Frank Miller completely loses the plot

[Captaindemotion]

the G-man wrote:

---

There's already a lengthy thread about this in the Neutral Zone. Do we really need another?

In any event, for all the talk about Miller's lack of civility and unfair attempts to tar an entire movement with a broad brush, I've seen as bad, or worse, said about conservatives, tea partiers, republicans, etc., on this board time and time again.

I posted this thread and don't go to the Neutral Zone. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I'm a left-winger and don't believe that Republicans or right-wingers are all rapists, thieves or louts. They're just people with whose political agenda I disagree. If I abused them in the manner Miller abused the OWS movement - incidentally, 26% of whom describe themselves as 'conservative' - I would expect and deserve to be criticised.

[Peter Q Taggart]

The Dark Knight Strikes Back was absolutely horrid. The writing was asinine and the art looked as if he drew it with the pencil stuck up his @$$. But then I remind myself that there's no room for the pencil with his head already lodged up there. On the bright side, 'ol Frankie must save a fortune on colonoscopies.

[Admiral2]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

Now, whether or not you agree with either the aims or tactics of the protestors, to besmirch them all - and they include war veterans, housewifes, pensioners, actors - as rapists, louts and thieves, is hardly indicative of a well-thought-out, cogent and rational argument.

But there have been sexual assaults, and there have been louts and there have been thieves, and this part:

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached - is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

...is absolutely true, and these people have cost other members of the 99% their jobs because of this nonsense, not to mention creating a health hazard in a park. Why? Because they were too lazy to actually "occupy" the street they were supposed to be occupying.

[Forbin]

As always, I see exaggeration and delusion on BOTH sides of the fence.

[davejames]

I'm a pretty liberal guy... but I have to admit these protests do come across as a bit silly to me.

It definitely would have helped their cause if they had presented themselves a lot better, and didn't turn the protest into some kind of bizarre hipster festival/communion type thing, with all their weird hand signs and costumes.

Makes them even harder to take seriously than the tea partiers, and I didn't think that could be possible.

[Trekker4747]

I sort of have to agree, the Occupy Wall Street movement is hardly presenting themselves in the best way possible with what some have been doing at these protests.

[RoJoHen]

davejames wrote:

---

I'm a pretty liberal guy... but I have to admit these protests do come across as a bit silly to me.

It definitely would have helped their cause if they had presented themselves a lot better, and didn't turn the protest into some kind of bizarre hipster festival/communion type thing, with all their weird hand signs and costumes.

Makes them even harder to take seriously than the tea partiers, and I didn't think that could be possible.

Yeah, I've gotten to a point where I don't even remember what they're supposed to be protesting.

[xortex]

Is the naked girl still there?

[xortex]

Is the naked girl still there?

[David cgc]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

Yeah, I've gotten to a point where I don't even remember what they're supposed to be protesting.

In 2008 a massive economic collapse began, caused by a complex series of financial gambles based on the buying and selling of mortgage debt and trading predictions of when and how much of it would be paid. Eventually, the whole house of cards started to fall apart, at which point several banks and financial institutions were threatened. These companies, thanks to a series of gluttonous mergers and buy-outs combined with overly-risky investment strategies, were in danger of going out of business entirely and taking the national and international economy with them, prompting a government "bail-out" which covered their debts, but with essentially no long-term solution to the problem (i.e., no regulations or laws to prevent the risky practices that blew up in our faces from being pursued again, and no plan for disposing of the "toxic assets" weighing down the banks). Adding insult to injury, many executives responsible for these irresponsible business practices accepted large cash bonuses for their companies, literally paid for out of the treasury.

Even with the extreme action of the bail-out, the economy remains in dire straits, second only to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Despite this, several large corporations continue to record more than healthy profits and decline to step up hiring, electing instead to continue the go-go-'90s practice of cutting workforce to the bone and relying on the motivating power of terror to make those that remain work harder to make up the difference, lest they, too, become unemployed.

You may have heard of it.

[Allyn Gibson]

OmahaStar wrote:

---

Every word he wrote sounds like it was written by Orson Scott Card. I can't take either of them seriously. They both need help.

I didn't think it was possible for anyone to out-crazy and outflank to the right OSC. Somehow, though, Frank Miller managed that crazy feat.

[RoJoHen]

David cgc wrote:

---

In 2008 a massive economic collapse began, caused by a complex series of financial gambles based on the buying and selling of mortgage debt and trading predictions of when and how much of it would be paid. Eventually, the whole house of cards started to fall apart, at which point several banks and financial institutions were threatened. These companies, thanks to a series of gluttonous mergers and buy-outs combined with overly-risky investment strategies, were in danger of going out of business entirely and taking the national and international economy with them, prompting a government "bail-out" which covered their debts, but with essentially no long-term solution to the problem (i.e., no regulations or laws to prevent the risky practices that blew up in our faces from being pursued again, and no plan for disposing of the "toxic assets" weighing down the banks). Adding insult to injury, many executives responsible for these irresponsible business practices accepted large cash bonuses for their companies, literally paid for out of the treasury.

Even with the extreme action of the bail-out, the economy remains in dire straits, second only to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Despite this, several large corporations continue to record more than healthy profits and decline to step up hiring, electing instead to continue the go-go-'90s practice of cutting workforce to the bone and relying on the motivating power of terror to make those that remain work harder to make up the difference, lest they, too, become unemployed.

You may have heard of it.

I have indeed heard of it. I honestly just wasn't sure what the goal was of Occupy Wallstreet. What are they really trying to accomplish, and what are they doing (other than getting pissy) to accomplish it?

[Distorted Humor]

Well, if the same posters say that calling a tea party ( personally think both tea party and Occupy folks are nuts, but glad they care, even if misguided) a tea bagger is unfair, low, and hateful, then I might have to agree, (I don't follow political threads online mostly, I thought this was about a movie or something, you know, since it was in TV and movies) but I hate when some have the kettle calling the pot black.

[davejames]

David cgc wrote:

---

...
You may have heard of it.

I definitely think Wall Street needs to be held accountable, but unfortunately the protestors aren't putting forth enough of a focused message to get that point across.

Instead they come across much like the conservatives portray them-- a bunch of disorganized, naive, pot-smoking college students who hate capitalism and want to promote their various pet causes.

It pretty much falls to outside commentators and guys like Jon Stewart to tell people what the larger message should be.

[Sci]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

I have indeed heard of it. I honestly just wasn't sure what the goal was of Occupy Wallstreet. What are they really trying to accomplish, and what are they doing (other than getting pissy) to accomplish it?

The fundamental goal of the Occupy Wall Street movement is not akin to a traditional protest campaign. They don't have any one specific policy objective in mind.

Their fundamental goal, rather, is to change the narrative. To change how people think about the economy and about how the economy ought to work. To change the moral framework of our understanding of the distribution of wealth -- so that instead of the dominant idea being that it's every man for himself in a dog-eat-dog world where any and all forms of redistribution are theft, we come to understand that a healthy and free economy means that there has to be economic justice, there has to be a real social safety net, and that we can't have such extreme wealth disparities to the point where most people are suffering while a few are living high on the hog.

The goal of Occupy Wall Street, in other words, is to change our understanding of what a moral economy ought to be.