect on a woman's body than on a man's
Yes, and 9 months of her life should be more important than 9 months of his life, because of the physical ordeals of pregancy. The problem is that 9 months of her life trumps 18 years of his life, and that's wrong. The Male Pill will at least give men equal power when it comes to conception, if not what happens after conception.
Slashdot Mirror
Except Wolverine was horrible. Really, really bad. For people who were fans of the characters, the movie completely got the characterizations wrong. For people who just wanted to see a good movie, the writing was atrocious and the story was just weak.
Then, Comic Book Guy, you need to get some prunes, some pot, some Colon Blow, and lighten up.
Wolverine is struggling because it sucked. People went to see it and warned their friends away because, though there were some good elements to the movie, it was terrible, as a whole. Horrendous script and patchwork story - it was a movie by committee
Sounds like the boilerplate, written-before-they-actually-see-the-movie reviews from the usual whiney-assed-titty-bitches. You know, the sort of pretentious crap Siskel & Ebert would spew when they watched a popcorn movie and would treat it like it was supposed to be Masterpiece Theater.
No doubt. Sin City proved that you can make a movie that's both successful and true to the source material.
She didn't sue for damages, she sued to get McDonalds to pay her medical expenses because they blew her off.
How many people injured themselves walking into a door at McDonald's? How many by tripping over the sidewalk? Do they get to sue McDonald's for not padding every part of every building where people might get hurt?
If merely bumping the door results in shattering your perfectly healthy spine? Then it's your fault that you bumped the door, and McDonald's fault for having a hazardous door when they know people will bump into it.
They say the fucking coffee was hot. Everybody knows what "hot" is. You can feel it through the styrofoam. If you are so stupid to put the coffee in a place where it could EASILY spill and hurt you, you deserve what you get. Just like you shouldn't have a lawsuit against someone if you run across the highway and get hit.
Oh Lord deliver us from Libtards. You should be asking what McDonalds was thinking in serving a beverage, meant to be drunk immediately, that was so hot it would cause third degree burns.
Those were 700 injuries, not just complaints. And McDonalds own research showed that they knew serving the coffee that hot was a problem, but they did it anyway to save a few bucks.
The problem is that it's not "abnormally hot".
Yeah, it is actually. As McDonalds own research showed.
We should also put foam rubber on all sidewalks, because someone could trip and fall and break an arm! That's just negligent, having hard things on the ground! And keep cars from going faster than 5mph.
I suppose you were one of the idiot executives at Ford who thought it was no big ideal that the Pinto's gas tank could explode in 10 mph collisions? Because that's an appropriate analogy, as opposed your blathering BS about rubber sidewalks.
You know that coffee is brewed with water that is on the verge of boiling, right?
You do know there is a difference between brewing temperature and serving temperature, right?
No one ever mentions the fact she was holding the cup of coffee between her knees.
Because that was 1) never in question and 2) irrelevant to the case. She didn't sue because the coffee was spilled, she sued because McDonalds was serving a hazardous product that caused severe burns requiring skin grafts.
I would raise hell about being served lukewarm coffee due to some idiot's inability to handle a cup of coffee that was at 'fresh-brewed' temperature.
McDonalds own research showed their customers would drink the coffee right away and that they were serving it at too hot a temperature.
Also, see the National Coffee Association's website:
That reading comprehension thing again. That's brewing temperature. Not serving temperature.
No, it just shows how 'nanny state' mentality comes about, and that there are at least 700 people too incompetent to handle coffee in that area and time period.
No, this shows how asinine Libertarian fucktards are. Of course it was the lady's fault that she spilled coffee on herself. That was never in question. The obvious point which you obviously ignored is that spills will happen with beverages. All the time. Hence they shouldn't be served at a temperature hot enough to melt the skin off your legs, requiring skin grafts and years of treatments.
And they are correct.
You're an idiot. Try working on that reading comprehension thing:
No, the point of the lawsuit was that spills will happen, and that you shouldn't have to worry about the product causing massive 3rd degree burns. You should be able to get a cup of coffee without having to think about avoiding skin grafts.
that the woman shouldn't have had an open cup of coffee between her legs to begin with was why the award was halved.
But that's the only part that the media covered...that she dropped coffee on herself. But that wasn't the point of the lawsuit - it was because she got third degree burns, down to the bone. And as you say, the company knew that most of their customers wanted to drink it right away.
So what's been bandied about as the epitome of frivolous lawsuit is actually an example of a GOOD lawsuit. Because spills will happen (your fault), but you shouldn't be at the risk of 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts (McDonald's fault).
...on Youtube.
Unions are fantastic for even non-union employees.
Fixed that for you. Because if a union has a significant presence in an industry, it will drive wages up for other workers in the same industry. Why would you work for Hyundai for $15 an hour in Kentucky when you can move to Michigan and make $28 per hour for Ford? Only the non-union employees don't have to do any of the work or make any of the sacrifices that union workers do (strikes, paying dues).
Unions are often bad for those with less seniority but better performance.
More claptrap. There is nothing about unions that prevents you from being rewarded for hard work or creativity - see professional athlete unions, director's unions, screenwriters unions, actors unions...
Unions are often bad for the taxpayers.
No, because union members make more money, thus paying more taxes in addition to putting more money into local economies. What's bad for tax payers? Ludicrously low rates on capital gains, estates, and top income brackets.
Unions are often bad for the citizens that have to deal with the terrible elected officials that the unions push.
As opposed to the politicians pushed by big business, like Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay and of course George W. Bush? How did they work out for us again?
The teacher didn't try to stab everyone in sight. Keep drinkin.
So on the question of private schools providing the same services for less money, I can take that as a "no".
There is absolutely no justification in thinking that isolating teachers from competition makes them better teachers.
Depends your idea of "competition". If you mean making people who spent 4+ years getting a masters degree in education to battle it out for peanuts, good luck with that. If you mean you want your taxes raised to offer the best teachers a six figure salary, that's something else.
But how do you define "best" anyway? No doubt you've had some classes where there's a D average - but that's because the teacher is tough and you learn a great deal from him or her. Or had classes with a B average, but not because you're all brilliant scholars - it's because the teacher doesn't give a rats ass and lets the class take open-book tests.
Having your life belong to the group (community, tribe, race), is the hallmark of collectivism
And how does your life belong to the group, in any way shape or form, a part of socialism?
which is the basis for Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
Do you frequently confuse complete polar opposites?
On the other hand, owning your own life, being free to exercise your judgment freely and self-responsibly (respecting others equal rights) is the hallmark of Capitalism, and was an end-product of the Enlightenment.
Here's some nice antidote to that Laissez faire kool aid you've been drinking. Regulation and government services weren't started up for shits & giggles, but because the lack of regulation & services were getting people killed and wasting money.
You do not need "studies" to beg the government to allow you to have the freedom to choose how your children are educated. I want the freedom to choose my childrens' education because they are my children, not the governments. It is not up to the government to decide what and how they think.
Really, I wasn't aware that the government had recently banned private schools and home schooling.
Right now I am forced at gunpoint to pay for government schooling - but I should not have to.
Wrong. You derive an enormous societal benefit from public schooling, regardless if you home school your kids or have a ton of money and send them all to private school - or have no kids at all. It means less crime, a higher literacy rate, a middle class, more educated workers and more customers with more money in their pockets for whatever business you are in or are invested in. Which is in the the interest of even selfish, self-centered, shortsighted elitists.
Regarding the "millions of parents unable to send their children to school", that is first of all a specious argument, since the government has a coercive monopoly on the education system. In a free system, there could be all kinds of education you could purchase, from Wal-Mart levels to 5th Avenue levels. Having competition would increase choice, reduce cost, and improve quality - just as it does in the most free elements of society (e.g. technology and retail)
So 50+ million Americans can't afford basic health insurance, yet will have no problem spending thousands per year per kid for private schooling?
More fundamentally - just because someone needs something does not mean they have a claim on my life to provide it to them. It is not my purpose in my life to serve the needs of others, and you and your "gang" (the public, the majority, the tribe) have no right to force me into such servitude.
Sounds like you need to pack up your stuff (don't forget your box of bootstraps!) and move out to the new Libertarian paradise.
Too bad the facts don't meet your female chauvinist storyline:
Oh, and a higher percentage of mothers owing child support are "dead beats" than fathers.
And I put "dead beats" in quotes because these people aren't actually dead beats, but dead broke. The majority of those who don't pay, can't pay because they just don't have the money.
How about this - as soon as a majority of non-custodial dads start doing more in terms of child support than legally mandated by the courts, then we'll have sympathy for how "unfair" the family court system is.
No, how about THIS: have automatic consequences for interfering with visitation rights. If a non-custodial parent (usually the father) falls behind on his child support payments, he faces garnished wages, having his car towed or license suspended, or even arrest. And states are very serious about collecting child support as they get matching federal funds. Whereas the automatic penalties for interfering with visitation are: jack and shit, and Jack left town. A custodial parent has the state at his or back for collecting support. A non-custodial parent can look forward to endless court appearances and attorneys fees to enforce visitation.
You have the right to your own opinion "paul", but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And the fact is that fatherhood is real long on responsibilities yet real short on rights. And that's bullshit, straight up.
Those countries are not fully Communist.
Communism != socialism. Take a vacation to North Korea and I'm sure they'd be happy to show you the difference.
Not sure what that has to do with Conservatism (I am not one.)
If it looks like a conservative, doesn't know what it's talking about like a conservative, it's probably....
Have you seen Idiocracy?
My favorite scene is the one with the jetski's in the pond at the Washington Mall. :)
At the beginning there's a comparison between some redneck and his X wives/girlfriends and a "proper" couple. The proper couple keep putting off having a kid for this or that reason, while Cletus produces offspring with just about everything female he can (if I recall correctly, that includes some of his own kids, and potentially himself).
Sure, but on the other hand, taking a Male Pill that doesn't reduce pleasure will make these rednecks feel like God - they can hit anything that moves, and not worry about knocking a girl up (STD's not withstanding). Real life James Bond, baby!
And if that doesn't work, it should sink in the first time their wages are garnished for child support.
List #2 point #2. Such pithy advise applies to fathers, but not mothers.
Funny how that damn point only applies to the damn men, and not women.
Women's rights are generally favoured in these circumstances because pregnancy and labour generally have a far greater effect on a woman's body than on a man's
Yes, and 9 months of her life should be more important than 9 months of his life, because of the physical ordeals of pregancy. The problem is that 9 months of her life trumps 18 years of his life, and that's wrong. The Male Pill will at least give men equal power when it comes to conception, if not what happens after conception.