Crap Throwing Monkey

What's the difference between a pizza and a baby? Pizzas don't scream when you put them in the oven.

Wussieboys always joke about what they will do to the defenseless - sort of a compensation thing.

Some of the feedback's really classic... "I shouldn't have to pay for the enlisted to live like kings and queens."

The ignorance of that statement is absolutely astounding. Please tell us, what kind of "people" is "Ghost of BiB" that he knows so little about this?

Realized it the next morning????? What were they thinking in the meantime, that the kid was just a refugee from Cambodian midget lion wrestling?

Taken as a whole, the entire series is arguably good storytelling. Lucas' overall vision in relating the downfall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker is breathtaking, taken in and of itself equivalent to the Godfathers I and II. The problem arises when Lucas actually tries put his vision to film. Whereas Coppola was enough of a writer and director to translate Puco's epic to the screen, the entire Star Wars series could have been written and directed by a troop of monkeys and no one would have noticed the difference.

And as for the Jedis not being aware of the order before it was given...they make a point in each movie on how the Dark Side clouds the force and limits the Jedi's powers. I think it was made more forcefully in Ep. II...but they mentioned it in III as well. Point being, while it may be a hokey plot device, it is NOT an inconsistency.

No need to, they're alive and well and occasionally post here. Straight up the NYS Thruway from NYC about two or two and a half hours...

They also haven't denied the existence of bigfoot...

Acting and writing, he's probably right. Apparently, Carrie Fisher had a hard time delivering some of her lines without laughing in the first movie, because she thought the dialog was so hokey.

Strikes me that the idiocy is kind of evenly clustered at both poles.

But actually... So again, NEWSWEEK calls the story (not the publishing of the story, but the story itself) an "error" and a "mistake", but you have "ample evidence" that it's true? Too bad Newsweek doesn't have your sources...

I'll always rank "A New Hope" highest, because it's a great retelling of the classic "hero" story that traces its roots all the way back to the Legend of Gilgamesh, and I believe that Lucas' retelling of it is the single best retelling of the most successful story in the history of civilization.

You're just upset because Yoda's taller than you...

Don't even talk to me about Jar Jar. My conscious mind has blocked all memory of him. The worst part by far about Revenge of the Sith, I though, was that Jar Jar lived.

It took me all of ten seconds to open the 9/11 commission report to a random page and find: "During the summer and early autumn of 2000, Bin Laden [sic] and senior al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan started selecting the muscle hijackers [...]" What 9/11 Commission is Dean talking about?

Take your "Dems suck! Republicans rule!" crap to another thread. We're trying to have an intelligent discussion on the fillibuster here.

First, there is no applicable law to the fillibuster. It's not in the legal code, it's in the rules of order for the Senate. Those rules simply state that he who has the floor may not be interrupted...the fillibuster developed from that through the simple extention that if one has the floor and can't be interrupted, he blocks the Senate from doing any other work as long as he's speaking. But eventually, they got lazy and decided "Rather than stand up there, let's just agree that if the minority declares a fillibuster, it has the same effect." That's the way it works today. What the Republicans are trying to do now is change the rules of order so that if a fillibuster is declared, it can be broken by a majority vote. Ultimately what that will most likely do is force the fillibuster to revert to its original form: take and hold the floor until your voice gives out. Changing THAT requires changing the rules of order to remove from everyone the right to uninterrupted speech on the Senate floor - which ultimately hurts the majority party more than the minority. But there's no legal or Constitutional issue directly involved here. The fillibuster is embodied not in any laws, but in a formal code of conduct and a gentlemans' agreement that dictate the internal workings of the Senate.

I didn't think he was horrible in the first one (didn't think he was good..."watchable" at best.) But in ROTJ he set a new standard for shreikingly putrescent acting. I've never seen an actor try to play a part as stoic and detached, and come off as comatose like he did as a Jedi. His performance there makes Elizabeth Berkely's performance in Showgirls look Oscar-worthy.

Nice meaningless "liberals suck" rant. You have anything to say about the fillibuster rules?

Personally, I don't see where that's a bad thing. Given the calibre of people we have in Congress these days, I'd support just about anything that makes it harder for them to accomplish anything. And you know what's scary? Anyone reading this thread can learn more about the issue in ten minutes than they would have learned in the past six weeks of watching the news...

Basically, it's a petulant little temper tantrum. The equivalent of holding their breath until they turn blue so they won't have to eat their peas. Ultimately, one side or the other caves, and they either eat their peas or have them taken away (and if they're REALLY good little boys and girls, they might even get a cookie). But if all they wanted was a voice...open debate's a better choice. Even an actual fillibuster discoursing on the topic the prompts it would be a better choice. But when they monopolize the floor to read from the phone book...it's kind of tough to argue that a fillibuster is simply a means for the minority party to be heard.

Uh...yes.

Back in the Clinton administration, when the Democrats controlled the Senate, there was just the sort of fillibuster by the Republicans that they're now trying to break. The Democrats broke the fillibuster, by the way, when Barbara Boxer essentially blackmailed Trent Lott with blocking every single appointment he made for the rest of his term unless he lifted the fillibuster. Of course, in government it's not called "blackmail", it's called "negotiation".