Valsuelm

Noam is usually a good read. Along the lines of that article, I highly recommend this: http://youtu.be/bjMRU75M_AI http://youtu.be/27sN6IhIMxo

It just about never is even close to half that number. A million sounds like a nice big number though, and most people rarely fact check. The mainstream media and many that get their news from it are so petty though that if numbers were more accurately recorded we'd have idiotic talking heads downplaying one march that only had, say ~120,000 people vs another march that had, say ~230,000 people. Many idiots would somehow see the second march's issue(s) as more legit, or use the first march's smaller numbers to discount the legitimacy (if there is any) of their issue(s).

Seagal > Reeves > Kermit the Frog > Neeson Reeves take a lot of undeserved flak I think. He just does what most A-list Hollywood actors do most of the time, plays himself.

Probably quite well considering who and what his films generally focus on, as well as his political views.

Go for it. If you are so massively misinterpreting what I write as vitriol, or actually find it annoying, what I write is likely lost on you anyways. Something I've found to be true that applies to pretty much everyone at various times: The mood in which you are when you read what someone else writes can very much influence how you interpret their words. There is zero vitriol in anything I've ever written on this forum. What I write might be blunt and a little rough for some to swallow as a result, but there's zero animosity or anger behind it.

Who is being punished for being good and how?

You have a cartoony idea of what evil is. There is good and evil in everyone.

These Final Hours 6.5/10

That's got about as much credibility and substance as the average idiot who says 'let's nuke all dem towelheads and be done with it!'. Yea.. you could say that idiot is a potential genocidal maniac as well, and unfortunately there's no shortage of such idiots out there. I could hop in my car right now, travel to almost any bar with people in it out there, bring up Muslims and the middle east, and it would be almost guaranteed that some idiot would say that or something like it, of course not even realizing that most Muslims in the middle east don't wear turbans. But that guy doesn't realize much. I'm about as worried that ISIS will accomplish such a genocidal goal as the aforementioned average idiot will accomplish his. You shouldn't be any more worried either.

You managed to watch all four seasons of A Game of Thrones twice and are on your third watch and you think that "Anyone who thinks Jon Snow is anything but good or Tywin is anything but evil just aren't paying attention."???? Do you watch it drugged? Were you only half paying attention? Those are serious questions. Granted, it's more fleshed out in the books but the TV show has still done a good job of demonstrating that Jon Snow isn't the embodiment of an Angel or Tywin the embodiment of a Devil. Far from it really, especially in regards to Tywin. He wouldn't even make my top ten 'bad' (as in evil) characters list from A Song of Ice and Fire.

Serious reading comprehension fail going on...

You really think that just because the U.S. is the leader in oil production at the moment that it will just stop it's efforts on behalf of big oil to corner the oil market elsewhere? Seriously? The oil game is global in scope and the people who play it play are playing the long game. They aren't subject to short attention spans, like so many who swallow up their garbage are. That said, as I already mentioned, there are possibly reasons other than oil that we might be sending troops to West Africa. Two things for sure, guns aren't very effective vs. viruses, and 3,000 isn't a small number of troops.

Actually, there is oil in these nations. Here's one article talking about it. There are more out there. I know you like to think otherwise, but the U.S. doesn't send thousands of troops anywhere just out of the kindness of it's heart. Oil or not, something more than Ebola was up with the ~3000 troops sent to Liberia.

Gosh, I hope not. Especially when you're rocking that avatar.

Perhaps. The characters in the books in general are a little more dynamic and fleshed out than they are in the TV show (as is usually the case with a book vs. movie/TV). So some characters like Tyrion might seem darker, while others who seem more 'bad' in the show, might seem a little lighter in the book. As I'm sure you figured out in the show, Tyrion is a very pragmatic and intelligent character that does what he has to do to survive. Slight possible spoiler below for anyone who hasn't read the books and has only seen the show:

'Moderate', 'Radical', 'Extremist', 'Centrist', "Leftist', etc are subjective terms that usually don't mean too much save to those that use them. And those that use them usually have an agenda against whomever they are labeling and/or a very polarized view of the world largely dictated by someone else's agenda (who started the labeling). Also, people who use them often have different ideas as to what they are. A 'moderate' or 'centrist' is usually someone the author/speaker wants you to like or at least think isn't that bad, whereas 'Extremists', 'Radicals', 'Far-Right', or 'Far-Left' are generally someone the author/speaker doesn't want you to like, heck they often don't even want you to consider what those people they are labeling even has to say (they'd usually prefer you just think they are unreasonable people or even nuts so you just dismiss everything they say before giving whatever is said consideration). For the most part whenever I see 'moderate' attached to the word 'Muslim' in the media it generally just means someone that has no connection to an official 'terrorist group' or doesn't support anything that official 'terrorists' have done. Those people would be called 'Radicals' or 'Extremists'. Basically don't be on the 'Terrorists' team or cheer for them and you'll be considered a moderate. Oh, and don't throw rocks at people for committing crime X that isn't perceived to be a crime in some places. Throwing rocks at people makes you a 'radical' too it seems in the eyes of those who like to label a lot. But again, it's subjective, and usually just amounts to name calling rather than actually being informative in any way.

Out of the 45 it missed some Muslims that condemned the attacks, such as the leader of Hezbollah. Media Matters though..... the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, and even Hustler is generally more tasteful and less full of bitterness and division than they. Hell, they might even be worse than Sean Hannity. And the site quoting them seems to be nothing more than an 'I hate Republicans' website. You regularly read tripe such as that article or was it linked from a more reputable source? The list of 45 was useful but it's found in a pile of dung.

The only ways I'd say they are worse than the series is that you don't actually get to see Emilia Clarke in the nude when reading the books, the awesome show opener isn't in the books, and Djawadi's music isn't in the books. In pretty much every way other than that they are better, even as well done as the show is. So strap yourself in for some good reading.

Oo Did you read all the books? A smaller role he did not play. Like most of the other characters, he's in almost every scene the show has him in and then some in the books.

I think you are confusing the Geneva Convention with the ICC. The U.S. ratified and signed the former, it is not a part of the latter. And as much as I'm for basic human and legal rights for all, I do not think the U.S. should be a part of the ICC. It generally just oversees political agendas and witchhunts, and I'm 1000% against governmental bodies that are considered by some to be above nations.

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this? And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly? What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil. Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases. They do. Thought it's arguable those rights are recognized under one of the other Geneva treaties. That they don't is a misconception believed by many that was perpetrated by the very people who wanted to deny 'enemy combatants' of their rights in the first place. Before 'terrorists' were blamed for most of the evil events in the world, 'anarchists' were. If there's a group of people or ideology out there who truly don't have a nation, it is anarchists. And at the time of the Geneva convention anarchists were the more common boogymen of the day. No nation I'm aware of ever tried to deny an anarchist(s) charged with some evil deed(s) their basic human or legal rights by classifying them as some imagined sect of people that are somehow magically outside the realm of the basics that everyone else is privy to. Anyways, who is to say so and so doesn't have a nation they are fighting for? Why should that even matter? No matter who it is, and no matter what they are charged with they should be given a jury trial within a reasonable timeframe, and then acquitted or sentenced accordingly. To do otherwise is evil. Regardless, at the end of the day it's not uncommon for many nations (including the U.S.) violate the Geneva convention on many levels other than what happens in Guantanamo Bay. Like many other things of it's nature (like the ICC) it's rules are generally only applied to nations and people on the non-western side conflict X. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing. I thought that the Guantanamo cases were human rights violations not the Geneva convention. AFIK the Geneva is only for countries that have signed the treaty, you're only covered if your nation is part of it. The popular argument to try and legally justify the Guantanamo situation legally here in the states is the aforementioned 'enemy combatant' status, and how people designated as 'enemy combatants' are magically exempted from basic legal and human rights. It's a technicality one can point to in the 3rd Geneva convention already linked, but as Zoraptor mentions if you're not covered under the 3rd treaty you are under the 4th. Generally speaking the idea of human rights finds it's foundation in the ideals of natural law which contains one of central concepts that the U.S. was founded on. That being that everyone has basic fundamental rights bestowed upon them by their creator (be it God, Jobu, the accident of the atom, or the All Powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster). You get them from just being you, no matter who you are, where you live, what color your skin is, what you think, what you've done, no matter what. If you're human you got em. Various treaties and organizations claim to respect those basic human rights (though some interestingly ignore some aspects of them). The U.S. has the respecting of those rights central in it's Constitution, as well as various laws written since. So not only is the U.S. breaking the Geneva convention with what it's done in Guantanamo, the people behind it's also breaking numerous laws here, and breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution (if they took it, which everyone in the military and most (if not all) in national political roles do. There are few if any things more diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of what the U.S. is supposed to be than what has been done in Guantanamo Bay.

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this? And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly? What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil. Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases. They do. Thought it's arguable those rights are recognized under one of the other Geneva treaties. That they don't is a misconception believed by many that was perpetrated by the very people who wanted to deny 'enemy combatants' of their rights in the first place. Before 'terrorists' were blamed for most of the evil events in the world, 'anarchists' were. If there's a group of people or ideology out there who truly don't have a nation, it is anarchists. And at the time of the Geneva convention anarchists were the more common boogymen of the day. No nation I'm aware of ever tried to deny an anarchist(s) charged with some evil deed(s) their basic human or legal rights by classifying them as some imagined sect of people that are somehow magically outside the realm of the basics that everyone else is privy to. Anyways, who is to say so and so doesn't have a nation they are fighting for? Why should that even matter? No matter who it is, and no matter what they are charged with they should be given a jury trial within a reasonable timeframe, and then acquitted or sentenced accordingly. To do otherwise is evil. Regardless, at the end of the day it's not uncommon for many nations (including the U.S.) violate the Geneva convention on many levels other than what happens in Guantanamo Bay. Like many other things of it's nature (like the ICC) it's rules are generally only applied to nations and people on the non-western side conflict X. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

The movie was great. How close does the plot follow the movie? Is it a complete revision, or a continuation of the story?

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it. I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective. The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind. You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion. The attackers were not directly insulted nor were they confronted by the paper. They decided that no one is allowed to draw their prophet or insult their ideology. When some one did; they meant to silence them with violence. A more accurate analogy would be if Joe decided to hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob wrote in a paper that FDR was a jerk. Then Joe declared that if anyone publishes anything that insults FDR he will hit them with a shovel. What matters in a court of law? That Bob wrote the paper? That Bob told Joe to go F himself? Or that Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel? We'd be in the court of law because Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel, whatever his reasons were. Be they because Bob said or wrote something, or because Bob happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because Joe just didn't like the way Bob looked, or because Bob snookered Joe's wife. Whatever Bob did, of paramount import is that Joe hit him in the head with a shovel. And Joe would be charged with hitting Bob in the head with a shovel, not with abridging Bob's right to write, say, look however he pleases, or screw whoever. To use the latter as an example, if Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob had been screwing Joe's wife, is that an assault of Bob's basic right to screw anyone he wanted that was willing? Yea.. philosophically you could argue that, but it's not something you'd hear in a court of law. Motives matter of course. In a trial with any of the examples above Joe's motives (theorized or admitted) would be presented to a jury. They might even influence a jury's decision, or a judge's sentence. But they are generally not (with a few horrific recent exceptions in U.S. law such as the laws against 'hate speech'), nor should they ever be illegal themselves. To make them so is to start thought policing, and I hope you can appreciate the insane slippery subjective slope that is. And for the record, I agree with Bob. FDR was a jerk!