It's outstanding, but it's not your typical movie in the sense of what it's designed to convey. Take it as a portrayal of how people might respond to the events in the movie, rather than being about the characters in the movie, and the ending should not be that disappointing.
I'm no Trump alarmist, but the quote itself is pretty bad, depending on what exactly he means:
they and others of the lamestream media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events
That said, I have my doubts that he'll actually follow through on this. He made similar claims in 2016, saying he'd "open up the libel laws" and use them to go after the media or something, but nothing ever came of that either.
I don't think I'd call these folks marginalized, but they're certainly not rich or entitled for the most part. I think this all boils down to, do actors and writers deserve residuals or not. If they do, than their demands are largely reasonable, but if not, then they're not.
Interestingly enough, if a deal isn't struck I'd also expect Bill Maher to bring his show back. So we could see an era of late night talk shows resuming during the strike.
I see both sides. Haven't seen the movie but it's not so good that we're exactly missing an artistic masterpiece here. But I don't like the idea of art being hidden due to political correctness either.
But it being on Internet Archive is a good middle ground; if you want it, watch it there. Although if one would want a remaster of it I'd understand.
It confuses me that nations open up their doors to immigrants without first building more infrastructure so that both the immigrants and citizens can live together comfortably.
I've generally figured that they're to the right of talkRadio, which is in turn to the right of Sky News, which if ofc owned by News Corp which owns Fox News (is it weird that I know this?), but I haven't gotten a handle on their general positions yet.
Happy to see some good replies here. Yes, it would mean that we'd need to hold car makes responsible for DUIs, Cutco responsible for knife attacks, even baseball bat manufacturers for violent attacks done with baseball bats.
It could also hold companies responsible even if they aren't actively manufacturing the dangerous item anymore; for example, let's say that Smith & Wesson stops manufacturing guns. Their guns will still be out in the hands of folks, and they will still be held accountable for the violence.
Edit: To respond to this:
Guns were made, by design, to be effective and efficient at the ending of human lives. Using the firearms in the way they were designed to be used is the primary difference for me
At a very basic level, guns are designed to, I would argue, send a bullet somewhere. If the gun reliably fails to do so (i.e. it jams constantly), or inappropriately deploys the bullet (i.e. it explodes in your face, shoots backwards at the shooter, or is wildly inaccurate), then I could see why the manufacturer could be held responsible, since the product isn't doing what it's supposed to do.
It's outstanding, but it's not your typical movie in the sense of what it's designed to convey. Take it as a portrayal of how people might respond to the events in the movie, rather than being about the characters in the movie, and the ending should not be that disappointing.
I'm no Trump alarmist, but the quote itself is pretty bad, depending on what exactly he means:
That said, I have my doubts that he'll actually follow through on this. He made similar claims in 2016, saying he'd "open up the libel laws" and use them to go after the media or something, but nothing ever came of that either.
It was probably edited to make him look more orange
Hmmmmmmm
I don't think I'd call these folks marginalized, but they're certainly not rich or entitled for the most part. I think this all boils down to, do actors and writers deserve residuals or not. If they do, than their demands are largely reasonable, but if not, then they're not.
Interestingly enough, if a deal isn't struck I'd also expect Bill Maher to bring his show back. So we could see an era of late night talk shows resuming during the strike.
MLB seems like they want to fix this, wouldn't be shocked to see the other leagues quickly follow suit once they do.
I see both sides. Haven't seen the movie but it's not so good that we're exactly missing an artistic masterpiece here. But I don't like the idea of art being hidden due to political correctness either.
But it being on Internet Archive is a good middle ground; if you want it, watch it there. Although if one would want a remaster of it I'd understand.
Starve to death.
Why are you lying in your post title
How dare Elon Musk not be complicit in an act of war! Harumph, I say!
It confuses me that nations open up their doors to immigrants without first building more infrastructure so that both the immigrants and citizens can live together comfortably.
According to who?
I've generally figured that they're to the right of talkRadio, which is in turn to the right of Sky News, which if ofc owned by News Corp which owns Fox News (is it weird that I know this?), but I haven't gotten a handle on their general positions yet.
An apology is not exactly what I was expecting.
You can download relatively good sounding audio from YouTube but you need to be using the right format in YouTube-DL, which not all downloaders do
I would not be shocked if he is referring primarily to salaried employees with that one...
Haha I will still post here! I've just been hosting communities from narwhal.city for years now, so it's just a force of habit I guess.
Happy to see some good replies here. Yes, it would mean that we'd need to hold car makes responsible for DUIs, Cutco responsible for knife attacks, even baseball bat manufacturers for violent attacks done with baseball bats.
It could also hold companies responsible even if they aren't actively manufacturing the dangerous item anymore; for example, let's say that Smith & Wesson stops manufacturing guns. Their guns will still be out in the hands of folks, and they will still be held accountable for the violence.
Edit: To respond to this:
At a very basic level, guns are designed to, I would argue, send a bullet somewhere. If the gun reliably fails to do so (i.e. it jams constantly), or inappropriately deploys the bullet (i.e. it explodes in your face, shoots backwards at the shooter, or is wildly inaccurate), then I could see why the manufacturer could be held responsible, since the product isn't doing what it's supposed to do.
Why would we need an alternative to SearX?