MovieChat Forums > Seperatrix
Seperatrix (1348)
Posts
Executive Order ditching paper straws in favor of plastic
Mark 16:9-20
Can we hire Marty?
Twin Peaks: From Z to A rerelease coming soon.
Devious Dreams
Snootworld may be coming after all
Heather Grahm wants to return to Twin Peaks
Donnie Darko and Blue Velvet
Blue Velvet 4k The Criterion Collection
My take
View all posts >
Replies
The message that Republicans have been putting forward is that they’re cutting waste, fraud and abuse. So they immediately go after USAID, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So what does it say that while they’re nickel and diming these programs, when as far as the CFPB is concerned, the program costs $800 million a year but has a return of $21 billion dollars to consumers who’ve been ripped off by predatory banks. Then look at USAID at one half of 1% of the budget delivers essential programs like clean water, food for refugees, HIV prevention and helps us with soft power around the world. So you have these massive benefits for a fraction of the cost. Then you look at these tax cuts that would cost $4.5 trillion dollars and the vast majority of which go to the very wealthiest.
And the CFPB is the very thing Musk wants to eliminate so that his “X money” can and will touch every part of your financial life. The CFPB is there to make sure that Elon’s project can’t scam you or steal your sensitive personal data.
What could the richest man in the world with a defense contract and a car company and a medical device company and a social media company and ties to foreign governments and large crypto holdings possibly have to gain from having direct control over the federal government?
I wonder . . .
"Nothing except the Gideon Bible, which I, of course, read religiously."
I assume that line was comedic.
Ah . . . well . . . . you know how these things are, very subjective.
For me it kinda landed with a thud.
Having said that, it was well made for what it was, though nothing spectacular, and if one was in the right mood and saw it at the right time in the right situation . . . then it could be effective.
I didn't answer your question probably. But the best I can do is hazard a guess that most people would say no.
Typing that last sentence inspired me to see what Rotten Tomatoes has for ratings: 90% for critics and 47% for audiences. This fits perfectly with my sentiments. Well made film, but probably not what most folks into horror are looking for.
I wear seatbelts and would even if it wasn't required by law.
Air bags give me the creeps however.
Having been raised a Protestant I have no idea what the Catholic bible says myself. But no matter the bible, any scholar will tell you that the earliest copies of Mark ended with verse Mark 16:8 (not that the manuscripts were divided into chapters and verses of course). Therefore excluding a resurrection narrative.
Some (not very many) have argued that the ending must have been "lost" or torn from the manuscripts. But that is rejected quite easily by the vast majority of scholars.
Now, I'm not saying that without a tagged-on ending that Mark would be devoid of a resurrection. I believe earlier in the Gospel Jesus is quoted as saying as he would die and rise again, so any reader that came upon the abrupt ending would have assumed that that was what happened. But again, what a cliffhanger!
"You need to get out more..."
Hmmm . . . always a bad sign when someone feels the need to begin a post with a snarky remark.
"The whole thing is called "single use plastic" and paper straws have been an issue with irrational liberals for decades."
When I said I don't know why steering away from plastic (in the context of my original post) has to be a liberal thing, I was referring to the idea that micro plastics may turn out to be very harmful -- as I originally said "may contribute to neurodegenerative diseases."
That we should ween ourselves away from ingesting plastic particulates should not be a part of any political divide. I know many conservatives who care about the environment, health issues such as nanoparticles, and <gasp> even receive vaccines! So because I know many such people in my private life, I recoil at the idea of this concern being categorized as "liberal." That's my context.
Per the rest of your comment, environmentalists get it wrong sometimes, they "lie," but then, there are anti-environmentalists who lie. All that means is that we all are responsible for doing our homework on each issue and not just choosing a side and vilifying the other.
"I'm a liberal type but despise the irrational variety saying we should use cars, oil, straws, eat this or that, and so on when it's all not possible in our civilization."
The "irrational variety" -- a liberal? Who says we should use cars, oil, straws, etc.? I think you misspoke.
There are real concerns in the world that we should all recognize and support efforts -- the correct effort (no matter which side comes up with the best idea) -- to rectify before greater harm is done.
This includes nanoparticles, space junk, climate change, etc.
Ignoring it. Denying it. Pretending it doesn't exist. Will never solve the problems which will eventually swallow us whole.
And to suggest "there's no other way" is thinking like an insect.
Not sure I entirely understand your post. At least entirely.
No one is trying to eliminate the use of straws.
Also not sure why wanting to steer away from plastic straws has to be a "liberal" thing.
If it was Biden steering us toward plastic it would be just as questionable.
The opening scene of the naval attack was outstanding on the big screen.
The rest of the film? Not so much.
I didn't care for the writing at all. But it wasn't a total wash. Okay to watch but doesn't come close to the first one in my opinion.
Well, that was certainly the threat.
The question is: Was it a taunt or or to be taken seriously?
There are arguments both ways, a tribute to the wonderful ambiguity of the film. I used to take the line you quoted literally (i.e., as a serious threat), now after all this time I'm leaning the other way.
I'll probably lean back-and-forth on this one always.
That may all be true but what is disheartening is when the GOP turned down $118 for Border Security last April at Trump's direction.
View all replies >