Several times previously I've seen this issue and while I don't know all the details, rape is rape.
Yet, in the Middle East, if you are a woman and you are raped, it must be your fault.
It really baffles me that a woman is to blame, even if she was drinking. Time and time again I hear of stories that "the men were seduced".
WTF? Get a hold of your fucking hormones and thinking like a educated human. This, "it was her fault" is a bullshit cop-out.
I imagine rapists must love Dubai. No jail time for them. If they rape a woman they go free on the "she was too hot" plea.
For a very, very long time, black people have been treated poorly and with racist people controlling if they voted, drove a car or owned land. It has been an extremely tough road for their race.
Most people don't know this but the slave industry of the 1700's existed long before America was even found by the Europeans. Black tribes would enslave defeated tribes to do their labor. When the white Europeans stumbled on this slave system they took advantage of it. Then in America, cheap slave labor became the backbone of the southern states.
After decades of fighting for equal rights, some of the black community want more than they deserve. They want to use the history of the black slaves from the 1700's to get more rights, but they already have all the rights I have; and more. They can do any thing I can do with even more programs and money being available to them because they are a minority.
Being in real estate, I have had the dishonor of seeing blacks who take advantage of the system.
There was an entire family who collected not only permanent unemployment but disability benefits, but they worked part time for cash and had no disabilities. They spent most of their free time not bettering their lives, but sitting at home smoking weed and watching soap operas or game shows.
I'm against the recent cover of the Rolling Stone magazine. I dislike that they would put the face of a bomber, a murderer on their magazine.
I support those companies who refuse to distribute it and those who pulled it from their shelves.
So is Rolling Stone magazine just trying to increase sales or are they trying to make a point? Their view is that he is an iconic figure. I disagree.
That face is now an iconic figure because Rolling Stone magazine did this; they now created him as being an iconic figure.
Shame on them.
If this doesn't put a smile on your face you are either dead or a pedo.
Zimmerman is now freed, but the truth was not told. Zimmerman has lied about what really happened. He should have gotten 25 years for manslaughter.
Trayvon was guilty also for confronting Zimmerman. He should have walked away from him and left the area or gone back to his parent's apartment.
Zimmerman could have avoided this by listening to the dispatcher and let the police handle it.
This confrontation could have been avoided.
It is a rarity that I get to see a movie, but two in one week, that's like a Universe being formed from a singularity.
Yesterday my wife and I went to see the new Superman flick. I actually didn't mind going because the trailers were actually promising. I knew General Zod was a reboot as well the whole "where superman came from" and "krypton explodes", but I wasn't prepared for the pile of shit the makers of this movie were going to do on the traditional story.
You can ruin a movie with too much CG/Action.
Through out the movie, in order to confuse the viewer, they use a "out of focus, zoom in, zoom out" style which leads the person to believe that superman is moving so fucking fast that you can't actually lock in on him. Ok, <yawn>. Besides breaking the believability of the story you are left thinking two things when it first happens: 1) they screwed up the CG and didn't focus correctly 2) am I supposed to think I'm a ridge with a telescope trying to track superman?
Then there is the twenty minutes of Superman fighting and being tossed through buildings and vice versa. Huh, we get it, move on please.
I went to see World War Z last night and I was reluctant to do so. The only reason was because a friend of mine, former roommate, really wanted to see it. The reason why I didn't want to see it was because of the trailer, which I then used to compare to the book. I knew it was going to be a marketing vehicle for Brad Pitt and his political and environmental opinions; much like "28 Days Later" was a UK/Anti-war movie.
I ended up being correct. World War Z was a movie which Brad Pitt created to project his views on how humans are ruining the Earth and destroying civilization. It was plastered all over the movie, in the opening scenes, in the dialog, in the visuals and at the very end.
Here is the breakdown:
The visuals were good and it was the most enjoyable part of the movie. At the end of the movie, when the characters are in the WHO lab, the shuffling zombies are the best.
The audio was good, but other than that they weren't any thing special. I just thought they did a good job at the chattering teeth, the "boom boom boom" stuff.
The acting was average, but I give big Kudos to Daniella Kertesz, who played Segen, an Israeli soldier. She was very believable after getting her hand cut off.
The script sucked. It isn't any thing like the book an there were too many hiccups in the movie to make it believable. When I see a zombie movie I want the crap to be scared out of me. This movie isn't scary at all; in fact there were dozens of people laughing around me.
Banning a girl off the 6th grade football team for "lust" reasons is ridiculous.
Yes it is a private christian school, but lust is a scapegoat excuse.
I've lived in Florida for over four decades now. I've been one of those people, who when a weee-lad, visited Disneyworld almost on a monthly basis. I also spent many times at the park due to school, corporate or a family function (such as a wedding) over the past three decades.
It was always enjoyable until the 1990's when Disney took on a different shape as a company. Long gone where the feeling of "family" and "amusement park". Instead, Disney took on the form of a money making cash cow (or I should say mouse) instead of the high quality I found from my youth.
I see too many high paid executives who suck up the money and give nothing positive in return. Then during the days of Michael Eisner (who I feel was the worst CEO of all time) started Disney down a path to which it has never escaped.
Now they raise the prices, yet again, and for what?
My family was there just a few weeks ago and the lines were so packed that they didn't get to see any thing new. Also, the park seemed to be over worked with employees being less than cheerful or happy to assist.
I hate it. The only thing worth while is the relationship they had with Pixar but thankfully Pixar was able to escape from their stink and not be corrupted.
Every time a new console war starts brewing, I make predictions on the results. So far I've been remarkably accurate. Lets see how well I do this time.
The only reasons the Wii was successful were its price and its casual friendly set up. I predicted they'd be the leader in sales, but added the drawback that it could never contend with Sony or Microsoft in hardcore games because it was effectively a PS2 with a gimmick controller. It had neither the power nor the support.
The WiiU takes this to a level that shoots itself in the foot.
First problem is it was released too soon. It is competing with PS3 and XBox 360, both of which are cheaper and more powerful. It will never contend with PS4 or XBox 1. It is outclassed in every way. So Nintendo threw away the cheapness advantage it enjoyed last generation in exchange for absolutely nothing.
The new controller gimmick is shit. If I want a hand held console I'll buy one. I'll never want one so big, heavy, clunky, and vulnerable, however.