thehats

Members
  • Content count

    7,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About thehats

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/10/1984

Converted

  • Location
    Steeler Nation
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. also, things like this maaaay have been a factor. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/whats-the-matter-with-wisconsin-this-time/243180/
  2. it was stupid. walker is the one who needs a recall vote. not the men who did their elected job. walker never campaign on union busting. so when he gets voted into office and thats the first thing on his mind, the people felt deceived. add to it the fact that he spent $250million his first month, and then in his 2nd month he tells the state he needs $250million and some of it should come from teachers... the recall yesterday was a sham. liberal PAC's wasting their money. it never should have happened. the true fight is Walker. Not the local guys.
  3. don't know why you are surprised. this was a foregone conclusion from the moment the guy went after the unions. the moment Walker gets into office, he spends $250million....- and then a month later tells the teachers that $250million needs to come from them through union concessions, then once the concessions are made he said "okay. now no more collective bargaining". it doesnt matter what party he belongs to.spending $250million and then asking for educators to take the hit for the new spending is going to be unpopular. add to it the fact that he never ran on union busting but that was the first thing on his mind when he took office, and people who voted for him are going to feel deceived. the recall election from yesterday was pointless. it was nothing more than posturing for the lib groups, and it certainly wasn't warranted and obviously the people agreed. but recalling walker? that's a whole different story. that's something the people of wisconsin WANT put to a vote, badly. the man did not run his campaign honestly. after his recall vote, we'll see if the people of wisconsin will vote for him again knowing fully what he didn't tell them last time around whatever the outcome, i'll respect the people's choice- since this time they'll actually know his plans up front.
  4. Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in Romancing the Stone and Arnie and Jamie Lee Curtis in True Lies.
  5. The Descent freaked me out two fold. Claustrophobia... and gut-chewing troglodites. Speaking of torture porn like that Seed movie, go wiki the plot of the movie "A Serbian Film" and prepare to vomit.
  6. the most underrated comedy of the decade. and possibly the most frightening first-3-minutes of any movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU mike judge is still pissed off that fox never gave this a wide release.
  7. did you ever get around to watching Children of Men?
  8. "Moon" was the best sci-fi movie I'd seen since Sunshine. A career moment for Sam Rockwell, and a pivotal point in low-budget film production. Speaking of Sunshine, I rented it on Blu-Ray a few nights ago after only seeing it via On Demand. The difference was stunning. The scene with Cillian Murphy outrunning the solar flare, and every glimpse of the sun, lit up my home theater like no other movie ever has. I could almost feel the heat coming from the radiation. Simply stunning effects work.
  9. i sooooo loved the final scene in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. That freeze-frame on the guy as the phone is rnging.... PRICELESS! Brad Pitt did such a good job with Snatch, but the cast was so all-around perfect that you couldn't heap praise on him without doing the same for almost every actor whose face shows up in that movie. You'll really love Children of Men. It's a quiet movie, with most of the dialog being whispers without any music in the background. My only advice is to turn off the lights and turn the volume waaaaay up to truly experience Alfonso Cuaran's vision.
  10. hey! i agree with you! mark this day down, buddy! unfortunately, life insurance, inheritance, custody, as well as medical decisions and visitation during hospitalization are all issues that state-recognized marriage deals with. eliminating the word 'marriage' and calling them all 'unions' would be a fair solution- good luck with that, though.
  11. homosexual behavior has been documented in over 1500 species of animal. mammals, birds, fish, insects, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. if you want to bring nature into the debate, it's not going to help.
  12. marriage for most of human history was 1 man being married to 1 much younger girl who he purchased through a dowry. also there wasnt a limit to the number of young girls you could marry so long as you could afford them. then there are arranged marriages, which have been predominant throughout civilized culture for longer than the current form of marriage has been.
  13. this is the truth. either the government needs to start handing out civil union licenses to everyone who has been married and include the gays, or the word marriage needs amended to include gays. i believe the churches would be happier if the former happened, then they would be the only ones doling out 'marriages'.
  14. you are dodging the question. prior to 1967, the majority of americans believed interracial marriage should be illegal on moral grounds. the supreme court said that was no justification. today, half of americans believe gay marriage should be illegal on moral grounds. the parallel is there. you just dodge it by saying there is no parallel. so now I'll ask you the question... should the supreme court have made interracial marriage illegal based on the popular opinion at the time?
  15. I watched that in a room full of guys. Like 4 guys + me, hanging out. All 5 of us were squirming the ENTIRE movie. Most uncomfortable movie viewing experience I've ever had.