That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Donald Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s wife Louise Linton is making her directorial debut, and her upcoming film only highlights how truly disconnected from the world she is. Linton wrote, directed, produced, and starred in the new film Me You Madness and plays opposite of Gossip Girl’s Ed Westwick
A little digging shows the production company Stormchaser Pictures is one she started back in 2012 with her brothers and the movie is reported to be 'self-financed'. Sounds about right.LawBeefaroni wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:06 pm
You have to be fucking kidding me.
Donald Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s wife Louise Linton is making her directorial debut, and her upcoming film only highlights how truly disconnected from the world she is. Linton wrote, directed, produced, and starred in the new film Me You Madness and plays opposite of Gossip Girl’s Ed Westwick
Remember, Linton was one of the spoils for Mnuchin who married her after he ascended to the Treasury job. Don't even want to think about where funding for this ego flick came from..
I suppose they both knew what the score was.It was Mnuchin's third wedding and Linton's second.
I'm guessing that the losses will be carried by the company while the props (cars, dresses, jewelry, hundreds of shoes) will be granted to the the "artists" involved.malchior wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:27 pm A little digging shows the production company Stormchaser Pictures is one she started back in 2012 with her brothers and the movie is reported to be 'self-financed'. Sounds about right.
I only skimmed. But that is one of the most ridiculous and absurd things I've read in a long time. There are plenty of poor people in Vermont. And I guarantee that the majority of them would have shown up in a "puffy" coat and mittens. Because it was cold. And they own warm clothes. Because most Vermonters know how to dress sensibly in winter.
Particarly when the article could more accurately be titled "One lady in San Fransisco wrote a ridiculius op-ed and was immediatelt called on it while SanFrancisco has a larger problem with tone deaf progressivism."TheMix wrote:I only skimmed. But that is one of the most ridiculous and absurd things I've read in a long time. There are plenty of poor people in Vermont. And I guarantee that the majority of them would have shown up in a "puffy" coat and mittens. Because it was cold. And they own warm clothes. Because most Vermonters know how to dress sensibly in winter.
The hilarious thing to me is the guy sitting right next to him in the picture is wearing almost the exact same coat.TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:43 amI only skimmed. But that is one of the most ridiculous and absurd things I've read in a long time. There are plenty of poor people in Vermont. And I guarantee that the majority of them would have shown up in a "puffy" coat and mittens. Because it was cold. And they own warm clothes. Because most Vermonters know how to dress sensibly in winter.
That would definitely have been a better title. At least in my opinion. I'm not actually sure what stimpy was trying to say with his title. Hopefully he was also deriding her for the absurdity that mittens equals white privilege.Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:59 amParticarly when the article could more accurately be titled "One lady in San Fransisco wrote a ridiculius op-ed and was immediatelt called on it while SanFrancisco has a larger problem with tone deaf progressivism."TheMix wrote:I only skimmed. But that is one of the most ridiculous and absurd things I've read in a long time. There are plenty of poor people in Vermont. And I guarantee that the majority of them would have shown up in a "puffy" coat and mittens. Because it was cold. And they own warm clothes. Because most Vermonters know how to dress sensibly in winter.
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Okay. So we are on the same page.stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:09 amThe hilarious thing to me is the guy sitting right next to him in the picture is wearing almost the exact same coat.TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:43 amI only skimmed. But that is one of the most ridiculous and absurd things I've read in a long time. There are plenty of poor people in Vermont. And I guarantee that the majority of them would have shown up in a "puffy" coat and mittens. Because it was cold. And they own warm clothes. Because most Vermonters know how to dress sensibly in winter.
So it has to be the mittens!!!!!
This person is educating our youth......frightening.....hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:17 pm What a ridiculous diatribe. If he'd worn snow boots, I can only imagine the writer would've compared him to Hitler. To some people with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
A hammer and sickle, Comrade Hepcat. A hammer and sickle.hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:17 pm What a ridiculous diatribe. If he'd worn snow boots, I can only imagine the writer would've compared him to Hitler. To some people with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Well, at least they're not teaching them the Trump administration's 1776 Report. That would be even worse.stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:12 pmThis person is educating our youth......frightening.....hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:17 pm What a ridiculous diatribe. If he'd worn snow boots, I can only imagine the writer would've compared him to Hitler. To some people with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I read that report. Not one mention of mittens. Very disappointing.hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:44 pmWell, at least they're not teaching them the Trump administration's 1776 Report. That would be even worse.stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:12 pmThis person is educating our youth......frightening.....hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:17 pm What a ridiculous diatribe. If he'd worn snow boots, I can only imagine the writer would've compared him to Hitler. To some people with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Why do you even?
Apparently in order to offend you? Or maybe because I'm working and busy, so I read enough to get the basic idea of the piece without feeling the need to read every word. But if it's that important to you that every word be consumed and analyzed, I'll simply forego looking at any articles until I am retired and have sufficient time. Sheesh.
I think you mistook his criticism.TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:01 pmApparently in order to offend you? Or maybe because I'm working and busy, so I read enough to get the basic idea of the piece without feeling the need to read every word. But if it's that important to you that every word be consumed and analyzed, I'll simply forego looking at any articles until I am retired and have sufficient time. Sheesh.
I could be wrong, but I have a feeling this may be more about why bother indulging my posts or some blah blah like that.......TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:01 pmApparently in order to offend you? Or maybe because I'm working and busy, so I read enough to get the basic idea of the piece without feeling the need to read every word. But if it's that important to you that every word be consumed and analyzed, I'll simply forego looking at any articles until I am retired and have sufficient time. Sheesh.
Oh. If so, then I really misread things. For the record, I often can't tell where you are coming from. But I definitely haven't put you into the "ignore and don't bother" category. So you must still be doing some things right.stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:23 pmI could be wrong, but I have a feeling this may be more about why bother indulging my posts or some blah blah like that.......TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:01 pmApparently in order to offend you? Or maybe because I'm working and busy, so I read enough to get the basic idea of the piece without feeling the need to read every word. But if it's that important to you that every word be consumed and analyzed, I'll simply forego looking at any articles until I am retired and have sufficient time. Sheesh.
Luckily he'll never see your comment. Unless some other asshole comes along and quotes it....hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:28 pm The only person I've ever put on ignore was myself. And I'm still afraid I'll find out about it and get offended.
But yeah, I think that's what he was referring to. However, I'm not a big fan of folks telling others not to engage with someone. That asshole hepcat does it frequently.
Eh....alot of times I don't know where I'm coming from, but I post what I feel like posting. IT"S MITTENS!!!!!TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:25 pmOh. If so, then I really misread things. For the record, I often can't tell where you are coming from. But I definitely haven't put you into the "ignore and don't bother" category. So you must still be doing some things right.stimpy wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:23 pmI could be wrong, but I have a feeling this may be more about why bother indulging my posts or some blah blah like that.......TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:01 pmApparently in order to offend you? Or maybe because I'm working and busy, so I read enough to get the basic idea of the piece without feeling the need to read every word. But if it's that important to you that every word be consumed and analyzed, I'll simply forego looking at any articles until I am retired and have sufficient time. Sheesh.
Yes. Busted. That was my sole purpose of linking that story. I am dead set on bothering the anti-mitten crowd here......hepcat wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:34 pm The fact that it bothers some is actually the sole draw for you.
Wearing kid gloves is mandatory for some of the snowflakes around here, I guess......
I guess. But I thought the way I worded the link kind of made it clear I was making fun of her and the story.TheMix wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:40 pm By the way, this was a perfect example of not understanding where you were coming from. You changed the title of the link to make it more.... I don't know. I couldn't tell if you were making fun of the woman and the content, or if you were actually agreeing with her that Bernie is all about white privilege. Which is also why many people in these parts are against drive-by linking. If you had put a sentence or two in addition to the link, then there would have been less confusion.
Mittens vs gloves isn't really about the snow. It's about how cold it is. Although, colder generally means less snow. So maybe it is about the snow...
What's even funnier is I post a simple link about some crazy woman equating mittens to privilege and THIS is the response I get........
your response to "you're a gloves guy" is to insult a bunch of people...then get mad when someone points it out?