I get the point you’re going for, but “pasture land” is literally just public grasslands, and they’re pretty much the only truly public places left in the states.
I get the point you’re going for, but “pasture land” is literally just public grasslands, and they’re pretty much the only truly public places left in the states.
In other words, you have the right to be an asshole, but if you do it too much, others can invoke their right be assholes right back to you.
He’s not saying they’re right wing governments, just that they’re highly authoritarian, which is something that leftists, on average, tend to be against, so if someone claims to be “left” but supports Russia, they likely have a poor understanding of one of those things.
There ya go! I knew there had to be a couple out there!
There ya go! I knew there had to be a couple out there!
I do, but only if it’s built up properly. This is also true of musical numbers and fight scenes. If built up properly, they can be incredibly cathartic and the best parts of the film, but if not, they grind the plot to a halt.
The reason so many people hate these kinds of scenes is that most screenwriters are really bad at creating tension. The purpose of these scenes is to release emotional tension, so without building this, they feel pointless and jarring. The best parody of this is in Men in Tights when Robin bursts into a love song out of nowhere and it scares the hell out of Marian.
I’m trying to provide examples of love scenes I actually like in films, and to be honest, I’m coming up blank. I think it may just be a lot more difficult to generate romantic tension in the average timespan of a film. It’s easier in television, where you get more time to tell the story. I think my favorite intimate scene in tv is in Game of Thrones season 3 when John and Ygritte are in the cave.
At least that scene is funny and develops the plot. I think they’re talking more about stuff like all those 90s movies that have the plot grind to a halt so two characters can punch each other for ten minutes.
You’re coming dangerously close to re-inventing the kilt
I feel like it’s more about distribution of responsibility. If you have a king, he’s either a good king and runs things well, or a bad king and runs things poorly. A King’s success is generally measured by the quality of his kingdom, which is at least somewhat tied to the wellbeing of subjects.
In a corporation, even if you have a comparitively “good” CEO, he’s still answerable to the shareholders, and thus obligated to raise the stock value by any means necessary, a factor which is not necessarily dependent on the wellbeing of his employees.
There may be variance from place to place, but most national parks are extremely restrictive on when people can come and what they can do, and at least in my state, most Bureau land is off limits to the general public for most of the year.