Since you agree that they're trying to influence the debate, is there any aspect of let's call it 'global warming scepticism' that you think is basically a lie perpetuated by the industry to make their argument more persuasive?

It's pretty easy for say, a fossil fuel company to pay (what is pocket change to to them) a PR company quietly to spread ideas that are misleading but sound convincing right?

Also where did Inconvenient Truth say the planet would be basically dead? I don't recall that at all.

Genuine question, do you think that the fossil fuel industry tries to influence the debate in their favour?

I'm asking regardless of whether global warming is true or not.

Pence presidential pardon, calling it now.

I tend to view the stigmatisation of a word to this degree as counter-productive since it shifts the focus away from the real problem - i.e. chronic inequality of income between black and white communities through poor public services that feeds a lack of opportunity for income mobility. Time spent discussing the degree to which users of the word should be shunned, whether it's said by a comedian, other black people, actual racists, is time not being spent discussing those material issues.

The base case of racism, i.e. the perpetuation of the view that black people are somehow genetically inferior or deserve to be subjugated in rights still certainly exists. What I suspect is more prevalent nowadays is discrimination founded in economic inequalities - the view that because black people are more likely to be poor, making the reflexive assumption they are more likely to resort to crime, and therefore are more dangerous and should be implicitly subject to harsher penalties. Which comes back to my main point, the best way to fix that is to actually narrow those economic inequalities.

It seems like you agree that they should be independent and that Trump is not respecting that independence but your party affiliations make it difficult for you to admit that.

Do you think the FBI should operate independent from the executive?

Having previously lived in Adelaide for a considerable portion of my life, I can assure you he has every right to be miserable.

AWWWWW YISSSSSSS

Putin actually says "according to the law" but that's neither here nor there

Reminiscent of:

It kind of bothered me for a while that I enjoyed this show and people interpreted it so literally. From what I remember reading the producer was actually a hardcore conservative.

But then I realised people also watch CSI and begin to assume that forensic evidence is irrefutable. Or that criminal defence attorneys are always the bad guys.

Turns out people are just morons.

Unless it's the cheapest airfare.

Wow, absolutely the opposite reaction to me.

I thought Rogue One was a travesty of film making. The characters were bland and underdeveloped, the plot made little sense and the dialogue was awful. The only redeeming aspect were the special / practical effects and art.

I would criticise Force Awakens for treading safe in replicating the plot of A New Hope to a ridiculous degree but the characters had a sense of identity, purpose and relatability. Most of the set pieces (Han Solo, Jakku, Falcon escape) were memorable.

The lightsaber battle definitely suffered from FX over-use. What made the one in Empire Strikes Back compelling is the austere focus of it as a battle of wills. At least this one was less ridiculous than the lava clusterfuck of Revenge of the Sith.

For Kylo Ren, a lot will depend on whether he remains a bland, corrupted villain or develops into a repentant anti-hero. Hopefully they won't follow the Vader/Emperor arc too closely. In any case, he's certainly going to take back seat to Snoke as primary villain.

Australia welcome too

So was that the whole movie?