Some of it comes down to money. The studios strive for the one big hit movie that will pay for their operation for whole year. They gamble big, too. 500 million dollars to make non-stop thrill rides packed with heart pulsing action and amazing special effects. Unfortunately, non-stop action leaves no room for a good story. It's taken a while, but audiences have realized how empty these movies are.

The smaller more independent-ish films are far better than the blockbusters, but even when they're bad, they do surprisingly well, because audiences are craving a more genuine experience and complete storylines. How else can you explain the success of films like "The Room" or "Paranormal Activity"?

The business of movie making desperately wants a consistent money making formula, but there isn't one. The best movies are unique. When one slips through the studio process and becomes a big hit, then there's a race to copy it as many times as possible before it stops producing money.

I don't see the cycle breaking any time soon.

Ann Coulter's argument is factual. Lawrence O'Donnell's is emotional.
It's a perfect example of the dichotomy of thought between the American Right vs. Left.

Heavy regulation and high taxes inhibit economic growth vs. The evil Rich are GREEDY.

The Urban Heat Island effect shows a false rise in temperature data as cities grow around weather stations vs. Polar Bears are going to DIE on melting icebergs!

Abortion ends the life of developing human beings vs. The mean Republicans want innocent mothers to DIE during dangerous back alley abortions.

The Left is terrified of you because you expose their tactics.
ABC is terrified of the Left because they've seen their actions.

Take care of yourself, Andrew. You do great work and we need you.

Jon Stewart is an exceptional propagandist for his own political views - which are almost exclusively liberal -, but I don't believe he's a puppet of the DNC. He builds up his credibility often by taking a common sense position that differs from the Liberal Establishment Media's narrative and occasionally asking a tough question in an interview. But it would be a mistake to think Stewart was an impartial, or even honest, news source. His first priority is to be entertaining. Being a shill for the Democrats is somewhat less important, but he does that too.

I agree. James O'Keefe has a sterling record up until this event. He owes US an explanation and WE owe him a fair and objective, if informal, hearing. I am completely willing to accept a reasonable explanation. Without one, CNN's version of events does look very bad. Of course, CNN wasn't exactly a trustworthy source of information about the Landrieu's phone-line verification attempt...

Assuming there is a reasonable explanation, O'Keefe would be wise to speak up quickly while the story is hot. The establishment media will happily bury any retractions or corrections if they can consider them "old news".

I'd be in favor of making a .KID for only child-safe content and leaving the rest of the internet as-is. Parents, like myself, that don't want their kids seeing offensive materials could easily limit access to only .KID sites.

Prove it. Put up or shut up. You'll be $100,000 richer if you can.

Your arguments are nonsense. Israel occupied the West Bank for a while in order to stop attacks from the Palestinians, then gave it back to them. The settlers in a disputed area of Gaza were forcibly evacuated by The Israeli government a few years ago.

If they didn't recognize the Palestinian people, then why did they do those things?

If Israel's confused about who speaks for the Palestinians, that's because the Palestinians themselves can't decide who's in charge. Israel is perfectly willing to deal with a legitimate representative chosen by the Palestinians. They've tried many times in the past, only to be told that the representative they dealt with wasn't legitimate by the Palestinians. Palestine needs to quit playing these games and deal honestly if they want peace. But, obviously, they don't.

If the USA and the Chinese were on opposite sides of a world war and the Chinese won, not only would I accept a small (Tibetan?) country in part of Idaho, I'd feel grateful if I could keep my sovereignty with only that small concession. And I'd gladly take any refugees into my own state and help them get back on their feet. I certainly wouldn't leave those refugees in camps outside of New Tibet for 50 years.

Realizing that your enemies will settle for nothing short of your complete annihilation is not the same thing as rejecting peace.

The Israelis are the only ones that actually want peace. They are the only ones willing to live in a peaceful state side-by-side with a Palestinian state. They've shown their willingness to compromise over and over again. Giving back the West Bank. Forcibly removing their own citizens from disputed settlements. Etc. It's done no good because the Palestinians and the bulk of the Middle East have never ever wanted peace. The Palestinians launch rockets into Israel so often that it doesn't even get reported on any more. The news media only bothers to report when Israel decides to fight back, and then it's only to condemn their desire to defend themselves.

Unless the Palestinians change their minds and embrace the peace that has been offered to them over and over again, this situation will never be settled without war.

And, as an American, I think we should fully support our Israeli allies the next time they are attacked. We said that we would fight terrorism anywhere in the world. We should put our money where our mouth is.

I just saw Predators the other night. It could have been a good movie except for one serious flaw. Absolutely none of the characters were remotely likeable. I understand that the concept of the film was to have a bunch of human "predators" because, realistically, the alien hunters would enjoy the thrill of hunting a group of bad-asses that wouldn't have any moral qualms about fighting back... But, and this is important, this was supposed to be an ENTERTAINING movie, not a hunting documentary. The writers made a very big mistake. This movie needed some heroes. The closest we got was a Yakusa hit-man... and that's only because he barely spoke. If he had said anything else, I'm sure we'd hate him, too.

The reason the movie failed was because - with no likeable hero - it was impossible to care that these guys were being killed off one by one. If you go back and watch the original Predator, you'll see that nearly every one of the characters was likeable in one way or another. The geeky guy that told dirty jokes. "I ain't got time to bleed." Dry-razor-gonna-have-me-some-fun guy. Super tracker and knife fighting Cherokee. And Arnold as Arnold. They were all cool. And when you saw them die, it made you angry! You didn't just want the heroes to survive - you wanted revenge! That's how a great action movie works.

I just don't get why these Hollywood producers will dump millions of dollars into these movies when they have such basic flaws. Maybe they don't understand what makes a movie good, but they should - at the very least - understand what will obviously make one bad.