lordjedi

Akwat Kbrana said:

Personally, I always thought Anakin's character arc should've been exactly opposite. He should've started as a mature, noble, selfless, likeable character, and transform into an evil villain. Instead, we got an annoying, unrealistic little boy who transforms into a leary, creepy, whiny, overbearing, unbelievable jerk, and finally turns into the cool-as-ice villain from there.

Unfortunately, if I even think about the prequels while watching the OT, I think of Vader as a whiney little bitch instead of the true evil villain he is.  That's probably why I don't think of the prequels much :)

skyjedi2005 said:

The best reason why episode 1 is the best of the prequel trilogy is not in terms of content, But that it was actually shot on 35mm motion picture film.

I am so sick of reading this crap.  It doesn't matter what medium a movie is shot on.  Did you ever think for one moment that maybe they liked it better because of its content?  It doesn't matter if a movie is shot 100% digitally or not.  It's the story that counts and the above posters find the story of TPM (aside from midichlorians and the virgin birth) to be the best of the 3.  It has NOTHING to do with it being shot on 35mm.

skyjedi2005 said:

i'm not too sure, but that looks like to me to be a false domestic take since it looks like it includes all the numerous re-releases as well as the 97 special edition. it should be adjusted to reflect only the 1977 gross adjusted.

 

Plus if we are talking about not readjusted gross titanic is still number 1 and no star wars film ever beat it. Sad but true and no movie has yet to break its record of #1.

Return of the King and Revenge of the Sith made valiant efforts, even rotk tied titanic for number of oscars.

Why should it reflect only 1977?  No major plot points were changed until 1997.  So I'm with you that it shouldn't include the SE, but every rerelease until that point is fair game.  Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to differentiate them.

I was comparing the Star Wars movies to each other.  I'm aware that no Star Wars movie, unadjusted, has ever beat Titanic.  I'm also aware that the top two movies of all time, adjusted for inflation, are Star Wars and Gone with the Wind (I didn't even need to look that one up :P).  My whole point was that adjusted for inflation, the prequels didn't do well at all.  Even unadjusted, Star Wars did better than all the prequels.  In fact, if you look at that list, you'll see that TPM did the best, with ROTS coming in second.  That's probably because TPM was the first Star Wars movie in 16 years.  AOTC didn't do as well, probably due to the bitter taste from TPM.  ROTS did second best, again, probably because "this is the one we've been waiting for" as some people put it.

negative1 said:

 

being a big computer graphics fan,

i used to wait for every animated movie to come out regardless of what it was (shrek/dinosaurs/chicken little, etc etc etc).......but after

a certain point, i realized almost ANYBODY can put out a computer animated movie..............so i had to have some criteria to separate the wheat

from the chaff............................................wall-e is apparently heading down the road of chaff................i might have been ambivalent before,

but rethinking it, makes me realize how sub-par and displeasing it really was..

 

later

-1

Well no wonder you're so negative toward it.  Most of those movies were utter crap.  I think I'd be getting tired of cg animated movies too if I bothered to see all the crappy ones along with all the good ones.

I remember watching "The Wild" on a free PPV night.  We got about 15 mins into it and I said out loud "This a bad version of Finding Nemo".  The movie plain old sucked.  I just did not enjoy it one bit.  I've seen all three Shrek movies.  I loved the first one the best.  I think the third one is second best to me.  I haven't seen Chicken Little and I don't plan to, just because it looked so bad.

Do yourself a favor and avoid the crappy looking cg animated movies (the ones that look like they have a crappy story that is).  You're right, anybody can put out a computer animated movie.  If you had to watch all those other movies to find that out, well, that's sad.  The thing I like about Pixar movies is something they said on the commentary of Finding Nemo.  "We make the movie we want to see first and it usually turns out to be fun for the kids too."

skyjedi2005 said:

The amount of money a film makes is no bar to how creative and artistic a film is.

The prequels made shit loads more money than the original versions of the original star wars trilogy and they suck as far as i'm concerned.

More than suck, actually they are a complete unmitigated unforgivable travesty of a classic, so far watered down now for the kiddies. and they added fake cgi for the bubblegum brained morons who like this shit better.

If the amount of money a film makes is the only important factor then films the dumbed down american public goes to see, (aka the average stupid american who watches american idol), are the most sucessful and artful films ever made.

 

 

Actually, they didn't.  You need to adjust for inflation to do a proper comparison.  Unadjusted, the prequels each made more than ESB and ROTJ, but ANH beat them all out.  Adjusted, the prequels stunk in comparison.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

negative1 said:

lordjedi said:

 

 

Uh, even though I started the discussion about the box office, I don't care about box office numbers one bit.  Actually, the only reason I mentioned it is because you said it was getting negative reviews all over the place and was looking to become a flop.  I've read one bad review about Wall-E and that was from Kurt Loder.  To bad he's a has been.

 

 

are you referring to me? name or show me 1 single instance where i said it had 'negative' reviews.....it IS A FLOP , compared to other PIXAR films,

that's my point.......

 

OK

negative1 said:

 

no pixar slipped up, and the public (not that i care) also seems to think so,

have you seen the ratings/reviews/box office? hardly a dent..................and

the long term implications don't looks so great either........

To me, that reads as you're saying it got negative reviews.  There ya go.

negative1 said:

 

to each their own. i thought it was awesome, and so did others, enough to make an IMAX version, think that will happen to wall-e? doubt it..

I have yet to see a second IMAX movie (AOTC was the first and only one), so whether it gets an IMAX version or not doesn't mean a thing to me.

negative1 said:

 

i did catch the reference, so what? (and yes i've watched 2001).....................i know what the movie is about, and what the plot points were,

they don't need to be rehashed.............. since HAL knew that no matter if a plant was found or not, it didn't really matter whether eve found

one or not, they weren't going to investigate it anyways.....that's why it was a coverup....

 

Well, I doubt it was intended as a coverup.  To use your logic, the machines were given orders to send probes every so often looking for life.  Then the President says not to bother coming back, but he doesn't say to stop sending the probes.  Now maybe the machines figured they had the humans under control for good, so there's no reason to go back, but I think that's a stretch.  The machines pretty much had to wait on the humans hand and foot all day long and clean up after them, so the only reason I'd see for not going back is to follow the President's order to the letter, despite evidence to the contrary (not to mention the passage of time).  That and the extreme HAL reference just screams "conflicting orders" to me and that's why they didn't want to go back.

negative1 said:

 

2) this has nothing to do with Star Wars , please keep the focus on this movie's universe....

 

Yeah, because this movies universe is so much more different than any other fictional universe.  We have machines that wait on us hand and foot and all that.  Riiiiight.

negative1 said:

 

3) the cockroach was pretty much symbolic of the REAL COMPANION for the whole movie, who actually belonged with  trash, and junk, and refuse....and who does wall-e  have as a friend?,   yeah, a cute'n'cuddly cockroach...............i'm sure they'll be plush versions for the kids (gag).....

Awesome!  That'll go along with my plush headcrab perfectly (which my son also loves)!

negative1 said:

 

so Robots had a drop, but 48%? and as i keep saying, compared to other PIXAR films, which is the scope of this reference, this is extremely bad considering

the rest of the movie field......................THERE is NO WAY that dvd/home sales will make up for the rest of the revenue....

Says you.  It wouldn't be the first time in history that a film didn't do well at the box office but then had great home video sales.

Most of what they listed at that site are simply mistakes, not huge glaring plot holes.  And again, so what?  Does every movie have to be perfect in order to not be bad?  Give me a break.

Wall-E was fun and enjoyable.  I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy it (like you seem to not enjoy most Pixar movies).  Pixar movies make me feel like a kid again.  I'd say they're doing their job just fine.

negative1 said:

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE DVD NOW.  WARNER BROS. STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL RUN TIME FOR THE MOVIE WAS 3 HRS. 30 MINS.  I REALLY CAN'T SEE WHAT ELSE COULD'VE BEEN IN THE MOVIE.  TO ME IT WAS PERFECTLY CUT.  ALL OF HEATH LEDGER'S PERFORMANCES WERE LEFT IN THE MOVIE.

 

BTW, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET THEN YOU SHOULD WATCH BATMAN GOTHAM KNIGHT.  THE STORIES TIE DIRECTLY INTO THE MOVIE.

 

this was one of the most predictable , boring movies i have ever had the misfortune of watching lately..

 

jack nicholson was much better, the first batman was best, ALL  of the rest of them sucked, especially batman begins....

 

harvey dent was lame.....and the joker, eh......

oh well, you know they can't make a sequel (apologies to heath, who tried , but didn't quite make it)...

 

later

-1

Are you just negative to be negative?  Seriously, everyone I know, from hardcore fans to not so much, loved Batman Begins.  I personally thought it was better than even the first Keaton Batman and I love that one too.  Nicholson did obviously play the joker as just a crazy version of himself, but I still liked his performance.  To me Christian Bale is kicking the shit out of all other Batman's combined.  I especially liked his comments in the behind the scenes of Batman Begins when he talked about having a headache during filming.  Instead of taking aspirin for the pain he says "No, use it".  The next shot is then of his "Swear to me!".

Edit: They can make a sequel, they just can't have Joker in it.

For the record, I haven't seen TDK yet, but I want to SOOOOO much!

Edit 2: I have no idea what Watchmen is, but that trailer looks freaking sweet!  I can't wait to see that!

negative1 said:

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

negative1 said:

 

I hope your kids get a better education in school, than this movie...

for your information : box office wise, for 'robots',

The film was released March 11, 2005 in the United States and Canada and grossed $36 million in 3,776 theaters its opening weekend, ranking #1 at the box office.

It grossed a total of $260.7 million worldwide — $128.2 million in the United States and Canada and $132.5 million in other territories.

for wall-e,

Walt Disney Pictures released it in the United States and Canada on June 27, 2008. The film grossed $23.1 million on its opening day, and $63 million during its opening weekend in 3,992 theaters

made more in its opening weekend, but is one of the POOREST performing movies for pixar....yeah, let's wait and see, and

yeah it will make back its budget ($180 million), but how much more????????????????????????????????????

 

later

-1

 

 

FIRST OFF THOSE NUMBERS INCLUDE THE DVD AND VHS SALES.  $128.2 MILLION U.S. FELL SHORT OF WHAT THEY WANTED.  IT'S OKAY, BUT IT STILL COUNTS AS A FLOP.  WAS THERE A SEQUEL?  NO, AND THAT MEANS THAT IT DIDN'T MEET STUDIO EXPECTATIONS.

 

    excuse me,

   do you need further proof? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=robots.htm please learn how to do 'research'..........................

  THOSE ARE BOX OFFICE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they DO NOT INCLUDE VHS or DVD sales, or they would be even higher..

  and furthermore, if you bother to click on the link... notice this part ?  Production Budget: $75 million

yeah, that's right, it made back way more than its budget...

i don't know which universe you live in, that's a huge HIT.......................................

'robots' is the move that Wall-E wishes it could have been............................

pixar LOSES, do you get it now?

Wall-e has disappointed all pixar fans, and is performing as one of the WORST releases they ever have.....

gee, do you think they'll make a sequel for it too?

how do you like this happy quote for the weekend.

Sixth spot goes to Pixar's WALL-E, as the computer animated kids flick got competition from not only Batman, but also Space Chimps this weekend. WALL-E earned $9.8 million and falls 48% compared to last weekend. WALL-E has seen some of the biggest drops in Pixar history, and has a current total so far of $182.5 million.

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=10818&cmin=10&columnpage=3

LOOKS LIKE 'WALL-E' is the movie that is going to be the HUGE FLOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

later

-1

 

Uh, even though I started the discussion about the box office, I don't care about box office numbers one bit.  Actually, the only reason I mentioned it is because you said it was getting negative reviews all over the place and was looking to become a flop.  I've read one bad review about Wall-E and that was from Kurt Loder.  To bad he's a has been.

Anyway, Robots, to me, was boring as hell.

As far as Wall-E goes, maybe you didn't catch the reference to HAL in Wall-E.  Yeah, the robot was following orders, but with evidence to the contrary (the plant) he was unwilling to change his mind (there was no possible way for him to get another order from the President since he was dead), just like HAL.  How was EVE's mission a coverup?  She was sent to earth as a probe to look for any sign of life.  She found the plant that Wall-E had already picked up earlier.  That one plant was all that was needed for the return to Earth.  The Captain didn't seem to care about returning to Earth or not until they found the plant.  The plant was the signal that it was time to come home.

I saw the return to Earth as being a form of redemption for the humans.  Instead of sitting around all day being completely attended too, they'd now develop some sense of accomplishment by being forced to do things on their own.  And with the huge cleanup at hand, they'd have a much greater sense of responsibility to the planet.

Yeah, recycling was a huge, over the top point of the movie, but so what?  You say robots don't have emotion, yet we saw plenty of "emotion" in Star Wars and I don't hear anybody bitching about that.  The whole point of Wall-E was that a robot had developed something after years of doing the same thing every day.  That robot then wanted a companion that he could share his thoughts with.  Hence all the things he did for EVE even after she closed up upon finding the plant.

It's worth noting that Robots had pretty significant drops at the box office every week after it's first week too.  And that was with a horror movie and then a comedy being released the first two weeks after it came out.  It managed to pay for itself in 3 weeks instead of Wall-E's 4, but let's wait and see how Wall-E does in the home video market (everything got clobbered this weekend by Batman).  Wall-E managed a fairly respectable $10 million weekend, considering that Batman, Hellboy II, and Space Chimps were all out (Space Chimps did worse than Wall-E and this is its opening weekend).

And damn DAVY, did the font size change around here or does it look like you're yelling louder than usual?  I had to scroll past all your posts just now since it really seems like you're yelling.  Oh well.

C3PX said:

ferris209 said:

I thought I was about to read a suicidal statement.

 

Yeah, me too. I read the topic and I thought, "Oh, crap, no Sean, what have you done!" Grateful to see it is just a strangly titled manga.

Me three.  My first thought was "Oh no, what the hell?!"  Thank God it was nothing like that.

negative1 said:

the last few pixar movies been pretty hit and miss for me..

monsters inc-miss, finding nemo-miss, incredibles - hit,

cars - HUGE HIT, ratatouille- miss............and now this.......   wall-e.....

it's the first pixar movie that made me ambivalent............it wasn't bad...

but it wasn't very good either...the story was a complete bore, there

was not motivation for anything that happened, and the graphics were average....

 

no pixar slipped up, and the public (not that i care) also seems to think so,

have you seen the ratings/reviews/box office? hardly a dent..................and

the long term implications don't looks so great either........

Um, really, because aside from Ratatouille, every single Pixar movie mentioned has done $60+ million on opening weekend.  Wall-E has the largest budget of the three, but it's only $20 million away from being paid for.  It seems that the two biggest things that are killing Wall-E's box office are Hancock and Hellboy 2.  I'm sure Batman will utterly destroy it this weekend.  I think we're really going to have to wait for the home video market to decide if Wall-E has been a flop or not.

On that note, my wife and I both loved it.  My son wouldn't sit still long enough to watch it, but he doesn't sit still for anything except "Ni-hao, Kai-lan", so that's not a very good indication either (he's not quite 2 yet).  I thought it was a lot of fun and I thought they did a great job with the robots.

Of all the Pixar movies you mentioned, Ratatouille probably scores lowest on my list, but I still liked it.  I've loved every Pixar movie I've seen and I now make it a point to see them just because they're from Pixar.  Aside from A Bug's Life and Ratatouille, I own every single movie Pixar has made.  Hell, I think I've seen Finding Nemo nearly a hundred times and I still love it.  My son loves Cars, but he also really loves cars (toy cars).

ChainsawAsh said:

That doesn't matter.  It's how it DID look.

Look, I don't care if a director wants to change his film to make it exactly how he wants.  But he needs to also recognize the need for preservation of the original iteration.

I agree with you 100% (even the parts I didn't quote).  I was just making the argument that Lucas doesn't care about how it should look.  He wants it to look the way he wants...period.  Whether it's suppose to have grain or not is completely irrelevant to him.

I do think Lucas is the exception to the rule.  I'm sure most directors will have no problem leaving the grain alone when it's suppose to be there.  Now they just need to convince the average movie viewer that the grain is suppose to be there and that it's not scratches and dirt.

Akwat Kbrana said:

 

Blindly accepting everything that comes out of Lucas' mouth is as absurd as blindly hating everything the man has ever done post-1980. Criticism isn't about being slanderous; it's about thinking for ones' self and discussing a myriad of views intelligently. I don't think you'll be crucified over here if you happen to enjoy The Phantom Menace. You may get a good deal of arguments and heated discussions as to why it's an inferior movie, but not crucified as seems to be the Modus Operendi on most gusher forums I've visited.

I can pretty much attest to this as well.  We've had plenty of new folks join recently and quite a few of them love the PT.  Myself, and others, have wondered why they love it so much, but none of us have tried to keep them from having their own opinion.

I haven't visited TFN forums in more than 3 years (ever since ROTS came out), so I don't really know how bad it's gotten over there.  I don't care to find out either.  The last time I went there, one of the headlines couldn't help but feel sorry for GL that he couldn't find a home for the latest Clone Wars series.  Despite everything that's happened, as far as they were concerned, it was the network executives fault for not simply taking Star Wars on the name alone.

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

THE PROBLEM IS IN YOUR SETTING.  DID YOU EXTEND YOUR APPLE CARE?  IF YOU DID YOU CAN SIMPLY CALL APPLE, AND THEY WILL TALK YOU THROUGH SETTING IT UP CORRECTLY.

Or you can just search Google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=mac+wireless+constantly+drops&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Fang Zei said:

AND WAS IT THE ORIGINAL VERSION. NO, OF COURSE IT WASN'T. WHY DID YOU EVEN BOTHER STARTING THIS THREAD (NO OFFENSE).

You need to calm the hell down.

What's even funnier about that is that he even says "They don't suck, we suck" and he's talking to the audience.  They think he's just being funny and they don't realize that he's disgusted with the American people.  Yeah, it sounds funny, but he's making fun of you.

zombie84 said:

Johnboy3434 said:

lordjedi said:

ne of his latest policy outlines is requiring community service in order to graduate high school and college.

 

The bastard. Why doesn't anyone realize that by making people help the community, you only inspire resentment towards the community? Think of it this way: would you live in an apartment building where you not only have to pay rent, but also wash your landlord's feet everyday? Would that endear him to you? No! You'd high-tail it out of there as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, in this case the entire country is an apartment building, meaning the only way to escape it is to jump the border and get a degree in Mexico or something. Who here wants our kids doing things like that?

 

Here in Canada this is mandatory and it hasn't stemyed our charity programs. I think its a good thing; kids ought to help out and learn the responsibility, even if they resent it, and its a good source of labor for charity. How many teenagers like work anyway?

I volunteered plenty during high school and I still do it from time to time today.  The point is that no one but the parents should be forcing kids to volunteer (it's not really volunteering once it becomes a requirement anyway).  Did I do 50 hours of service (Obama's plan)?  I have no idea.  I did a lot and I enjoyed helping people out.  People are usually more than willing to help each other out if they aren't forced to do it by someone else.  I even did plenty of volunteer work for ACS and CHOC a few years back.  I loved every minute of it.

I have no doubt that it won't stimy the charity programs.  I'm sure they'll grow and thrive.  Afterall, since the government will be forcing the students to do it in order to graduate, they'll suddenly have an influx of students to help with all the work.  The question then becomes, will the students continue to volunteer once they've graduated and completed the "requirement"?  Something tells me you'll end up with the same percentage that would've done it regardless.

Of course, I think Obama is only requiring the "community service" if the students want the government money to put them through school.  How about we cut government subsidized education instead of increasing the subsidies?

WXM said:

Oh. Well, if I smoked weed then I might just be be doing as sean wookie is on voting day I think. Ugh. The one set of people I wish could be made president and vice next term is Bush and Cheney. I would sincerely like to see them in the white house for another four years to deal with the big fallout from what they've caused that's very likely on its way (to me it's mostly about the debt -- I am very anti-big-debt -- as Mister Mackey would say, "Debt is baaad, m'kay?":)). As it is now, the next president is going to have almost no choice but to raise taxes to do something about the debt, and that president, whoever they are, is going to get hammered for that, which I don't think is fair (while Bush and Cheney will be retiring on some pretty big nesteggs/gifts I imagine). I am actually surprised anyone wants to step into that post right now; I can't think of anything more thankless than to become US President in 2009. Anything they do to try to address most big problems will make them f**king hated and despised by huge numbers of Americans I imagine. What a terrible situation to put ones self into, isn't it?

That depends.  Reagan seemed to have no problem running against Carter.  He even won in a landslide (lost only Washington state if I remember).  He started cutting taxes and reigning in the government.  By the end of his term, the economy was starting to get better.  By the end of his second term, things were looking much better.

Carter got in because the people were sick of the current party.  It didn't matter who was running, they just wanted the opposite.  Unfortunately, they paid so little attention that the guy they hoped would fix everything ended up making things worse.  Of course it didn't help that Ford pardoned Nixon.  In the American People's eyes, Nixon was a crook that should've sat in jail.

sean wookie said:

 

Who ever gets elected next term will be hated because they will deal with this administrations problems poorly and someone from the opposite party will get elected the next term.

You've been doing your homework :)  We can be almost assured that not only will someone of the opposite party get elected, but it'll probably be a repeat of the Reagan years.  Tax cuts, government cuts, etc, etc.

skyjedi2005 said:

How much better would sky captain have been if they shot it on film?

 

The story wouldn't have been any different, so shooting it on film vs however they did it, wouldn't make any difference.

skyjedi2005 said:

 

I'm convinced the reasoning behind George's support of HD Video is that he supports the independant one man studio system, and wants to bring old hollywood to its knees. George's friends rely on the old studio system for financing and for the analog film as well as their technical crews. He has always had a grudge against hollywood and wants to bleed them dry.

It also seems to me that with all the fights he has had with the unions he would prefer to make films without needing them.

Oh come on now.  I seriously doubt Scorcese, Spielberg, and any other of George's "old pals" are relying on the studio system for financing.  Their reputations are so good that studios have a tendency to green light anything they want.  And it use to be that the studios fell over themselves to distribute Lucas's stuff.  Now nobody cares, but I blame that on the PT and not Lucas's love of all things digital.

If he wants to make movies without unions, he can go to Australia and make them there.  Oh wait, I think he did that with the PT.

skyjedi2005 said:

 

Now as to film grain being removed or minimized in lucas films i am entirely against it.  Having a perfect cleaned and scrubbed image for American Graffiti and THX 1138 when they were shot in 16mm with the grainyness as part of their art.  Just like Lucas wanted star wars to look like a documentary shot on film, grain should be there.

Then the dvd releases get digitally scrubbed and dvnr so that the crappy added cgi does not stick out line a sore thumb.

But maybe Lucas never wanted the grain there in the first place.  Maybe it was only there because he had no choice at the time.  I don't like the SEs or the THX "SE" either, but that doesn't mean Lucas wanted grain in those movies.  Sure, it's what the medium looks like, but if he could do them over again today, he'd probably do it digitally so he wouldn't have any grain, then it would look exactly how he wanted.

Yes, Lucas always wanted Star Wars to look like a documentary, but I don't think he's ever said he wanted it to be grainy.  Just because that's how film looked, doesn't mean that's how he wanted it.

sean wookie said:

I am kind of a reluctant supporter of Obama but all I want is rights for everyone and legalized drugs. The drug war costs too much money and people are doing hard time in prison for things that should be a small fine at the most if not legal. Both parties piss me off. Why does the goverment care that I smoke pot? I want the goverment out of my life, out of my words, out of my garden, out of my guns, out of marriges, out of my internet, out of my air waves, and out of my stash. I renounce my status as a Democrat and am creating the "Get The Goverments Dick Out Of My Ass Party" Also Iran and Vaginas are a bad place to go too.

You want all those things and you're a reluctant Obama supporter?  WTH?!  If you really want all that stuff and neither major candidate offers it, you either go with the one that offers the most "out of your life" or you go with the Libertarian candidate (or even Ron Paul).

If you think Obama is going to get the government out of your life, just go read what he plans to do as President.  One of his latest policy outlines is requiring community service in order to graduate high school and college.  I think kids getting involved in their communities is a great idea, but it definitely should not be a requirement and it definitely isn't something the government should be requiring.  Leave it up to the parents, students, and schools.

STAY OUT OF MY LIFE!

WXM said:

Does anyone here have thoughts on this Ron Paul guy? One of my pals says he's going to vote for him, but I haven't looked into his views in detail yet myself.

He ran as a Libertarian in the last election.  He's now running as a Republican, but his chances are slim to none.  Every Ron Paul supporter seems to think he's some great saviour.  Oh, he's going to kill corporate involvment in government.  He's going to get us out of Iraq.  He's going to lower taxes.  Yada, yada, yada.  What people don't realize is that Ron Paul is a true blue Libertarian.  So if he did get elected, sure, he wouldn't take corporate money, but you can bet your ass that he also wouldn't put any regulations in that hamper business.  If people think corporations are evil right now, wait until you live in a world with Ron Paul as President.  He'd remove most taxes and remove all kinds of regulation.  The free market would be truly free and I bet people would hate it.  Conservatives would love it.  In fact, if it weren't for his stance on Iraq, I'd support him.

"His base is the young people"

Yeah, all the people that didn't live through Carter and don't know any history.  Ask anybody that lived through Carter about Barack Obama and they'll all tell you the same thing, he's another Carter and this country doesn't need 4 more years of Carter.  There's a reason the conservative talk shows all refer to him as Carter 2.  Everything Obama wants to do, Carter already tried, with disastrous results.  You guys want to know how Carter got elected?  The people wanted change and Carter was a Democrat.  Ford was the sitting Republican President that pardoned Nixon and the people wanted something different.

4 years later, Reagan won in a landslide.

Change is fine, but Obama is the wrong kind of change.

If Obama wins, we may in fact witness history repeat itself.  4 years of shit, to be followed by a landslide win of the most conservative president we've had since Reagan.  I only hope Obama doesn't win.

What's even funnier is all these guys that were in their 20s when Carter was elected.  They probably weren't paying attention to anything that was really going on at the time or they were high on drugs.  Either way, even they don't remember the shit this country went through.  It seems that only people in their 30s and 40s at the time are the ones that really remember how bad it was.