Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - superlurker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
Why did Thor get fat?

He got really sad and traumatized by Thanos killing half his people, so he locked himself up with Korg and Miek and played video games and drank beer. His new archenemy is Noobmaster69.

Music, Movies, Tv and Books / Re: Avengers Endgame - Spoilers
« on: April 24, 2019, 08:48:41 PM »
I definitely was more than a bit annoyed with the Grrrrl Power thing. Both Scarlet Witch and Captain Marvel looked completely overpowered against Thanos compared to Thor, Cap and Iron Man. They all had perfectly fine, heroic moments in their fights against Thanos and I thought Cap with Mjolnir was especially good, but it sort of spoils all their hard fighting efforts when Captain Marvel can just swoop down and sort of effortlessly own Thanos. Every scene she was in was like a scene from Justice League with Superman in it in terms of showing up the others. The shot of the Grrrrl Brigade was too much (like "hold it, I need to stop doing what I'm doing and run across this huge battlefield to pose").

Thor looked like Volstagg for most of it, yeah, but they turned him into a pure comedy character in Ragnarok anyway.

I was also a bit pulled out of it when they were putting in glaringly obvious set-ups for the Disney+ solo series, especially Loki escaping with the Tesseract, but also Old Man Cap handing over the shield. Which was like "I guess it'll be more politically correct of me to hand it over to you, Black Sidekick, than to my oldest friend who had a better run as Replacement Me in the comics."

As for Hulk, this sort of made Infinity Wars even worse. No glorious return, no getting to hit Thanos back. He got smashed and never returned. Italy will commit suicide now.

Overall I really liked it up until the moment when a million Avengers and friends showed up to fight Thanos and his army. Just my personal taste but I would have preferred to maintain the focus on the original Avengers plus a few extras to the end/resolution.

I agree on that. The movie just became a huge, messy lightshow at that point.

The film drags in a few places - the trip to the 70s and the meeting between Tony and Howard Stark felt a bit much. And by the time Cap sees Peggy it feels like we have had one too many emotional reunions with dead characters.

I felt like the Howard Stark thing was unnecessary and too much, at least the amount of time spent on it. Cap seeing Peggy was necessary for his arc and done in a better way.

One thing that bothered me was that they spent a bit of time talking about time travel mechanics, and being careful about putting the Infinity Stones back in place in the past to avoid paradoxes, but then all the other stuff went down with Past Thanos going to the future and Nebula killing herself and so forth. Presumably Cap put everything back in place somehow.

Gwyneth Paltrow looked like she's aging horribly in some of the scenes, which speaks well for her beauty products. Peggy looked pretty good for being like 50-60.

ICT / Re: MCU Captain Marvel vs DCCU Superman
« on: April 24, 2019, 08:02:16 PM »
In the final battle, she wrecked Thanos' big-ass spaceship the same way she did the Kree ships, and Thanos had an "oh fuck" expression when he saw that. And her final big moment was a physical contest of strength with Thanos. She prevented him from closing his hand to do another snap and looked like she was going to overpower him, since she tanked his face punch and it probably hurt his fist more than her face ("oh, was that a punch? you gon' get raped now"). Thanos had to pull the Power Stone off of the gauntlet and use that separately to punch her away.

Meaningless nitpicking but, as i remember it, it was a headbutt that she no-sold, Im pretty sure she was gradually bending Thanos fingers to the point they looked like they were about to break and he blasts her away with the power gem rather than punches her.

Yeah, you're right, I didn't recall it entirely right; it was a headbutt she no-sold. But the Power Stone was a punch-blast combo thing. And the headbutt no-sell occurred basically right after Thanos knocked Thor out of the remainder of the fight with one. I thought the most memorable aspect to it was Thanos' facial expressions about basically anything she did, though. I went to grab some screenshots from a shitty cam version.

"She did what to my spaceship?"

Kind of looked like when Captain America tried to hold Thanos back during the first movie, only with less strain and turning out slightly differently.

After Thanos headbutts her, she's totally fine and he looks slightly concerned.

She went from standing underneath him to pushing him down to his knees, and Thanos had to pull out the Power Stone to get her away.

ICT / Re: MCU Captain Marvel vs DCCU Superman
« on: April 24, 2019, 01:02:38 PM »
Slight spoilers below. Skip past if you don't want to see them.

Endgame didn't exactly make her look weaker.

She saved Tony and Nebula in space. She knocked Thanos around pretty good before they murdered him.

In the final battle, she wrecked Thanos' big-ass spaceship the same way she did the Kree ships, and Thanos had an "oh fuck" expression when he saw that. And her final big moment was a physical contest of strength with Thanos. She prevented him from closing his hand to do another snap and looked like she was going to overpower him, since she tanked his face punch and it probably hurt his fist more than her face ("oh, was that a punch? you gon' get raped now"). Thanos had to pull the Power Stone off of the gauntlet and use that separately to punch her away.

Basically, it looked like Captain Marvel > Thanos (without the gauntlet) > (fat) Thor + Iron Man + Cap with Mjolnir. Cap using Mjolnir was one of the highlights of the fight, though.

Of course, Scarlet Witch was raping Thanos too and he had to call for orbital bombardment to counter her since he can't fly and that makes telekinesis sort of a bitch to deal with.

Based on overall impressiveness, Captain Marvel generally looks like she'd beat DCCU Superman handily. It really depends on whether you'd rank Superman to be along with plebs like Hulk and Thor or a middleweight like Thanos.

Debate / Re: Julian Assange is goin' to jail
« on: April 15, 2019, 06:21:55 AM »
If you despise Assange, you've thrown your lot in with the mass murderers and terrorist supporters

On a purely personal basis, Assange is clearly more than a bit of an asshole narcississt. And in terms of aiding mass murderers and terrorists, the way he doesn't redact the material he releases to avoid collateral damage has probably caused its own share of misery. By contrast, Snowden was careful to avoid that. Assange doesn't seem to care that he sometimes ruins innocent lives or the lives of people that don't deserve it, as long as he gets to feel powerful.

Recognizing that Assange is probably a despicable asshole himself doesn't equate to sympathizing with someone else.

Music, Movies, Tv and Books / Re: Aquaman trilogy
« on: January 10, 2019, 11:06:29 AM »
He was so comical angry at Aquaman when everything that went wrong was straight up his and his dad's fault. I never felt less sympathy for a character since everyone in Rent.

But isn't that basically Black Manta's entire character? In the comics, he just sort of showed up and started hating for no good reason; it was only after a few decades that they decided to give him some sort of origin. Him being a completely irredeemable douchebag that just really, really hates Aquaman without a good or remotely sympathetic reason to do so is part of his charm. A villain that's just unreasonably hateful and spiteful without reason and redeeming qualities is a nice change of pace from most.


Music, Movies, Tv and Books / Re: Aquaman (spoilers)
« on: January 09, 2019, 03:08:17 AM »
I thought it was enjoyable, though forgettable.

The thing with being the ruling class because of genetic superiority wasn't necessarily the best choice, though.

ICT / Re: Panthergod vs Afrika...
« on: November 11, 2018, 11:26:34 PM »
Only now seeing this desperate, childlike plea for attention, and  I love the effeminate impotent cuck fury on display here. Please, continue. Display your true natures as I have correctly noted for years.

dude your still a virgin arent you?

He likes turning girls into lesbians.

Debate / Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« on: October 10, 2018, 11:54:53 AM »
I've always found the term "liberal media" to be extremely vacuous. It's pushed either by various forms of fairly extreme ideologues who push the Overton window in their direction by branding everything less extreme than themselves as some opposite extreme, or even worse, by figures that push politics of ignorance by branding anything that doesn't fit their false worldview as a form of political opposition. There are genuinely liberal media, but those aren't necessarily the mainstream ones.

Debate / Re: Will Trump go down as the worst president ever?
« on: September 30, 2018, 12:28:00 PM »
(An aside: Rufio, what was your first forum name. It's been so long.)

He was Jimmy-San.

Debate / Re: Lindsey Graham...
« on: September 29, 2018, 04:58:38 PM »
I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

To me, that event has multiple elements to it. If it happened, he was inebriated, and people have occasionally been known to do things they wouldn't otherwise while drunk. Of course, it may also be that the actions he took points to personality traits he's otherwise keeping in check. However, he was also 17 years old.

A 17-year old male brain still isn't fully developed, especially when it comes to some of the traits pertaining to doing stupid shit and taking dumb risks. In that regard, the brain isn't fully developed until much later, around 25 years of age. Meanwhile, the legal system has chosen some arbitrary cutoff points (like 18 years of age for some things, or 21 years of age for other things). What I'm getting at is that there should be some rethinking about how criminal justice in particular applies to young people. There is something to the "boys will be boys" line that some Republicans have trotted out, but I don't see them lining up to take that reasoning to its next logical step.

When it comes to anyone that does not belong to Kavanaugh's particular and privileged group, of course, there are no boys -- only criminal adults that are completely rational in their decision-making and ability to assess consequences, and hence responsible for their actions once some specific age is reached.

Kavanaugh today is likely a very different person than he was then. If he hasn't exhibited any similar behavior since (of which some are accusing him, but many of those accusations seem opportunistic), I don't think that should weigh decisively against him, if his judgement today is otherwise sound. He's not been nominated to be a saint. However, at this point, the picture as a whole makes him a very weak candidate overall.

The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

It doesn't even take outside influence. People make up their own false memories anyway. In this case, that swings both ways -- some of the yearbook references and some prior references from other sources seems to paint a very different picture of Kavanaugh than he did himself. Ford seems sincere, but as you note, her story has apparently changed over time, though it could also be true that the therapist's note-taking was sub-standard.

And I agree that the investigation is likely to lead to little being changed. It would have to take some pretty heavy evidence to sway the other side that one side or the other is correct, and that's just not likely to be found here. Even if all the witnesses suddenly swing heavily one way, that can be waved off as a conspiracy to pressure them somehow. I would even consider as possible a scenario where Kavanaugh is confirmed, only to later be impeached by a Democratic Congress once they find some appropriate nail to drive in.

Debate / Re: Lindsey Graham...
« on: September 28, 2018, 09:04:13 PM »
Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.

Debate / Re: Will Trump go down as the worst president ever?
« on: September 25, 2018, 06:35:04 PM »
Also getting on stage and talking about how great you are isn't going to resolve any world problems.

On the contrary, it helps unite the world in a good, hearty laughter. Everyone came together in a beautiful, global moment.

General Chat / Re: Houston opens Robot brothel
« on: September 25, 2018, 03:58:59 PM »
Guys, the pussies are modular. They can be swapped out or upgraded for a personalized user experience.

You seem to know a lot about mechanical hookers. Or is that your friend?

Debate / Re: The Deficit should we care
« on: September 22, 2018, 10:02:24 PM »
I'd like some clarification on that argument.

The Treaty of Versailles took down Germany. People RIGHTFULLY shit on Hitler, but we can't ignore what made him popular. His resentment of the Treaty of Versailles, blaming the foreign powers for imposing the Treaty on them, is what got him support. When your dollar is worth nothing (which is what happened to Germany), it impacted the poor the most. The cost of milk may not matter to someone whose rich, but someone who is living paycheck to paycheck (or worse, unemployed) feels that pain. Printing money to pay back debt does just that.

You can cite past countries with debt but its hard to point a country that even comes close to the amount of debt the US has. 21 trillion is a hard number for any country despite how entwined America is in the global economy. I believe its largely a saving grace that America's issues would have catastrophic impact on the rest of the world but that doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels. There's some economists that will argue increasing the debt when the economy is down is a way to stimulate the economy. Let's say that's true, does that mean we do it indefinitely? Since W, there have been waves of the economy being good and did we cut the debt at all since? We didn't when the economy was temporarily good under, we didn't when the economy was temporarily good under Obama, and we aren't doing it now when certain numbers in the economy are high. It's impractical and immoral to indebt future generations for short-term stimulus. We are getting drunk on spending.

The Treaty of Versailles specified that the debt had to be paid in a value tied to gold. That's different than having a debt that's specified in a floating currency. It meant the Germans had to buy stable foreign currency or gold to pay their debt. The U.S. debt can be paid in dollars. If the German post WW1 debt had functioned the same way, they would have just printed a stack of Marks and been on their merry way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37