Anyone would be right to call him out on it. The only reason he's doing so now though, is to distance the Clinton name from Obama so that Hillary won't have to justify Obamacare when she runs. Campaign season's starting early this time. One day this week MSNBC had an hour long special on how we were "ready for Hillary."
She'll have a harder time distancing herself from Benghazi. That, and her "I dodged sniper bullets in Bosnia" BS, should be enough to shitcan her presidential hopes.
Gang up on me some more... accuse me of being an NSA defender... problem is:
A.) I'm not defending the NSA. I've been very vocal in the past about being against their spying, and hypocrisy of certain politicians who defend this bullshit (like that two-faced f*** Obama).
B.) The gov't can't commit treason against itself. If you want to blame anyone, it's the complacent morons who continually vote in those who allow the NSA to watch you 24/7.
(...and let's not kid ourselves here... I don't give a shit if they have the manpower to spy on everyone, they have the capability, and that can't be allowed in a free society)
That said... what Snowden did was treason. A whistleblower tells superiors about wrong-doing... he doesn't air it to the f***ing world. Not only that, he doesn't blackmail an entire government to keep his freedom, like Snowden did with the NOC lists on the laptops he smuggled.
He doesn't deserve a medal. He deserves a bullet to the head. It's a f***ing shame so many stupid people refuse to accept that.
@ferrari2001 said:@OrkHammer007 said:
Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.
It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.
Snowden gave the information to the f***ing world, crippled our efforts at counterterrorism by exposing our methods to the people we were f***ing USING them on, and instigated a diplomatic clusterf*** with our allies. How, exactly, is THAT not "treason?"
@OrkHammer007: Walmart could have just enforced the $50 limit that was mentioned in the story. Even if the limit was only good for that particular transaction and didn't block them for the whole day it could have at least slowed them down. Besides, the EBT cards were only malfunctioning for ten hours, the generator went out at 11 AM and by 9 PM the limits were back on. You can't tell me they would have starved to death in that short amount of time.
They could have enforced the $50 limit, but I have a feeling that people responsible for programming that feature skimped on it, expecting the government to keep its shit together and not glitch the account limits out. Physically enforcing that limit (having several managers at the front to visit each register where an EBT payee was and explain that they would only be able to use that card for up to $50) would have been difficult at best... at worst, it could very well have sparked a riot.
I wouldn't say they'd starve. However, Saturday is a relatively busy shopping day for a reason: for many people, it's the only day they have to actually shop for food. If that type person is there to buy their week's worth of groceries, and gets turned away at the door because the store isn't taking their card, it could cause significant hardship... enough to make them turn to another store to do business, and take several of their friends with them. Better to take the short-term financial hit (if there is one) over allowing EBT purchases than the potential long-term hit from unsatisfied/angry customers.
So was Wal-Mart supposed to punish those who were actually honest by denying their cards as well?
They (Wal-Mart, not the thieves) did the right thing by allowing purchases to continue. Let the government sort it... you know, I almost made it through that sentence with a straight face.
Also... is there an investigation into that "glitch?" Seems mighty suspicious that the software just "accidentally" glitched out and pulled the limits.
When was the last time you heard of a riot like this at a college? This is newsworthy, thanks.
It happens more often then you'd think. Sometimes, you just get the right combination of alcohol and stupid, and BOOM! Instant riot.
Thanks to a similar riot like the TC's, my university has spring break early, to clear Albany of stupid people.
Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. John Dies At The End. Insidious. The Conjuring. Drag Me To Hell. Land Of The Dead. Kiss of the Damned. V/H/S. Trick 'r' Treat. Cabin In The Woods.
Yeah most of those really appeal to me. Particularly V/H/S, which I couldn't finish.
I do admit to liking Trick or Treat, but it really was more of a parody of horror for me than a real horror film. It was entertaining, but not really scary.
Looks like Saw was in 2004... so I will admit to liking that one. It was one of the few of its genre that actually had me on edge and a bit scared, and it had a nice mystery around it to keep me guessing. Most in that genre just disturb me, which isn't what I look for or enjoy watching.
The 2000s were just not a good decade for the kind of horror film I actually enjoy.
Hmmm... I liked V/H/S because it was a gritty, low-budget anthology with such contrasting styles and stories. It didn't have the Hollywood "gloss" and too much CGI to soften the shocks it was delivering. Your loss, I suppose.
I didn't see the parody in Trick 'r' Treat (are you sure you have the right movie? There is a Trick or Treat from the late 80s). Instead, I saw a very clever movie with an interesting and consistent mythology, attempting to jump-start a franchise.
At this point, I've seen so many horror movies at so many levels of budget (big and microscopic) that it's nearly impossible for them to scare me. That's starting with seeing The Exorcist in the drive-in the summer after it was released, so that's a lot of movies. When I watched Saw, I found myself pretty much actively anticipating everything that was about to happen, to the point where nothing shocked me at all. It was disconcerting, to be sure, but it was completely predictable right to the end, when instead of an "Oh, s***!" moment, they added a "That's bulls***!" moment. Cracked even did an article about how absurd the ending is, and I agree with the author.
It needed to go, and the host needed to be terminated, after he told the people he relies on for his job, "F*** you."
He didn't bother to debate the point they were trying to make... just dismissed them with a casual obscenity like a spoiled 9-year-old.
I refuse to watch the videos after that. If you want him, and his troll/flame-bait show, gone, just follow suit.
Here's the thing: I like the horror resurgence. I just dislike the way Hollywood is handling it.
There are some good bigger-budget pictures out there. The Conjuring was amazing to me.
There's just a lot of "safe" films filling in the blanks: remakes, rehashed formulas, adaptations from popular novels. That's what I avoid.
A horror movie should look like V/H/S looked: gritty, barely-glimpsed monsters or killers, and not-so-polished. It takes a lot of the scare out of it when it looks bleeding-edge polished.
As far as Saw... the "twist ending" actually made me laugh. It was so obviously tacked on at the last possible minute...
...I mean, come on... he was perfectly still for the entire exchange between the two captives, looking absolutely dead? He was able to keep his breathing so shallow he looked dead? No way.
The Conjuring. It set the tone with atmosphere, had some genuinely scary moments, and did it all with minimal gore. There were "jump scares," but they were well set up: you knew something was coming, but not exactly what (except for the one from the commercial).
If you want good horror-comedy, John Dies At the End is better than Cabin In The Woods. Cabin is good, but it's too self-aware to be really funny. JDATE doesn't take itself as seriously, and it delivers some uniquely funny and scary ideas (like the dick doorknob).
@LostProphetFLCL said:@OrkHammer007 said:
It was an anthology movie. The stories weren't supposed to tie together.
The whole point was that each segment was shot with a video camera, so the quality would be jumpy, and no one was supposed to look like they were acting.
If you don't get it, just stick to the formulaic Hollywood horror films like Saw or Final Destination... you know, safe, predictable, boring as f***.
I just have to ask have you actually watched any recent Hollywood horror movies? Hollywood has been AMAZING in the horror department these last two years and the movies aren't anything like Final Destination or Saw (which BTW Saw is anything BUT predictable and I feel the first 3 movies would have made for an excellent trilogy. The series really went to **** though with the final movie being insultingly bad....).
Actually, I've watched several of the recent crop of horror movies, and with the exception of The Conjuring, I've found them formulaic, overly reliant on "jump scares," overly polished and boring.
The Conjuring stood out mostly for using atmosphere rather than gallons of blood, terabytes of CGI, and cheap scares to make the audience spooked. Every time that clock stopped...
I absolutely knew what was coming next as Saw progressed. I almost fell asleep several times as the movie dragged on. I found it extremely dull.