[011]
69.47.217.100
Current Version
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \'general acceptance\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \
to:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. The script is perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if it wants... what it\\\'s not free to do is then claim that it\\\'s being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition. Likewise, you can\\\'t claim that its a universally accepted opinion, because not everyone actually agrees on that.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. The script is perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if it wants... what it\\\'s not free to do is then claim that it\\\'s being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition. Likewise, you can\\\'t claim that its a universally accepted opinion, because not everyone actually agrees on that.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \'general acceptance\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \
to:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. The script is perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what it\\\'s not free to do is then claim that it\\\'s being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition. Likewise, you can\\\'t claim that its a universally accepted opinion, because not everyone actually agrees on that.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. The script is perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what it\\\'s not free to do is then claim that it\\\'s being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition. Likewise, you can\\\'t claim that its a universally accepted opinion, because not everyone actually agrees on that.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \'general acceptance\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \
to:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. You\\\'re perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what you\\\'re not free to do is then claim that you\\\'re being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition. Likewise, you can\\\'t claim that its a universally accepted opinion, because not everyone actually agrees on that.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. You\\\'re perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what you\\\'re not free to do is then claim that you\\\'re being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition. Likewise, you can\\\'t claim that its a universally accepted opinion, because not everyone actually agrees on that.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \'general acceptance\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \
to:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. You\\\'re perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what you\\\'re not free to do is then claim that you\\\'re being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. You\\\'re perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what you\\\'re not free to do is then claim that you\\\'re being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition.
* And finally, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \'general acceptance\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \
to:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. You\\\'re perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what you\\\'re not free to do is then claim that you\\\'re being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition.
* And two, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. You\\\'re perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what you\\\'re not free to do is then claim that you\\\'re being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a particular government official or officials, that\\\'s political by definition.
* And two, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \'general acceptance\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \
to:
Good Lord, where do I begin? Three main points:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* \\\'The CIA can not be trusted with this weapon\\\' \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a political statement: it parses out to \\\"The Man cannot be trusted\\\". That\\\'s a political opinion, right there. You\\\'re perfectly free to believe that the US government is evil if you want... what you\\\'re not free to do is then claim that you\\\'re being apolitical. Its an opinion about the relative worth or trustworthiness of a government, that\\\'s political by definition.
* And two, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \'general acceptance\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \
to:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* And two, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
* And two, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. (In addition to the fact that if proper instrumentation happens to spot the beam path, you can locate the satellite it was fired from, from which point you can quite likely determine which nation owns that satellite due to the fact that during the Cold War, the two superpowers paid very close attention to each other\\\'s satellite launches.) Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
* One, its not \
to:
* Only one person -- you -- disagrees, and therefore, the entry lacks \\\'general acceptance\\\'? Likewise, you can nominate yourself a committee of one and claim that the issue re: orbital weaponry has a general consensus, simply because its your opinion its a \\\"bad thing\\\"? Seriously?
* And two, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
* And two, your logic makes the same mistake the movie did: specifically, there is nothing \\\"covert\\\" about orbital energy weapons vaporizing people in broad daylight. Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Giant glowing death rays from space narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
* One, its not \
to:
* One, its not \\\"generally accepted\\\" just because you alone happen to believe in it. You\\\'ve been repeatedly hitting refresh and deleting the entry all day, while no one else has given a damn. And two, what the heck is \\\"covert\\\" about a giant glowing laser beam from space? Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Multi-million-dollar orbital beam weaponry narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else. If the protagonists choose to believe that orbital lasers means the US government can kill at will without accountability, then all that shows is that the protagonists are ignoring basic logic... which entirely fits the premise that the movie is trying to strawman the US government\\\'s laser research program in this movie, and yet failing to do so well.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
* One, its not \
to:
* One, its not \\\"generally accepted\\\" just because you alone happen to believe in it. You\\\'ve been repeatedly hitting refresh and deleting the entry all day, while no one else has given a damn. And two, what the heck is \\\"covert\\\" about a giant glowing laser beam from space? Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Multi-million-dollar orbital beam weaponry narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Re: StrawmanHasAPoint. It\'s generally regarded that the idea of the CIA conducting covert orbital assassinations is a bad thing. The movie doesn\'t need to explain \'\'why\'\' this is; it\'s not about making a political statement. More to the point, {{Subjective Trope}}s do \'\'not\'\' belong on a main article unless there\'s general agreement about them. That\'s what the JustBugsMe namespace is for.
to:
Re: StrawmanHasAPoint. It\\\'s generally regarded that the idea of the CIA conducting covert orbital assassinations is a bad thing. The movie doesn\\\'t need to explain \\\'\\\'why\\\'\\\' this is; it\\\'s not about making a political statement. More to the point, {{Subjective Trope}}s do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' belong on a main article unless there\\\'s general agreement about them. That\\\'s what the JustBugsMe namespace is for.
* One, its not \\\"generally accepted\\\" just because you alone happen to believe in it. And two, what the heck is \\\"covert\\\" about a giant glowing laser beam from space? Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Multi-million-dollar orbital beam weaponry narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else.
* One, its not \\\"generally accepted\\\" just because you alone happen to believe in it. And two, what the heck is \\\"covert\\\" about a giant glowing laser beam from space? Sniper bullets in the head are plausibly deniable because pretty much any nation, corporation, or terrorist group on Earth can find or hire someone capable of shooting a gun accurately. Multi-million-dollar orbital beam weaponry narrows the suspect pool down to the one nation on Earth known to conduct SDI research. Its like trying to maintain plausible deniability with a B-2 bomber or an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine: only one nation has those, and so its pointless trying to pretend you were someone else.
