That's why you go with a place like Demonoid.
That's why you go with a place like Demonoid.
What I am not understanding here is that you state you were aware of the facts. Yet believed that he believed that he was different.
Whoa whoa whoa. Where did I EVER say that I believed he was different? I said I thought he was genuine...as in, I believed that HE believed himself. That's not the same thing as saying that I thought he would actually accomplished everything he claimed he would.
How? How do you know for a fact that the guy was brought up in the Chicago democrat factory, and voted on nothing. Yet still think that he is going to speak honestly about his "Hope and Change" of america?
Because of interviews with him. Completely ignoring his large speeches, ignoring the times when he was reading from a teleprompter, I'm talking about when it was him, an interviewer, and a camera. The guy seemed to truly believe he would do good things if he was elected, and those things seemed to be genuinely good-natured in purpose.
Again, I'm not saying that I believed he would accomplish these things, I'm saying that I believed that he believed.
How do reconcile that within yourself?
I don't have to reconcile anything, because you seem to have some misguided preconceived notion of what goes on in my head.
Yes, both as a continuation of the first film and as a film by itself. It was really entertaining, it did a good job of putting the audience in the character's heads, it maintained consistency with the real-world representation in the computer world, and naturally it looked awesome. Basically, it was good for the same reasons the first one was good.
People seem to forget how slow-paced and badly-written/acted the original was.
Dish, come on...in this political climate, anyone that makes it far enough to be a potential presidential nominee is going to be pushing the agenda of one side over another.
Just because they have an "I" after their name doesn't make them any more trustworthy than someone with a "D" or an "R".
No, I'm telling you that I was aware that HE thought he could do all those things...that's very different than BELIEVING he could.
You don't have to be an asshole, dish...it's possible to have a civil discussion.
or diluting the Christian message to achieve popularity.
Who dilutes the Christian message more than the Vatican?
We are happy that you have finally come to grips with the fact that you were ignorant.
I was saying the exact same thing back during the election as the post you responded to. How would that make me ignorant if I recognized it back then...? Thanks for the assumptions though, we all know how well those work out.
That is an impressive list to be sure, but I wasn't referring strictly to the nominees...I meant in general.
I remember even just a few years ago being able to go to the movies a couple of times a month and having to DECIDE between what to see...now, there's barely anything every couple of MONTHS that I want to see
I'm hardly becomming jaded...I'm technically watching more movies than ever (yay 8-at-a-time Netflix!), it's just that newer stuff seems, as a whole, to be fairly weak.
...despite some of the huge names that came out last year, overall the new movie scene was a bit boring. There were some big ones that were awesome (Tron, Inception), but overall, there wasn't a lot of variety to be excited about as a moviegoer.
I still believe that he honestly thought he would be able to accomplish everything he was saying on the campaign trail in 2007-2008...but then once he was elected, he realized how impossible that would be.
Not saying that's right, I'm just saying that he did seem truly genuine back then.
I'd say baffling is more appropriate...as huge as the website is, and with as much personal information being slung around, you'd think they would make it ONLY https at this point...
That was the inspiration for my post
and that is eliminating bad people.
One country's "bad people" are another country's heroes. "Bad people" is very subjective. Granted, tyrannically ruling people is "bad", while allowing them freedom to do and say what they want is "good", but still...painting sides by using phrases like "us" and "them", or "good" and "bad" completely ignore something BOTH sides need to remember:
Our blood is always red when it runs.
Pfft. If he was smoking good shit, he'd be saying something along the lines of "can't we all just get a bong...I mean along? Whoa."
On an unrelated note, the PDF you linked to in your sig is pretty good! I myself have been using short(really short, lol) stories as practice for a larger story arc I'm writing. Each story focuses on a specific writing technique, just so I can tool around with it. I currently have one of them up on Scribd...free to read, free to download (although I still need to add the CC stuff to it.) Check it out, if you like.
It's about a zombie slowly coming back to life. There's zero dialogue throughout all three pages (I needed to practice with descriptions of events and locales, from a god's eye view.)
"You tweachewous miscweant!" -- Elmer Fudd