First Warner Bros. JUSTICE LEAGUE Trailer [Video at link]

Parallax was too soon. He should not have been the first villain. He would have been a much better third movie villain or possibly a side story to the Darkseid encounter for Justice League.

They way I think they could have done it was have the first movie teach Hal Jordan how powerful the ring was and show terrible results that can happen if the ring is misused. Maybe have Hal Jordan accidentally set off a natural disaster that threatens a town or a city and he fights to make it right. The second movie, shows him growing as a Lantern and something happens in the second movie that causes Sinestro to lose confidence in the green ring, causing him to steal the yellow ring. In the third movie, they have their showdown.

“Really?”

Yes, really.

“When did America invade?”

1918. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

“Someone sure did.”

A number of nations did. That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

“And how, exactly did the system liberalize after Kenin and Stalin if propaganda was so effective?”

By order of Khrushchev and the Politburo in the 1950s and then again by Gorbachev and the Politburo in the 1980s.

“Gee, these are tough questions.”

Actually, no, they were pathetically easy. If they are tough for you, then maybe you’re out of your depths. Think on that.

Silly.

“Invade” as in take over, and you know it, but you’re playing dumb.

No, Russians did not liberalize because of Khruschev-—but even if they did, it was precisely because of what I just pointed out to you. Despite 100% control over the media, entertainment, the arts, the Soviets really controlled nothing and couldn’t keep control over anything. And, yes, these were apparently very tough questions for you, if you didn’t know that the Soviet communists had 100% control over the media, arts, and entertainment.

“Silly. “Invade” as in take over, and you know it, but you’re playing dumb.”

Invade does not mean “take over”. “Occupy” would mean “take over”. Invade only means to make an incursion onto someone else’s nation or property. “Invade” is what comes before “occupy” but the two are not synonymous. Your claim about me “playing dumb” is just as wrong as your use of the word “Invade”.

“No, Russians did not liberalize because of Khruschev-—but even if they did, it was precisely because of what I just pointed out to you.”

No, the U.S.S.R. slightly liberalized because of Khrushchev.
Hence, his famous presentation of Stalin’s crimes. Hence, his opening up of the gulags to release many prisoners. Please note: I said U.S.S.R.. I did not say Russians. The two are not synonymous. You keep making the error or saying one thing is the same as an another.

“Despite 100% control over the media, entertainment, the arts, the Soviets really controlled nothing and couldn’t keep control over anything.”

If they had 100% control over anything, then it is logically impossible that they “controlled nothing and couldn’t keep control over anything.” Your statement is contradictory and logically impossible. You apparently know no more about proper argumentation than you do about the history of the Soviet Union.

“And, yes, these were apparently very tough questions for you, if you didn’t know that the Soviet communists had 100% control over the media, arts, and entertainment.”

Since I knew the Soviets had 100% control over the media, arts and entertainment your claim that I didn’t know that is obviously false. Also, since your premise is that the questions (which you falsely claimed were tough to answer and were easily answered by me) is based on something I never said or believed, then, irrefutably, your premise is false.

You can keep embarrassing yourself like this. I don’t mind. The choice is yours.

Every time we exchange, it ain’t I who is embarrassed. But that’s clear for everyone to see by now.

People know who controlled the USSR. They know it fell, and not because of government “liberalization.” They know that the kids whom Lenin claimed to only need for 8 years were subjected to 40 years or propaganda ... and still rejected communism.

My point is made, repeatedly. Have a nice thread.

“Every time we exchange, it ain’t I who is embarrassed. But that’s clear for everyone to see by now.”

You have been repeatedly wrong in this thread. No amount of posturing on your part will change that fact.

“People know who controlled the USSR.”

No one is questioning who controlled the U.S.S.R. But in one sentence you completely contradicted yourself: “Despite 100% control over the media, entertainment, the arts, the Soviets really controlled nothing and couldn’t keep control over anything.” No amount of end-game posturing on your part can cover-up such blunders as that.

“They know it fell, and not because of government “liberalization.””

And no one is claiming the U.S.S.R. fell because of “government liberalization”. What I said was this: “The “people took down the system” in 1991 - after six years of glasnost (”openness”) and perestroika (”restructuring”) which significantly reduced old Soviet controls and allowed criticism of the U.S.S.R. to dramatically increase. The people did not “take down the system” under Stalin or Lenin.”

“They know that the kids whom Lenin claimed to only need for 8 years were subjected to 40 years or propaganda ... and still rejected communism.”

They were subjected to 74 years of propaganda (1917-1991). You apparently add as well as you argue - which means you failed third grade math.

“My point is made, repeatedly.”

If your point is that you are ill-informed and unable to make a logical and fact based argument, then I heartily agree with you: Your point is made, repeatedly.

“Have a nice thread.”

Enjoy your comic books. They’re what you’re equipped for.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.