Frank Miller's take on Occupy Wall Street

MillerCross

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/11/13/frank-miller-occupy/ <-- there's the link

Crimson

No mention of whores.

i am dissapoint frank.

But seriously, the way he's been spiraling down, none of this is surprising.

Schitzo

Fucker ain't written nothing good since... Oh wait.

CommandoDude

What a dipshit.

DarkDecapodian

I hope his next take on Batman features Lords of Warcraft as a major plot point.

Nightwire

We all know that Frank Miller has gone completely insane. This is just the official confirmation. Anyone who still likes him up to this point can see what a shitty person he is now.

Bastion

HAH! Some "movement", except if the word "bowel" is attached

Good one.

The "ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats" characterization of the movement chafes. It's just an impression that can't be maintained once you've actually been there. It's the sort of idea of Occupy you get third-hand, at most.

(I was going to go into more detail, but then I remembered that earlier today the Occupy encampments where I live had been forcibly broken up by the police, so who knows where it's going from here.)

Elbeem

So was Miller always like this, or is he one of those 9/11 sent him off the deep end types?

Malkavian

I'm pretty sure thee seeds were always there and he just got crazier as he aged.

AHR

That poor, poor, man.

Hatter

I object to World of Warcraft being associated with the Occupy movement. As a player I find it insulting.

InsanityAddict

Why the swipe at basement-dwelling materialist manchildren? This is the crowd he's writing for.

TheConductor

^^ Please say that was a joke...

glennmagusharvey

^ Hatter is a conservative; it comes as no surprise he doesn't like the movement.

Schitzo

Suddenly, Hatter.

captainbrass

I didn't approve of the British faction's choice of place to occupy (see earlier thread) and, insofar as any of the protestors are pro-anarchism, I don't see that working as a way of running society. But this is the standard of debate you get between drunks in a bar.

Also, America is not currently at war with a deadly enemy. It is currently making its best troops charge around a bombed out wasteland in pursuit of a bunch of unemployed teenagers with RPGs in support of an incredibly unpopular government that it set up. I wish American and British conservatives would stop pretending the Taliban are like Hitler's elite panzer divisions or something.

Gelzo

I wish we had more military involvements like Libya. I haven't been following all the details, but from the sounds of it, it was relatively uncontroversial, involved minimal commitment, supported by much of the local population, ended in the ousting of a dictator, and was over within a year.

Anyway, I think the Occupy movement is too large and is involved with too many activities and views for me to be willing to align myself with them- not because that's necessarily a bad thing, it's just that supporting them would involve association with some of the nutjobs and excesses that occur in any large group- but the main idea behind the movement- that a small portion of the population controls an unfairly large portion of wealth- is valid, and I have a hard time believing someone who disagrees is paying attention. It's not like I think communism is going to work, but I don't think the problem would be nearly so bad if private money didn't play such a big role in politics, businesses were better regulated, and the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes. I don't claim to know a decent solution, but I guess that's besides the point.

Malkavian

Are we talking about the Libya Obama invaded without government approval that caused certain people on the left to call for his impeachment? Because I'd say that was pretty problematic and controversial.

Gelzo

I hadn't heard much about that controversy. In any case, the requirement for the president to get congressional approval for this sort of thing unfortunately seems to exist in writing only. I'm not too broken up about it since it doesn't seem unprecedented and turned out pretty okay.

Also, I don't think anyone on the left with a pragmatic view of politics seriously wants to cause problems for Obama. That will just hurt his chances for reelection, and the Republican party hasn't really been putting out any candidates that are especially enticing.

CommandoDude

"Are we talking about the Libya Obama invaded"

What 'invasion'?

Evergreen

I had no idea Miller was...um...like this. I mean, I didn't know much about him in general beyond what comics he's famous for, but this was enlightening, so thanks.

RedEyedAbyss

^^^What pragmatic view? Damned if you do, damned if you don't? Obama is certainly not left.

Malkavian

The funny thing I've seen is that the best defense of Obama is that everyone running against him is a massive nutcase.

Did I say funny? I meant crushingly depressing.

RedEyedAbyss

It's beginning to look like a self-fulfilling prophecy down there. You know your leader isn't good and the main opposition is even more shit, but you don't dare vote for anyone else because "It's a two-party system!"

Though I guess that third parties down there have the downside of being unproven as leaders.

Malkavian

Consensus magic at work. 

I might actually vote for a third party, though living in a Blue state means it won't make a difference.

Gelzo

Voting for the lesser of two possible evils is certainly more pragmatic than voting for an impossibility that you consider superior.

RedEyedAbyss

Have you considered that we wouldn't be stuck doing that if voting was actually based on the percentage each candidate receives rather than the shitty first-past-the-post system we have now? Really, if I was stuck choosing between two (or even one in Alberta) people I don't like, I would just stay home.

Malkavian

If I believed in taking pragmatic paths I wouldn't have a B.A. in English and Film. =P

Gelzo

I don't think it's all that bad. I think our last two Democratic presidents were pretty good.

Malkavian

I wouldn't call Obama a terrible president. In a better environment I might even think well of the man, but the fact is he hasn't been able to play the cards he's been dealt like he should. I'm not convinced there isn't going to be a better option.

I am convinced it will definitely be a third-party candidate.

Gelzo

I think a lot of people tend to overestimate how much the president can reasonably be expected to control. I probably did the same thing when Bush was president.

Genereally, though, I think complaints that a president isn't getting enough results are a better sign than complaints that a president is causing problems.