Adam Driver

We found the most current info about Adam Driver. Enjoy it, ok?

Adam Driver to play 'Star Wars' villain

27 February 2014 | 11:39 pm 'Girls actor beats out Michael Fassbender and Hugo Weaving. http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_25241842?source=rss

Adam Driver going over to the dark side as 'Star Wars' villain?

27 February 2014 | 9:20 pm Adam Driver's character on the HBO series "Girls" has been accused of being a cruel, heartless weirdo. Now, Driver could be indulging his dark side further as the villain in "Star Wars: Episode VII." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mn-adam-driver-dark-side-star-wars-villain-20140227,0,3087926.story?track=rss

Adam Driver: Will he star as the villain in 'Star Wars: Episode VII'?

27 February 2014 | 8:57 pm Adam Driver may star as the villain of the newest 'Star Wars' film, according to reports. Adam Driver currently appears on the HBO show 'Girls.' http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Culture-Cafe/2014/0227/Adam-Driver-Will-he-star-as-the-villain-in-Star-Wars-Episode-VII

News: Jessica Lange, Esta Noche, Adam Driver, New York Jets| Gay …

27 February 2014 | 8:30 pm New York Jets promise not to discriminate against gays in recruiting. Ohio withdraws Arizona-style bill allowing businesses to discriminate against gays. He's the new Star Wars villain. CNN hosts hate group leader Peter  http://www.towleroad.com/2014/02/news-16.html

The Next Big Bad Star Wars Villain IsGirls Star Adam Driver …

27 February 2014 | 6:53 pm Adam Driver is rumored to be in talks for the villain role in Star Wars 7. http://perezhilton.com/2014-02-27-adam-driver-star-wars-7-villain-darth-vader-casting

Adam Driver Is Your New Darth Vader Person – The Superficial …

27 February 2014 | 6:01 pm So remember how Adam Driver from Girls was supposed to be Nightwing in Batman Vs. Superman? Just kidding. He's the new Darth Vader guy in Star Wars: Episode VII. (Why didn't I just say Sith when you know I absolutely  http://www.thesuperficial.com/adam-driver-star-wars-episode-vii-sith-villain-02-2014

Adams Golf Speedline Super S Driver Golf Club

27 February 2014 | 11:38 pm $66.00
End Date: Thursday Mar-6-2014 15:38:25 PST
Buy It Now for only: $66.00
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Adams Speedline Fast 12 9.5' Stiff Graphite Shaft IN Very Good Conditon w/HC

27 February 2014 | 9:50 pm $49.99
End Date: Saturday Mar-29-2014 14:50:58 PDT
Buy It Now for only: $49.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Adams Golf Speedline Super LS Driver 10.5* KuroKage Stiff Flex w/Tool & HC…NEW

27 February 2014 | 7:05 pm $121.24
End Date: Sunday Mar-9-2014 12:05:56 PDT
Buy It Now for only: $121.24
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

New Adams Golf – Speedline Tech Driver – 10.5* Regular Flex

27 February 2014 | 1:30 pm $89.99
End Date: Saturday Mar-29-2014 6:35:15 PDT
Buy It Now for only: $89.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Adams Speedline Tech Driver 9.5* Stiff New!

27 February 2014 | 6:44 am $79.99
End Date: Wednesday Mar-5-2014 22:44:16 PST
Buy It Now for only: $79.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

6 Responses to Adam Driver

  • Tim says:

    Business Law Question? Adam, who was negligently driving a car, hit tom, a pedestrian, who negligently left him unconscious in the road. Chris then negligently ran over Tom and severely aggravated the injury. The exact extent of the injury caused by each particular driver could not be ascertained.

    What would happen in this situation? would the charges be divided in half between the two defendants?

    Thanks for the help

  • Tyson says:

    Why Does God Sit There When Something Really Bad Happens? Like a murder or a rape? I’m an atheist and I know it’s called free will, but still, it’s like he doesn’t care. Would that make him malevolent?

    • Curator says:

      3 Reasons here, 1) God could change everyone’s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be “programmed” to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.

      Instead, God made Adam and Eve innocent but with the ability to choose good or evil. Because of this, they could respond to His love and trust Him or choose to disobey. They chose to disobey. Because we live in a real world where we can choose our actions but not their consequences, their sin affected those who came after them (us). Similarly, our decisions to sin have an impact on us and those around us and those who will come after us.

      2) God could compensate for people’s evil actions through supernatural intervention 100 percent of the time. God would stop a drunk driver from causing an automobile accident. God would stop a lazy construction worker from doing a substandard job on a house that would later cause grief to the homeowners. God would stop a father who is addicted to drugs or alcohol from doing any harm to his wife, children, or extended family. God would stop gunmen from robbing convenience stores. God would stop high school bullies from tormenting the brainy kids. God would stop thieves from shoplifting. And, yes, God would stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings.

      While this solution sounds attractive, it would lose its attractiveness as soon as God’s intervention infringed on something we wanted to do. We want God to prevent horribly evil actions, but we are willing to let “lesser-evil” actions slide—not realizing that those “lesser-evil” actions are what usually lead to the “greater-evil” actions. Should God only stop actual sexual affairs, or should He also block our access to pornography or end any inappropriate, but not yet sexual, relationships? Should God stop “true” thieves, or should He also stop us from cheating on our taxes? Should God only stop murder, or should He also stop the “lesser-evil” actions done to people that lead them to commit murder? Should God only stop acts of terrorism, or should He also stop the indoctrination that transformed a person into a terrorist?

      3) Another choice would be for God to judge and remove those who choose to commit evil acts. The problem with this possibility is that there would be no one left, for God would have to remove us all. We all sin and commit evil acts (Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8). While some people are more evil than others, where would God draw the line? Ultimately, all evil causes harm to others.

      Instead of these options, God has chosen to create a “real” world in which real choices have real consequences. In this real world of ours, our actions affect others. Because of Adam’s choice to sin, the world now lives under the curse, and we are all born with a sin nature (Romans 5:12). There will one day come a time when God will judge the sin in this world and make all things new, but He is purposely “delaying” in order to allow more time for people to repent so that He will not need to condemn them (2 Peter 3:9). Until then, He IS concerned about evil. When He created the Old Testament laws, the goal was to discourage and punish evil. He judges nations and rulers who disregard justice and pursue evil. Likewise, in the New Testament, God states that it is the government’s responsibility to provide justice in order to protect the innocent from evil (Romans 13). He also promises severe consequences for those who commit evil acts, especially against the “innocent” (Mark 9:36-42).

      In summary, we live in a real world where our good and evil actions have direct consequences and indirect consequences upon us and those around us. God’s desire is that for all of our sakes we would obey Him that it might be well with us (Deuteronomy 5:29). Instead, what happens is that we choose our own way, and then we blame God for not doing anything about it. Such is the heart of sinful man. But Jesus came to change men’s hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit, and He does this for those who will turn from evil and call on Him to save them from their sin and its consequences (2 Corinthians 5:17). God does prevent and restrain some acts of evil. This world would be MUCH WORSE were not God restraining evil. At the same time, God has given us the ability to choose good and evil, and when we choose evil, He allows us, and those around us, to suffer the consequences of evil. Rather than blaming God and questioning God on why He does not prevent all evil, we should be about the business of proclaiming the cure for evil and its consequences—Jesus Christ!

      Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-allow-evil.html#ixzz2tbQgdxXm

  • Linna says:

    Can S.o Help Summary The Article For Me Please? The Lego Movie: Further Evidence of Will
    Ferrell’s Subversive Genius
    By Noah Gittell
    Who knew that The Lego Movie would create political controversy? Audiences have embraced
    the movie to the tune of a $69-million opening weekend. But its plot—in which an oppressed
    people living under totalitarian rule defeat their evil overlord named “President Business”—has
    drawn scorn from Fox commentator Charles Payne, who went after the film for “pushing its antibusiness
    message to our kids.” Film critics, who tend to be more liberal, have celebrated the
    message; Bilge Ebiri of Vulture, for example, lovingly described the film’s climax as a
    “downright proletarian Lego revolution.”
    This reading of the film is a bit amazing, considering the product was designed to promote two
    corporate interests: Hollywood (in the sense that every studio film is a promotional tool for the
    industry) and The Lego Group. Of course, the children who watch The Lego Movie are unlikely
    to pick up on its anti-business ethos, and the film will probably still make them want to buy
    Legos. Adults on the other hand can chew on the movie’s subversive content and perhaps even
    use it content to spark meaningful conversations around the dinner table.
    This sort of layered narrative is difficult to pull off—not to mention convince a studio to go
    along with—but maybe Will Ferrell, who voices President Business, had something to do with it.
    To be fair, I have no idea whether he had input into the script of The Lego Movie or not. But the
    mere fact that he was cast as the movie’s villain should have been a giveaway as to its ideology.
    For more than a decade now, Ferrell’s starred in big, dumb films of surprising political
    complexity, again and again playing the regressive oaf who eventually comes around to
    progressive ideas.
    The seminal example of this is Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, in which Ferrell
    played a sexist newsman who resists the introduction of a woman into his workplace before
    eventually learning to be tolerant. Another is Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,
    which lampooned red-state culture (particularly NASCAR fans) as it portrayed its protagonist’s
    changing attitudes towards his opponent, a gay, French Formula One driver. In the final scene of
    that film, Ricky Bobby and Sacha Baron Cohen’s Jean Girard smooch publicly—and then Jean
    goes in for another kiss and Bobby pushes him away. It perfectly encapsulates Ferrell and
    cowriter Adam McKay’s apparent ethos for political comedy: Push your audience’s boundaries
    but don’t make them so uncomfortable that they reject your perspective completely.
    Ferrell snuck in even more LGBT-friendly vibes in Blades of Glory, using the tropes of a romcom
    in his story of two male figure skaters who broke with convention and competed as a
    couple. (Ferrell played the swaggering, butch partner to the more effeminate Jon Heder). His
    2010 hit The Other Guys was a silly buddy comedy set during the 2008 financial collapse; its
    closing credits featured a series of visual display of facts and figures regarding the financial
    crisis, the Bernie Madoff scheme, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). And 2012
    brought The Campaign, which argued for campaign finance reform through Ferrell’s depiction of a corrupt congressman who makes the world’s first sex video/campaign ad.
    Then, of course, there’s his most famous political character: George W. Bush. On Saturday Night Live and later in his Broadway show (for which Ferrell was nominated for a Tony), he mercilessly hammered home the message that Bush was dumb, arrogant, and dangerously out-of-touch; it seemed at times that Ferrell’s goal was to define Bush’s legacy. But perhaps because Bush was so unpopular within his party or maybe just because Ferrell is so darn appealing, his portrayal never seemed particularly mean. Tina Fey is said to have commented that he even made Bush seem likeable. Ferrell insists that this wasn’t the intent, but that speaks to how his political comedy works: His likeability helps the politics go down smooth.
    The Lego Movie may be Ferrell’s most successful effort to date. It is shockingly subversive; in addition to its anti-capitalist bent, the script also criticizes conformist culture and pokes fun at several iconic superheroes. Its depiction of Batman (voiced hilariously by Will Arnett) as a sullen, immature jerk is particularly audacious, given the high esteem with which recent Batman films are held. Still, in the movie’s surprising third act, Ferrell and the filmmakers are able to distance themselves from its political subtext by offering a personal underpinning to the entire plot. Spoiler for the rest of this paragraph: The events of the film are revealed to be occurring in the imagination of a boy playing with an intricate Lego village designed by his controlling father. Ferrell plays the father. So the Lord Business character turns out not to be a critique against capitalism, ostensibly
    ostensibly. It’s merely an expression of how a lonely child sublimates his feelings towards his businessman father through his choice of play.
    And so the film can claim a mantle of non-partisanship, even though the bulk of it suggests otherwise. The audience may leave the theater without politics fresh on its mind, instead remembering how much they laughed. But they still received a dose of ideology. In other words, it is just another classic Will Ferrell movie.

    • Curator says:

      Sure, we’ll make your homework for you. Here you go.

      The Lego Movie: Further Evidence of Will
      Ferrell’s Subversive Genius
      By Noah Gittell

      Who knew that The Lego Movie would create political controversy? Audiences have embraced
      the movie to the tune of a $69-million opening weekend. But its plot—in which an oppressed
      people living under totalitarian rule defeat their evil overlord named “President Business”—has
      drawn scorn from Fox commentator Charles Payne, who went after the film for “pushing its antibusiness
      message to our kids.” Film critics, who tend to be more liberal, have celebrated the
      message; Bilge Ebiri of Vulture, for example, lovingly described the film’s climax as a
      “downright proletarian Lego revolution.”
      The Lego Movie may be Ferrell’s most successful effort to date. It is shockingly subversive; in addition to its anti-capitalist bent, the script also criticizes conformist culture and pokes fun at several iconic superheroes. Its depiction of Batman (voiced hilariously by Will Arnett) as a sullen, immature jerk is particularly audacious, given the high esteem with which recent Batman films are held. Still, in the movie’s surprising third act, Ferrell and the filmmakers are able to distance themselves from its political subtext by offering a personal underpinning to the entire plot. Spoiler for the rest of this paragraph: The events of the film are revealed to be occurring in the imagination of a boy playing with an intricate Lego village designed by his controlling father. Ferrell plays the father. So the Lord Business character turns out not to be a critique against capitalism, ostensibly
      Additional Details
      ostensibly. It’s merely an expression of how a lonely child sublimates his feelings towards his businessman father through his choice of play.
      And so the film can claim a mantle of non-partisanship, even though the bulk of it suggests otherwise. The audience may leave the theater without politics fresh on its mind, instead remembering how much they laughed. But they still received a dose of ideology. In other words, it is just another classic Will Ferrell movie.

      You’re welcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t Miss Anything!
Subscribe now!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share With Your Friends
Donate

The breaking news and utilities available here are free for now. If I get enough donations, I will keep it that way.