Larkmarn
Since: Nov, 2010
Dec 20th 2019 at 6:33:40 AM
•••
Yeah, "accomplice after the fact" is woefully different. And supplements nothing, Veidt himself implies it in "A God Walks Into Abar" when he bemoans Redford basically not returning his calls.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Tuvok
Since: Feb, 2010
SchisselEL1
Bowl-full-of-names
Since: Aug, 2015
Bowl-full-of-names
Dec 19th 2019 at 5:40:02 PM
•••
Ailes "tried to sue the Veidt Corporation in 2018 for alleging the CIA had assassinated Veidt." ... typo somewhere there? (What sort of standing would Ailes have in such a suit whether as himself or on behalf of the New Frontiersman? The CIA might sue, the Veidt Corporation might sue Ailes, but: as stated in the article, again, this sentence little sense does make to me, so again, yes?!?...)
Edited by SchisselEL1 (Actually, who needs love when one has music?...)
An Example for President Evil was added - "Robert Redford is, willingly or not, an accomplice to Adrian Veidt's crimes"
I originally removed the earlier example because the President Evil example states as actively being evil. Has been re-added but labels him an accomplice. The main factor is that Redford was not an accomplice to the crime, he covered it up AFTER the fact. Also he was forced to cover up the crime due to the geo-political delicate situation of the time. Supplements even indicate that he stayed away from Veldt after he found out what he did. That being said is that enough to label him as an example of President Evil?
Edited by Tuvok Hide / Show Replies