Meshugger

Same here. But they had some great funding, they even had their own building with a nice garden, seperated but equal from the others So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\ I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list. My experience has been that both are packed with people who think the **** they make up is profound despite it not being particularly good. And they tend to be bourgeois as well. You must've attended a hipster-university, my condolences. True on hating the bourgeois though, but different in how they articulated it. Since the philosophers actually had classes in reason, ethics and morality, they could at least criticize them for being hazardous to a just society (from affording good lawyers to creating laws that benefit only them), the immorality of vices leading to inequity due the potential power and so on. The "artists" just thought that they were the first reading Karl Marx and attended every new kind protest for the sake of protesting. They did posess that raw spirit that one can admire. Too bad it was almost always focused on dumb ****.

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\ I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list.

You forgot the most important part. If he liked/disliked a movie, he would describe well enough for anyone to understand why and made it possible that the reader still determine whether or not the movie itself is worth watching according to those reasons. That's what made his criticism so good, IMO. Many critics seems to miss this critical part.

Nah, it sounds more like the token drunken rambling at a student speakeasy at 4 AM. Simply dumb masquarading as smart with some eloquent language.

My grandmother read 'Animal Farm' as a bedtime-story when i was 9/10-ish. She thought that it had a good message for kids growing up. She was a teacher.

Now, now. We all know that it is better to spread misery equally than trying to make a better world through a positive feedback loop starting from home.

As someone who worked a brief stint as a security guard while in college, I can tell you that Paul Blart is a brilliant character study of the private security archetype. Well that changes everything

It seems like this video has to be shown at least once in the GamerGate-threads:

Oh, prentiousness is ugly without a doubt. But at the same time, if there is no objective reasoning on why Mall Cop 2 is worse than s.t.a.l.k.e.r. then there's really no value to what constitutes as good movie to begin with.

All those directors pretty much worked outside of Hollywood. Heck, even Kubrick emigrated to England in order to have complete control over his projects. The only "artisté"-director left in Hollywood is Terence Mallick, who is as pretentious and airheaded as you can get. So i do not blame Hollywood for not producing movies outside of the established formula. They just need to be reminded of the existence of Tree of Life to be scared of for another year or two.

So, about 3,8 million votes and only one seat. Huh.

There is nothing wrong with a discussion about ethics in the gaming industry but very seldom do we actually see that type of discussion when is comes to issues raised by GG or people that support the movement As I keep saying its more about undermining or dismissing SJ initiatives or people that support SJ Because it's clear and in the open and for the first time, easily accessable: http://deepfreeze.it/

Morning news said about 12% of the popular vote, but only 2 seats. The joys of FTFP-system.

Don't you think it is quite preposterous of us to judge a succint HD quality of an explosion that never was compared to simple homemade colors thrown at a wall in Ran? (0:42 for the lazy)

Sadly Tarkovsky could never conway the same emotional intensity on his characters in Solyaris as the CGI facial expressions as the Hulk in the Avengers.

Another ****lord weighing in:

Why do they even want to be in the UK when they are not participating in what many consider one's civic duty + all those lose women, alcohol and bacon?

Jaa mehr maskulinsten, bitte schön.

Includes some slight NSFW-material

Here they pretty much dictate the labour market completely. Even with support of a President, they could never get the same kind of power in the US since it would most likely break quite a few laws. That's why it would be a at least a fun ride to break the current status quo.

Unions have zero power in the US anyway. I would gladly vote just to see what would happen with a president that told Wall Street to go **** themselves.

Unless Bill is her VP and he plans on assassinating her on day 1 of being president, I don't think so. He may or may not be morally bankrupt, but at least he was a decent president. Her? I know she's morally bankrupt - why else would she stay married to that husband of hers that cheated on her in one of the biggest public marital scandals of all time without so much as batting an eye...if not for the lure of power later on - and while she has shown flashes of competence at one time or another, I'd rather take my chances with virtually anyone else. Its interesting you see her staying with Bill as a sign of weakness or politically opportunistic. I admire her for it and see it as sign of strength , she was utterly humiliated after the Lewinsky affair and understandably could have divorced him and moved on Yet she stayed with him and in the end Bill Clinton redeemed himself and she created her own political identity. She became the first female senator elected from the state of New York and then nearly won the Democratic presidential nomination. She then became Secretary of State ..a very tough job on its own And she did all of this in the context of American politics being still quite dominated by men, especially in 2000. So her achievements are doubly impressive So the real question everyone should ask themselves is " why wouldn't you want her to be president of the USA" ...she deserves it Deserve's got nothing to do with it. You still haven't provided one.single.legislation, principle or judgement on why anyone should vote for her.

No friend of Wall Street and strong grass roots support? Running as a man on a mission instead of just political rhetoric? Yup, congrats. He will be hated by the media and the established democratic party. Expect some hilarious truthbombs.

Yeah all politicians have said silly things in the past. This shouldn't negate all the good she has done in the past and the value she can add as the first women president She has the character traits of shrill harpy with a machiavellian bent. Her sex or political affiliation doesn't matter. No, i think it is time that people should pull up their boot straps, accept that there's no free lunch and vote for a candidate that stands for strength, honor, and glory. Preferably running with the following campaign-music: