You are not logged in. Please register or login.

#291 Re: The Garden » UK Government Starts Internet Censorship » 662 weeks ago

Axlin12 wrote:

I
A radio guy I listen to put it best -- "George W. Bush drove the bus up to the cliff, stopped, turned it off, got out, gave the keys to Obama, who hopped in it, cranked it up, and FLOORED IT over the cliff".

I originally voted for Obama, because he was gonna continue Bush's foreign policy. Because in those days I actually believed that 9/11 WASN'T an inside job. I was drunk on Kool-Aid too. I still believed in God Bless America, mom's Apple Pie, Elvis, and grilled Hamburgers.

Can't be helped that's the way the media portrays things.


As for the UK porn thing, you guys may be liberals, true liberals and in the end it will go away, but usually this spying thing doesn't go away. Case in point, the local counties where I live go on and on about how they bust those in possession or downloading of Child Pornography. So they pass all these local laws, or hide behind the state or federal ones that already exist, and then hide behind "protecting the children".

I'm not Brittish I've worked over there though. I wouldn't say they're "true liberals", there are just very different issues that shape the landscape there. The conservatives there are as liberal as the liberals on most issues and th e liberals can be more conservative than the conservatives. For example a liberal Govt in the UK went to war in Iraq and the conservative government there runs a lot of big government type social programs

But most people don't pay attention to that having to mean that our local Sheriff's departments Cyber-Crime divisions are basically watching our download and search history. No one seems to have a problem with that. And then when you throw a bunch of uninformed evangelicals into it, there's a very thin line between Child Porn, and "Teen Cheerleader Gangbang". People feel real uncomfortable when the head coach of the football team is searching that kind of stuff, and suddenly an arrest gets made because of 'maybe'.

Even if the laws were to be reversed, the spying on what you're doing will never ever end.

I agree the spying thing will never come to an end the bill itself however is unlikely to alst

#292 Re: Guns N' Roses » In a perfect world. » 663 weeks ago

RaZor wrote:

I strongly disagree with both of you. I think CD is on par or better than any other GNR record, AFD excluded. I like it better than Lies, UYI 1, and TSI.  Love UTI 1 and all, but I like CD better.

I'm with you.  AFD, CD, UYI2, UYI,1 LIES

#293 Re: The Garden » UK Government Starts Internet Censorship » 663 weeks ago

Axlin12 wrote:
polluxlm wrote:

Reversed? Are we taking bets? big_smile


I'll take that bet. I'll put $100 down on "NEVER EVER EVER EVER IN A MILLION FUCKING YEARS GONNA BE REVERSED"



I'd also like to put $100 down on "U.S. decides to implement TSA security checks for life"


22

The UK isn't the US. The liberals over in the UK tend to be more liberal.
This is a non-issue in the UK. Just the "fucking tories" being fucking tories. They do this a lot.
It more than likely won't pass.
If by some act of the spaghetti monster it should then come election time in order to grab the youth vote someone Labour will promise to throw this out.
Even then no-one will really give a fuck. years down the line Mark is gonna turn to John in the pub and say "Hey remember when Cameron wanted to know our Porn habits? That was weird"

The reason this is happening at all is because Interpol set up a new Cybercrime division governments are being urged to clamp down on web crime. The tories took this to mean a crackdown on illicit materials online  (in fairness to them I'm sure the brief was full of jargon) and came up with this dimwitted idea that was rolled out just as the new Cybercrime division opened.
The Cybercrime bureau is mostly dealing with fraud, identity theft, and black-hat hacking.

Again this is a non-issue. There doesn't tend to be much rage. The same happened with the dangerous dogs act. Stupid act. Bad way of dealing with a legitimate problem. Ran for a few years and eventually heavily amended to the point of not resembling the original act.
Plain packet cigarettes were another of Cameron's moral crusades. He just forgot about it after a few weeks. Same with minimum pricing of alcohol. It all went out the window.



Axlin12 wrote:

Kinda like the U.S. elderly couple awhile back who searched "Pressure Cooker Recipes" and "Backpacks for trip" at the same time, and had the FBI raid their home.

But hey... Obama and the NSA don't spy on you -- shhh, "all is well"... "all is well"... "all is well"... roll

Obama fucked up. He should have done a 180 on Bush's relentless war against civil liberties.

#295 Re: The Sunset Strip » Bon Jovi Discussion » 663 weeks ago

-D- wrote:

well, its just from the tour and I mean fuck. if he was paying Richie 2 million plus to sit at home.. I can't really blame him.

Phil X prob gets 10k a week, not month

10K per show in fact! But yeah still a lot less.

#296 Re: Guns N' Roses » August 23rd SoTW » 663 weeks ago

Scabbie wrote:

Best rocker from the new era

I'm with you on that one Scabby. It's an excellent rocker.

#297 Re: The Sunset Strip » New Pearl Jam coming soon » 664 weeks ago

RaZor wrote:
Axlin12 wrote:

Song sucks and the album art is worse. Seems like another liberal villianization of God n' Guns.

What stuns me is for as anti-establishment as these grunge bands were, in their middle age they seem to be so willing to trust government and willingly champion the dismantling of individual freedom.

If anything i'd think they'd make music that is the opposite, almost to the point of being pro-terrorist at this point.

Ironically, liberals fancy thenselves the champions of civil liberties. But I guess that's only the civil liberties they like.

I can look past the in-your-face politics if I like the music though, in this case, not so much. I've been bored with Pearl Jam, and grunge in general, for a long while now.

Is it really that clear cut in America now? The liberals and the conservatives just hate each other?
There ain't THAT much difference between the two parties

#298 Re: The Sunset Strip » Superman Thread. » 664 weeks ago

Bloodflower wrote:

Call me crazy but I actually think this might be a good choice. Affleck was great in Argo so we know he can act. Just depends on if he can pull this off or not. Nobody liked Heath Ledger as The Joker until we saw him as The Joker so......

I love AMC movie talk. I watch it religiously. I agree I think this is Affleck's big chance to redeem his acting career.
People are being waaaaaay too over the top about this. Of course he can pull it off!
Look at Henry Cavill, would anybody put his acting chops on par with a Christian Bale type?? No. He's not even on par with Affleck BUT he's a great superman.

This has the potential to be excellent. Anyway batman isn't the crucial casting in this movie (I know I know controversial statement, hear me out). The crucial casting will be the villain. It's a Batman Vs Superman film, so they start off opposing one another, it's been suggested by Snyder that batman will see Superman as a threat because of the destruction leveled on metropolis in the first movie along with his insistence that he won't be controlled and that the world simply needs to trust that this Godlike figure will remain perpetually incorruptible.

Excellent, there's the opening act set-up. Act two is going to need to introduce a threat large enough to make
Superman and Batman work together, they don't need to like each other just to work as a team "this one time" to overcome whatever threat so they can save the day and resume fighting each other afterwards. In the third act Batman and Superman need to overcome the rivalry and start to trust each other so that they can overcome whatever threat Snyder and Goyer come up with. Trust will be a big theme in this movie as at the end of Man of Steel the american government don't trust Superman and Superman doesn't trust them either, and Snyder has pretty much said it's Batman's mistrust of this new God come down from on high that will make him go after him.
They're going to need one HELL of a villain to make Batman and Superman reconcile differences that big and they need to have these characters develop at least a fleeting level of respect for one another if they ever want that Justice League movie and do due diligence to the comic books. (Where Bats and Supes are pretty much BFFs)

When you really look at where this film is already headed Affleck is only really going to have any kind of focus on himself alone in the first act of the movie. That said however,  we gotta keep in mind that this is a SUPERMAN MOVIE FIRST AND FOREMOST, it's unlikely that ANY of the narrative will be told from the point of view of Affleck's Batman.
Was the story of the Dark Knight Rises told from the POV of the Joker? No. Why would it be. It wasn't a Joker film. It was a Joker VS Batman film that was part of a wider Batman arc. We won't get that personal look inside Bruce/Batman's head and life that we're used of. This will be a very different batman.

At long last we're going to get a movie where we see Batman from the outsiders perspective and from that perspective he is a frighteningly dark psychopathic vigilante shrouded in mystery who may or may not even be 100% human. It's that outside perspective on Batman that I've always wanted to see. This movie will be great. There's not much riding on Affleck here. He'd have to work hard to fuck it up and he won't fuck it up because  with the level of respect he's achieved in Hollywood today for his directing, he could entirely re-write history with one decent performance in this role.

#299 Re: The Garden » UK Government Starts Internet Censorship » 664 weeks ago

polluxlm wrote:

Does this mean you'll go to court hypothetically one day for lets say anything and have the prosecution mention that your a registered internet porn user?

Yes, and not just for the embarrassment factor. It will probably be used as supporting evidence in sexual crime cases too.

Probably is a jump. What will actually happen is that labour will replace the tories in a few years and the whole thing will be reversed.

If someone wants to research suicide they should be allowed.
If someone wants to watch porn they should be allowed.
If someone wants to "watch violence" (if that's the correct term?) they should be allowed.

If someone is searching online for child abuse... they should be arrested.

It's weird to see violence porn and suicide equated with child abuse.

#300 Re: Guns N' Roses » Leaked GN'R Songs Thread » 664 weeks ago

It's Axl's backing and Buckets solo that make that anything more than a Village Gorilla B-Side

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB