Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/26/10 03:31 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

2. jews were NEVER persecuted in north america.

Try again fuck nugget. The United States is littered with serious antisemitism. Every read the Voyage of the Damned? It was a group of 936 Jews trying to be refugees in the United States. FDR was firm on not letting them in the US. They tried getting admission in other countries, but no avail. They had to go back to Europe. Only 365 survived the Holocaust. Antisemitism played a major role.

General Grant signed orders to get Jews kicked out of the Union Army even though Lincoln tried to block it and many of them were seen as traitors to the US as a whole.

This shit isn't even hard to wiki.

This is a bad movie.

This movie was hyped as being the end all of the action genre. Something to be remembered for the ages and it just wasn't that. It's sad, but I could account this to being just "Generic Action Movie". How could you fuck up so bad with a movie like this? Really? Even if it was dumb it just didn't need to be this bad.

First the plot, it was shitty. Now I know you are going to tell me that you didn't go in for the plot or to get sappy with it, but...this film didn't know what it wanted to be. Did it want to be a throwback to an 80's movie or did it want to be some kind of kick ass action comedy. It was all over the place with the plot. I mean...am I really supposed to believe this hardcore Mercenary group who is only in it for the money all of a sudden just decides to do something noble out of the blue? Really? Just like that?

Then there were the characters. Everyone was underused and under appreciated. You have this huge cast and you just have no connection with any of the characters. None at all. I couldn't even tell you any of their names. By the time you get to the big action scenes you just end up not giving a shit. To make matters worse they have some of the cheesiest and worst dialogues ever written. The script just felt half-assed in that aspect because I'm sitting there and wondering, "Who writes this bullshit?"

But WAIT you say. What about the action? It had to be a hardcore thrill ride where there were explosions and a lot of people die. You are right. There was a lot of action...when you could see it. Who did the Jedi mind trick on directors to make them think I wanted to see shaky cam through all my action? This was shaky cam done by an epileptic. By the end of the movie I couldn't tell what the fuck was going on, who was dying, who was killing who or what the fuck I saw in that last scene. It was all over the place. Nothing was really in focus you just knew that people were dying and there were explosions. If I can't follow what the fuck is going on then why am I even watching the movie?

Fine, someone out there is going to love this movie. I don't care. I hated it for all the reasons above. With a star studded cast like this you expect more and just leave disappointed. I REALLY wanted to like this movie to. I really did. I just left feeling like it could have been something more and it was just...a action movie.

If you like it I'll never understand why, but that's your own deal. I guess you'll feel like you didn't was money on it.

Just by your name I can tell you are a huge ICP fan...

Ugh...

I think I may throw up because Juggalo's suck so much.

At 8/15/10 08:18 PM, WizMystery wrote:

At 8/15/10 08:17 PM, Stoicish wrote:

At 8/15/10 08:13 PM, WizMystery wrote:

But that 80% is made up of 158 reviews, and its box office is currently 11.4m.

Forgot to mention that.

Doesn't matter. Really good movies can be flops too. It's all about how many people are eager to see the film.

Read the latter statement thar.

Yes, and the movie has to cover its $60 million budget...

Meh...It'll probably cover that actually, but it won't be a fantastic success.

At 8/15/10 08:13 PM, WizMystery wrote:

But that 80% is made up of 158 reviews, and its box office is currently 11.4m.

Forgot to mention that.

Doesn't matter. Really good movies can be flops too. It's all about how many people are eager to see the film.

At 8/15/10 08:02 PM, WizMystery wrote: Uh... 80% of the Rotten Tomatoes community says it didn't. I'm sure that's a pretty reliable site to base the general opinion on.

A Flop is based on how much money a movie makes not how the critics rate it. If it cannot cover the cost of the movie itself then it is considered a flop.

A great example would be the film Waterworld.

Okay, I just have to say this.

The Expendables really really fucking sucked. I'm talking about on a B movie scale on how fucking horrible this movie was. I know you don't go into a movie like this expecting a lot and yeah maybe I should have turned my brain off all the way to enjoy this, but I couldn't.

It was bad in every sense.

Maybe people will like it if all they want is dumb action and that's fine, but don't expect anything more than that and trust me...there really isn't anything to the movie. It has no substance.

At 8/15/10 07:37 PM, Warforger wrote: Who gives a shit if anything flops, the only things it should indicate is if there is going to be a sequel which will inevitably fail judging from the fact that you don't have anymore story after it unless they surprise us.

This is like worrying if a music album or video game flops or not, its fucking retarded and pointless.

Yeah, but if you enjoy something don't you want to see it do well? I guess that's not the point because its fine if you enjoyed it.

But being a complete douche about your opinion just makes you...well...a douche.

Oh and in case you weren't getting it I was calling you a douchebag.

Sorry...my bad...it finished at number 5 this weekend...

That's right. My predictions actually outweighed themselves.

Soooo...I'm bringing this back.

I was right....kinda. Scott Pilgrim, despite being a better movie than The Expendables and Eat Pray Love made it to the number 3 spot this weekend? Why? Like all of the reasons I said before.

Just looking at the trailers for the average movie goer they wouldn't know what the fuck they are about to watch and it could be retarded.

At 8/13/10 11:48 PM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote:

Well no. It's different than that. The islamic faith is inherently one of violence. This is easily proven by examining their bible. The main difference is, most modern muslims don't practice that part of the religion. So don't misunderstand. I'm not against the muslim people. I'm against the muslim FAITH. While yes, most muslims are peaceful, the ones that practice islam to the letter are not.

Poes Law. Yes, I think you are a troll.

One of violence? You mean like all the other faiths who ended up being violent as hell? Their "bible" is called the Koran by the way.

I'm fairly damned sure you didn't read the Koran and you are just basing your assumptions (assuming you aren't using Poes Law right now) on what you've heard from other people. Really, read the damned thing or don't bother assuming at all. And don't say that you have read it or else you wouldn't of made the dumb mistake of calling it their "bible".

You aren't against Muslims, but are against the Faith? Okay...so that means you are against Muslims. Seriously, that's just like giving a backhanded compliment. It would be like me saying, "I don't hate black people...I just hate the ones that steal all the time." You can say all you want about not hating people, but you still are a bigot.

The last line is a contradictory and one I'm surprised you actually managed to make in the SAME LINE!

That's talent.

This must mean you are a REALLY good troll.

Yeah...everyone is an adult in this film from their early 20's to the 30's.

At least read what it's about, ya know.

At 8/13/10 11:27 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: Personally, I don't feel like watching it because of the pre-movie adverts I saw about it in the cinema. It made itself look like a total load of prepubescent horseshit that rides on the back of irrelevant internet / video game jokes from years ago for most of its humour.

I suppose you're right in a sense: it IS hard to market it when it seems to be all over the place with regards to what kind of teen love story it wanted to be. But at the end of the day, that's all it seems to be; a teen love story.

I'm about as eager to watch it as I am the Twilight saga. Actually, I'm LESS inclined to watch it than the Twilight saga. If it happens to find its way onto ordinary movie channels that I don't have to go out of my way to watch, then matbe I'll sit down and test my assumptions about it, but I'm not paying fuck-knows-how-much to test them at the cinema right now.

See, you kind of proved my point. You don't know what it is and yet you've made an assumption and decided that you don't want to see it. I mean...it's actually REALLY good for what it's worth, but that's your choice.

You just won't ever find a movie like it out there in Hollywood.

At 8/13/10 11:23 PM, HighWay wrote: The only problem I have with the movie was that Michael Cera was the man person. Other than that, everyone thought it was an epic movie of epic proportions.

Well in the Graphic Novel he was...well...Michael Cera.

Sad to say because this is one of the greatest movies that I have seen all summer. I thought about writing a review of this movie, but I opted out and here's why. When I went into the theater I didn't really care how many people where there because I just wanted to see the movie, but something was odd...

There REALLY weren't a lot of people watching the movie especially on an opening night. It didn't take long for it to hit me though as to why this movie is going to be a flop.

The Expendables.

They had to have three different theaters open just so everyone can watch this movie. That's how big the anticipation was. They really hyped the fuck out of this movie all year too. It has all the action stars that anyone who is a hardcore action junkie would want to see in ONE MOVIE. Explosions, fist and gun fights and snappy one liners harken all the way back to 80's action flicks. You have Stallone, Steve Austin, Jet Li, Jason Statham and many other action stars in just this one movie.

In Scott Pilgram vs the World you have Michael Cera...uh...yeah.

Which is sad because he is REALLY good in this movie.

To make matters worse is HOW on Earth can you promote a movie that is like this one. It's kind of hard to understand for the average movie goer. It's a popculter, video game heavy, rock music love story. How do you try to promote that as such that you want to make your average movie goer go see it? Yeah, Kick-Ass had the same problem and despite being good it ended up being a flop.

So by this weekend's end you are going to see The Expendables at the #1 spot despite really not being anything more than a cheap action movie. Eat, Pray, Love at #2. The Other Guys at #3 and Scott Pilgram vs the World at #4.

It's all about timing and advertisement. When the audience doesn't know what you are selling then they are going to go for something that they are familiar with.

Liberal is only a dirty word in the United States. Around the world being politically liberal meant you supported Democracies and Free Market expansion.

Shouldn't the argument be laid to rest now.

Seriously, I get it, I get the argument about it either being insensitive and many people will probably connect Islam to 9/11. You just can't ignore that because that's just how this country rolls sometimes.

Here's the great thing about this country: The Constitution doesn't care about your feelings. It's unfeeling document that lays out the groundwork for how our country is ran and, simply put, it doesn't care if you think its insensitive to build one near the site. They are allowed to do it because the laws that built up the foundation of this country allows them to do. Everything else is just bullshit.

On a side note, I've heard a LOT of reach around arguments in attempts to detract people from their real argument which was that they don't want Islam anywhere near that site:
-"It's a historical building and for some reason they stopped it from being one. KEEP THIS HISTORICAL BUILDING ALIVE!"
-"How do we not know that this site isn't being funded by radicals? I think we should hold of allowing this being built for a little while until we can be sure that this isn't be funded by radical groups."

Ugh, it hurts my head.

At 8/7/10 10:26 PM, adrshepard wrote:
On another note, I'd like to know what the typical procedure is for compensating emergency personnel who suffer similar long-term conditions due to their work.

The reason this is such a huge deal was because Christine Todd Whitman, administrator of the EPA, said it was environmentally safe for the workers and rescue workers to come in without risk to their health. It was a clear misstep by a government organization and the aid workers deserve compensation because of this.

Usually workmans comp applies to anyone who suffers long-term conditions on the job anyway and no, no, that really isn't going to be suitable for the people who worked to save people from this disaster.

You seem to run the assumption that I believe the country was founded on limited government principals or actually believe that works.

Which, by the way, I don't.

At 8/1/10 12:44 AM, Memorize wrote:
So if Congress passed a law that makes it illegal to criticize a politician... then it's legal?

Since when are laws passed at the whims of Congress considered higher priority than the Constitution that those same lawmakers are sworn to uphold?

Yeah, but where in the Constitution does it talk about the abortion issue? There are a lot of things the Constitution doesn't talk about that you may imply that it does, but there is not flat answer like you are trying to make it out as.

The same supreme court that has no medical background?

Yup, but they sure as hell listen to professionals just like any district or local court case, don't they? Like, I dunno, during Roe v Wade where medical professionals talked about it. Hur hur.

The same supreme court that says you can't grow marijuana in your own yard for your own consumption, and is INTER-state commerce?

Backhanded argument bringing something in that has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about and has whole different implications than the abortion issue.

The same supreme court that said slaves and descendants of slaves were property?

See above and I don't want to get into the mess as to why this doesn't exactly matter unless you just think the Supreme Court is useless in which case fuck it its not worth arguing with you about.

You do realize that that VERY SAME woman is a pro-life advocate today... right?

Norma Leah McCorvey

Other people have argued that she was manipulated by those pro-life and Christian advocacy groups, but sure, just cause she had a change in heart that completely invalidates something as major as this.

This argument doesn't amount to anything considering we tell what people can and can't do A LOT.

Meaning, this restricts freedoms from people who might actually LIKE living in that state or in the hometown that they grew up in.

Tough shit.

Hey, I can make the same bullshit argument when it comes to property taxes!

"Why can't I live in my home state and pay lower taxes? This impedes my right to my own money!"

Besides... why do you make the assumption that they would have to move? They could just travel to that state; get the abortion, then go back.

I already made the argument that it would cost more money for them than doing it locally and if its a person already living in a close to poverty string then they'll probably take care of it themselves.

Also, "Tough shit' is a callus and unthinking argument in your world of absolutes.

No, it's not.

If my family of 5 could move to the next state (out West, since those states are so much bigger than the east), after making only $15,000 for the year after the recession... then you don't get to bitch about not being able to move.

So quit your whining.

Wow and your families situation has to do with this...how? I don't pretend to know about your situation but I guess unlike your family people actually grow up and love the states that they live in. When something as big as this affects their lives as a whole you put them in a rough situation where you say, "Tough shit, get out then." You are essentially ruining the lives of the minority in favor of those who do like it. See, only the people who agree with us can stay is what you are saying.

It is, biologically.

Yeah, but if I get a vaccine I'm essentially killing some of my white blood cells. Does that mean I'm committing murder? Hoo boy that argument has so many holes I don't know what to say.

If the entire pro-choice premise of "it's her body" is completely scientifically false, then why shouldn't it be considered murder to those people?

I didn't say it wasn't. I was just saying that there are differing opinions.

When did I make the "her body" argument anyway? You are taking average arguments from pro-choice people and forcing it into this one. I'm just saying that you cannot force people to do something regardless of your belief because they will do it anyway.

And Memorize I actually quoted the wrong person. My bad.

At 7/31/10 05:59 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/31/10 05:45 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

Could you name me one at least one case where forbidding abortion has benefited a society?

Could you name me where it's legal for the Federal Government to be involved in abortion and drugs?

...

When it became a law?

While I don't agree with drugs I honestly don't believe in the massive enforcement on drugs at the moment.

Also, in terms of abortion (and I wasn't even sure if you were making a case for it or not) there are so many pro-life and pro-choice groups that it sickening. The Supreme Court hoped to find the best middle ground they could during Roe v Wade, but sadly to no avail.

Here's why I have a problem with you saying that it should be up to the states. See, that WAS the system we lived in before Roe v Wade. The states made the mandate for abortion at the time before the famous case. The woman did not think that she could handle being a single mother so she decided to lie about getting raped which was the only reason you could get one in Texas. She got in trouble for it and it compounded to the Supreme Court.

Because if you TELL someone if they can or cannot have a baby you are essentially telling them how too run their lives and not only that but you are having Christian interest group come in and tell those people in the US how to run their lives when it's quite apparent that we are (supposed to be) a melting pot of different individuals. Meaning that my belief can be vastly different from yours. See you are making a backwards logic argument saying that it's okay to let the states mandate something when its going to be quite apparent that they are going to outlaw it in many Conservative leaning states.

Meaning, this restricts freedoms from people who might actually LIKE living in that state or in the hometown that they grew up in. "Just get up and move" is a bullshit argument just as much as saying, "If you don't like the US then leave it". To me it seems ridiculous for someone to actually have to fly their sad ass to another state, spending more money than necessary, to get an abortion when that's what the state was fighting to prevent in the first place. It defeats the purpose because, just like drugs, no matter how you try to legislate it PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO!

Also, to the person who flat out said it was murder, that viewpoint is one of no wiggle room. You said it WAS murder rather than, "My opinion is that this is murder". Meaning, to me as a moderate, you suck dick because I hate absolutes like that.

And by the fucking way, in case anyone was wondering, I'm Pro-Life. Yeah, haha, I really do believe that abortion is wrong.

But what I believe also doesn't matter in what is supposedly a nation that loves liberty. I understand that there is a law now and I have to understand, look at the facts (i.e. it's going to happen anyway and its more dangerous to the woman who gets it by unhealthy means) and just say that I can't help it so I have to tolerate it.

We gotta stop living in such fucking absolutes. Sheesh.

At 7/31/10 11:46 AM, Scarface wrote: I like the way things are going so far. The economy is slowly picking up, we're going to pull troops out of Iraq soon, and we have a democratic president and (unless I'm mistaken) a democratic congress. If it weren't for Global Warming or the BP Oil Spill, I'd be content!

Newt Gingrich plans on running for president and he wants to attack Iran AND North Korea.

Cause, ya know, a four front war in no way is going to impact the United States in such a way that we collapse.

The most interesting, and likely, case of secession is New York City wanting to secede from the state of New York and their claim is actually pretty good.

Long Island itself makes up for most of the population of New York. NYC claim is that they pay the most taxes to the state and get less of the return for their money. So they think that if they just become their own state they can benefit off of their own NYC and Long Island residents and leave New York state to fend for itself.

Honestly, I would like to see this happen.

At 7/30/10 11:39 PM, Memorize wrote:
How is it that when the Federal Government forcibly legalizes abortion, regardless of what the state or people of the state wish: It's "Freedom"

Because the abortion issue is a moral issue and one I consider to be not very important. However, people will put it on the top of their list. "Freedom" is such an abstract observation and excuse that people can make on one side just as saying that its "Murder" for the other. There is no clear cut way you can define it nor is their a clear cut decision on where life begins. People debate forever on it, but its not simple when you are standing on one side saying its wrong. When there is another side saying it's okay.

Can you justify the ban of abortion for rape? Incest? Damaged child? Mothers Paternal Health? A lot of the people on the pro-life side have zero tolerance for any abortion. Does that make it anymore right especially when they truly believe that it is in God's hands.

Also, you need to realize that women ARE going to have abortions and it's been happening since the 5th century. To deny them the ability is just going to cause them to find other methods that are dangerous.

You can never safely legislate morality. Keep that in mind.

But when someone like Ron Paul says "Leave it up to each state and people. If people don't like it where they are, they can move", it's "OMG! Freedoms are going down the drain!"

They did, then Roe v. Wade happened and now it no longer doesn't. Cause', ya know, that's how the US system works.

The last bit I'm trying to figure out what you are being sarcastic about...

Doubtful. The US is in a Great Recession and we are losing money. Therefor anything seen as immoral can be put back in if it gets in revenue.

Take, for example, Prohibition. Seriously, if it weren't for the Great Depression Prohibition would have lasted a lot longer than necessary. People, the government, interest groups would have found some reason to keep the ban on alcohol alive.

However, the US government realized that they could get revenue on the taxes on alcohol purchases so therefor Prohibition was lifted. Like, no shit, money was the only reason and not all this crime war and whatnot.

Funny how that works, huh?

I should also point out that Fox News posted the Briebart story online minutes after his website posted the his story. Word for word.

In case you were wondering.

At 7/25/10 11:16 PM, orangebomb wrote:

That's the liberal media for ya.

Ahem, I dunno what you have been watching, but they have been fairly critical of him. Also, Bush sucked so it hardly mattered about liberal media or not.

ALSO, the fucking alligations and criticisms of Obama have been claims that couldn't be varified or completely justifiable. I mean you can criticise him for whatever you want, but the job of the media ISN'T to criticize the President its supposed to be about acertaining the truth.

Everything else is just jazzing the story up to get you interested.

At 7/24/10 12:01 AM, Korriken wrote: 8 years of media slamming bush. the world is silent. one company slams Obama, everyone's up in arms.

Odd how that works out...

Uhhhh...

No one was slamming Obama in this topic...

They were slamming Sherrod.

Also, the reason why people slammed Bush wasn't because he was a Republican. It's because he was a shitty President.

At 7/23/10 02:43 AM, Memorize wrote: You do realize that the NAACP fired her before FOX brought up the story, right?

And that the NAACP had the FULL UNEDITED VIDEO when they condemned her... right?

And I'm slightly confused... you're bitching about FOX while defending the Government for doing the EXACT SAME THING?

I swear it's like listening to an anti-war liberal praise Obama's foreign policy...

Now, of course, the Agriculture department is partly to blame jumping the gun on this bullshit without actually checking to make sure that how she was taped was, I dunno, editied to make her look bad.

Oh shit, if you actually read that one line maybe you could save yourself from sounding stupid.

By the way, that's still a backhanded argument because now you have to say, "It's the departments story for believing a story that was totally false." Which basically says to me that you are okay with the media taking no responsibility for any of their actions as long as it serves the fact to destroy the administration little by little.

Unless you are okay with admitting that Fox does this on a regular basis in which case CUDOS for seeing the truth.