Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled
by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government. We can - and
should - address the risk of climate change based on sound science without
succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma
rather than as situations to be managed responsibly
Absent that, no, there would be no difference.
... end transmission
When the baby doll head turned in the foreground, they lost the "found footage" angle. Now it's just 3rd-person omniscient with grainy footage.
So, he doesn't want to talk about what the money was actually used for, and he doesn't care why the decision was made. But he's angry. About something. Apparently.
No wonder that idiot is a conservative.
Semantic "arguments" are fun!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...!!!
Thanks, that's the kind of ill-reasoned, laughable bullshit we were talking about.
You can stop pretending, now.
It's not just that lots of direct exposition is lazy. In the real world, people disagree about practically everything. Laying out "how it is" provides an unrealistic certainty, which in turn makes the story unbelievable. If you want exposition, have people argue about your backstory (as real people argue about history all the time), or dispute the viability of a technology, or debate the rightness or wrongness of the use of force. Even people who think of themselves as being on the same 'side' of an issue argue all the time (usually about strategy or authenticity), the smaller the detail the more vicious the conflict.
Order in the real world is the product of conflict, not consensus. Conflict should make for good storytelling anyway.
I write this out of love. You can curse me in the morning, but your readers will thank us both.