Last year revenue from video games surpassed revenue from movies. A top-level video game costs as much to produce and employs as much talent as a Hollywood production. I've been spending a lot more time playing games lately, as the quality of movies seems headed for a cliff. A game provides hours and hours of entertainment, not merely one or two, puts the player inside the story, and even provides a sense of accomplishment for the player. This is really what the film industry must compete against.
You're right about everything here Jaynie. I didn't detect a great deal of liberal bias in the show, in fact I thought it was relatively conservative compared to the usual Hollywood dreck. But I didn't tune in to watch reruns of All My Children. It seems like they've thrown all conception of action and adventure overboard.
This post is #1 on the list of top ten stupidest posts ever. There are a couple of people here I might consider as less-than-great, but Shapiro has obviously picked on every fine actor he can think of. This is-- shall I say it?-- a liberal attitude. Transgression is a substitute for substance. People you think are fine actors are not, therefore you are stupid and Shapiro is brilliiant. Go back and hang with your west side hater buddies, Ben, you moron.
In Band of Brothers when Easy company is marching into Bastogne, a young lieutenant (played by Jimmy Fallon) drives up in a jeep and warns Capt. Winters that the Germans are about to surround them. "Son, we're paratroops, " Winters says, "We're supposed to be surrounded."
Repent, all you sinners.
This is merely a manifestation of the Anty Christ.
This is my last response to you, and then you can go back to screwing your sister. I answered your stupid question above, but then maybe you need somebody to read it to you. You indulge yourself in the fantasy that the noble South didn't go to war over slavery because that makes you feel good about your inbred racism. You're so wrong you refuse to even look at the truth. I don't know how morons like you manage to feed yourselves. Now excuse me because I have something to do. It's called a job--maybe you know somebody who has one.
I never said slavery was the reason the North went to war. It surely was the reason the South went to war.
Oh, by the way, I'm pretty sure your stint was rather more abbreviated than mine.
You're not worth a reply, but I will anyway. Lincoln could not impose abolition on Union states because IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If the secessionist traitors had waited around instead of making war on the United States, they would have found out that Lincoln couldn't impose abolition on them either, but since they were unlawfully in insurrection against the United States they could be subject to his executive order.
Including slavery:
"(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. "
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig