Lurker > TommyG663513

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Oh I see now, you're practicing your trolling!

I'll give you another chance...

I've seen plenty of videos of peace officers killing people followed by getting off without a real punishment. I have to ask if you're aware of the many high profile police shooting cases that have frequented the news in recent years. When those cops get off without punishment then it taints their entire departments making all involved varying levels of culpable in an unjust killing, because they feel the need to protect the shield.

Now we have truly brain dead movements like #bluelivesmatter that try to push a victim narrative when peace officers start to finally a tiny amount of consequence for their actions. This only increases the complicity among departments and into the general public.

We need to hold peace officers to a higher standard not lesser. The idea that peace officers can't improve their methods or aren't vastly more responsible for how these confrontations play out is a brain dead position to take.

I'm very suspicious of this programs overuse of the term peace officer to describe members of law enforcement as it just reeks of a BS attempt at making law enforcement sound less violent. I find the term to be very worthy of mockery. I would have to see this program for myself to ultimately determine its value, but nothing on the surface sounds god to me.

Law enforcement doesn't have a strong track record of changing behavior by participating in classrooms. Anyone remember the colossal failure that was D.A.R.E.?
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

KingCrabCake posted...

I like how you're trying to sound smart while saying some dumb shit. Police officers dont routinely get off without punishment. This is just a myth that people like to claim cause they cant swallow the hard pill that maybe just maybe the cop is innocent. (See Michael Brown/Officer Wilson) so yeah you don't have any legs to stand on.

So what proof do you have that they don't routinely get off without punishment? I mean, you've offered me a single anecdote of when the cop was fairly justified. I can't really think of many high profile cases where a peace officer was convicted of anything. Sometimes they will lose their jobs, but even that seems rare. I believe I saw a statistic that peace officers kill around 1000 people every year give or take and a small percentage of those like 5% or less (if I recall correctly) even result in charges getting filed. That certainly is not a directly releasable statistic and a fact check is needed, but it doesn't imply peace officers are being charged with crimes for their killings. The implication I'm making is that stat has always seemed suspicious.

I guess I'm a bit confused. You accused me of saying some dumb shit, but haven't offered any sort of detailed well formed argument that really refutes anything I've said. Perhaps it would be advantageous of you to have something profound to say when criticizing someone's words as less than intelligent. I feel you've really missed on a great opportunity here. I feel it necessary to implore you to make another attempt at expressing some intelligence my way so I can understand why my words were dumb shit as you described.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

One of the biggest things that needs to change is peace officers routinely getting off without punishment. It is exceptionally rare for a peace officer to go to jail after shooting and killing someone. Peace officers know they are damn near invincible in the courtroom.

Everything else you said was reasonable which is why I'm not responding to anything else but this.

But when officers are found guilty in the court of law, like Van Dyke was just a week or two ago, they pay the price. Simply shooting someone as an officer does not mean you are guilty.

Is that supposed to be a counter argument? An anecdote? Shooting and killing someone as a peace officer seems to mean you are innocent by default the vast majority of time despite video evidence implying otherwise.

There is a process for evaluating the video evidence and all other evidence. Simply shooting someone does not.make someone guilty.

It can be the case that they are guilty, but it is not always that way. Officers have been acquitted fair and square before.

Lol

You pretend like this is way more complex than it actually is. I've seen a video or two. It is incredibly rare for any peace officer to even spend a day in jail over killing someone. When a guilty peace officer walks free then his whole department becomes dirty.

dude what the fuck are you even blabbering about?

I dismantled your argument and you can't comprehend it, because then you'd have to admit that maybe peace officers who shoot and kill people aren't brave and honorable people and blue lives don't matter.

The short answer is that your logical thinking skills are very poor.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Political humor in general isn't that great, but right wing humor is absolute trash. No wonder you usually never hear of this stuff.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Tappor posted...

Well, it's better than nothing, and the alternative (police officers receiving better training) is probably not happening anytime soon, so...

This is the unfortunate reality. Trained professionals think they know everything and can't do any better so they better teach everyone else to be way better and more responsible than them.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

One of the biggest things that needs to change is peace officers routinely getting off without punishment. It is exceptionally rare for a peace officer to go to jail after shooting and killing someone. Peace officers know they are damn near invincible in the courtroom.

Everything else you said was reasonable which is why I'm not responding to anything else but this.

But when officers are found guilty in the court of law, like Van Dyke was just a week or two ago, they pay the price. Simply shooting someone as an officer does not mean you are guilty.

Is that supposed to be a counter argument? An anecdote? Shooting and killing someone as a peace officer seems to mean you are innocent by default the vast majority of time despite video evidence implying otherwise.

There is a process for evaluating the video evidence and all other evidence. Simply shooting someone does not.make someone guilty.

It can be the case that they are guilty, but it is not always that way. Officers have been acquitted fair and square before.

Lol

You pretend like this is way more complex than it actually is. I've seen a video or two. It is incredibly rare for any peace officer to even spend a day in jail over killing someone. When a guilty peace officer walks free then his whole department becomes dirty.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

It seems weird that in the article they keep referring to law enforcement as peace officers, but the heart of the whole class is telling students they must act in a certain way or get shot and potentially killed.

I mean yeah, if they tell you to keep your hands where they can see them and you make a sudden movement to reach into your pocket or attempt to pull something out from under your shirt, you're gonna get shot.

These things need to be taught so that there's a common protocol by which everyone agrees to interact when it's a situation that involves law enforcement. It's to keep everyone safe, including the police. A lot of police officers die in the line of duty because they are too nice or because they give the violent the benefit of the doubt.

A lot less cops die from getting shot than civilians are shot by police. I'm sorry that you lack the creativity to imagine a scenario where peace officers can interact with civilians that doesn't require them being completely submissive. You must not think outside the box very much.

I know it is crazy, but what if we held the peace officer who shoots and kills people responsible for shooting and killing people. We wouldn't have to make entire police departments culpable in murder. Perhaps people would associate murder less with these peace officers. What if we didn't have to resort to horrible terms like peace officers to make these people sound less murderous and more peaceful perhaps?

Found a model you might agree with!

Wow that surely convinced me. Peace officers should definitely be allowed to shoot and kill people without consequence.

No I think taking away their weapons and prohibiting violence and not teaching children how to interact respectfully is a much better approach.

Yeah because we can only work in extremes here...

You've done nothing to disprove why significantly more responsibility shouldn't be put on the person who actually kills people than their victim.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

One of the biggest things that needs to change is peace officers routinely getting off without punishment. It is exceptionally rare for a peace officer to go to jail after shooting and killing someone. Peace officers know they are damn near invincible in the courtroom.

Everything else you said was reasonable which is why I'm not responding to anything else but this.

But when officers are found guilty in the court of law, like Van Dyke was just a week or two ago, they pay the price. Simply shooting someone as an officer does not mean you are guilty.

Is that supposed to be a counter argument? An anecdote? Shooting and killing someone as a peace officer seems to mean you are innocent by default the vast majority of time despite video evidence implying otherwise.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

It seems weird that in the article they keep referring to law enforcement as peace officers, but the heart of the whole class is telling students they must act in a certain way or get shot and potentially killed.

I mean yeah, if they tell you to keep your hands where they can see them and you make a sudden movement to reach into your pocket or attempt to pull something out from under your shirt, you're gonna get shot.

These things need to be taught so that there's a common protocol by which everyone agrees to interact when it's a situation that involves law enforcement. It's to keep everyone safe, including the police. A lot of police officers die in the line of duty because they are too nice or because they give the violent the benefit of the doubt.

A lot less cops die from getting shot than civilians are shot by police. I'm sorry that you lack the creativity to imagine a scenario where peace officers can interact with civilians that doesn't require them being completely submissive. You must not think outside the box very much.

I know it is crazy, but what if we held the peace officer who shoots and kills people responsible for shooting and killing people. We wouldn't have to make entire police departments culpable in murder. Perhaps people would associate murder less with these peace officers. What if we didn't have to resort to horrible terms like peace officers to make these people sound less murderous and more peaceful perhaps?

Found a model you might agree with!

Wow that surely convinced me. Peace officers should definitely be allowed to shoot and kill people without consequence.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

@monkmith

You need to understand where some of these users are coming from. The ones that are unabashed self-proclaimed Marxists will find any possible angle to argue against policing as a concept, simply because they are convinced that policing is not actually needed for public safety and that it's merely a tool that capital uses to suppress labor.

So you should not trust that these people are offering genuine concern over this. If anything, it's just propaganda to try to put policing into a bad light even though 99.99% of police officers are great people who will never abuse their power or authority.

Yeah people who have a problem with peace officers who shoot and kill people are so biased. You must be biased to look at murder and feel like it wasn't necessary.

No need to be disingenuous, we all know you aren't really this emotional and are just concern trolling.

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids how to properly interact with law enforcement, and vice versa.

No I really do think it is a farce to put this much responsibility on the person being shot and killed for being shot and killed. They are not the ones committing a violent act after all.

I think we should teach women to make smarter decisions to avoid being the victims of various types of violence, but I will still hold the perpetrator responsible ultimately. Or how about in terms of a safe driving course that teaches you how to avoid accidents due to another persons fault. It gives you a tool to reduce your risk, but those incidents are still the fault of the person recklessly driving.

There certainly is some benefit to teaching kids to behave more calmly while interacting with peace officers who shoot and kill people, but it is sort of like gun control. It helps, but it really only addresses a small part of the overall issue and acts like it solves everything.

One of the biggest things that needs to change is peace officers routinely getting off without punishment. It is exceptionally rare for a peace officer to go to jail after shooting and killing someone. Peace officers know they are damn near invincible in the courtroom.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

It seems weird that in the article they keep referring to law enforcement as peace officers, but the heart of the whole class is telling students they must act in a certain way or get shot and potentially killed.

I mean yeah, if they tell you to keep your hands where they can see them and you make a sudden movement to reach into your pocket or attempt to pull something out from under your shirt, you're gonna get shot.

These things need to be taught so that there's a common protocol by which everyone agrees to interact when it's a situation that involves law enforcement. It's to keep everyone safe, including the police. A lot of police officers die in the line of duty because they are too nice or because they give the violent the benefit of the doubt.

A lot less cops die from getting shot than civilians are shot by police. I'm sorry that you lack the creativity to imagine a scenario where peace officers can interact with civilians that doesn't require them being completely submissive. You must not think outside the box very much.

I know it is crazy, but what if we held the peace officer who shoots and kills people responsible for shooting and killing people. We wouldn't have to make entire police departments culpable in murder. Perhaps people would associate murder less with these peace officers. What if we didn't have to resort to horrible terms like peace officers to make these people sound less murderous and more peaceful perhaps?
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

FLUFFYGERM posted...

@monkmith

You need to understand where some of these users are coming from. The ones that are unabashed self-proclaimed Marxists will find any possible angle to argue against policing as a concept, simply because they are convinced that policing is not actually needed for public safety and that it's merely a tool that capital uses to suppress labor.

So you should not trust that these people are offering genuine concern over this. If anything, it's just propaganda to try to put policing into a bad light even though 99.99% of police officers are great people who will never abuse their power or authority.

Yeah people who have a problem with peace officers who shoot and kill people are so biased. You must be biased to look at murder and feel like it wasn't necessary.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

It seems weird that in the article they keep referring to law enforcement as peace officers, but the heart of the whole class is telling students they must act in a certain way or get shot and potentially killed.

It seems like something designed to reduce the liability of these peace officers (lol) for when they shoot and kill a person.

It just seems obvious that the significantly greater amount of responsibility for a peace officer shooting and killing someone should be them. I mean the peace officers are the one's shooting and killing people. Do they not receive adequate training?

Are peace officers willing to admit that perhaps they can behave better?

It just seems odd to lack the ability to take responsibility for your own decision to shoot and kill somebody. If someone offered me a job where I'd face the possibility of shooting and killing somebody then I wouldn't take the job.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

andel posted...

as someone who abhors the right and what they represent i would disavow an obvious troll account like tommygnumbers also. any kind of political violence is abhorrent and a big deal and should not be tolerated.

we should attack the right on message and principle and at the ballot box, not physically by sinking to their level

Obvious troll account? My account is over 15 years old dude. I never once said political violence is a good thing. I said she should file assault charges on the guy. She is very entitled to make this a police matter.

My problem was with her woe is me victim narrative when she gets her political career off by screwing people over. If someone wants to punch you then you probably don't treat people that great.

So whose ALT are you? Why do I keep seeing usernames I don't recognize ITT rushing to the defense of TC?
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

I just noticed you have a Kanye quote in your sig. I need to get my head checked for ever responding to you.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Funbazooka posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

Um I said nothing like that whatsoever.

TommyG663513 posted...

Speaking about it publicly to garner sympathy and riling up support over it is playing the victim

You just did it again!

Admonishing someone for talking about being assaulted!

What the hell??

You're really bad at this trolling thing
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Bloodychess posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

It isn't ok to assault someone, but they are really playing up the victim card there

Oh no, assault victims using the victim card.

It's almost as if they were handed that card when they were assaulted

There is a big difference between being a victim and playing the victim. She is every bit entitled to file a police report and do what she can to ensure this guy gets charged. Speaking about it publicly to garner sympathy and riling up support over it is playing the victim.

The irony is she uses getting victimized to get more power. Pretty horrible politics.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Funbazooka posted...

So essentially what you're saying is that when left-wingers assault people it should be ignored.

Um I said nothing like that whatsoever. I even outlined specifically what an appropriate response by this politician would be.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Funbazooka posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

The only thing you understand is how to play the victim narrative like it's a suit of armor.

I'm not playing the victim here. You're accusing actual victims of playing the victim.

Um no....

It's called playing up the victim card. She could have just said "I choose to make no comment about this publicly other than to acknowledge it happened and that we are working with law enforcement to resolve this." She would be 100% in the right to make such a statement, but that isn't exactly what she did.

I'm not blaming her for getting punched or saying she deserved it or saying the guy who punched her doesn't deserve an assault charge. What I'm saying is that she is using this incident for political gain.

She knows the game she's playing. She knows she is out to screw certain people over and that backlash will follow.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Funbazooka posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Not a good look, Tommy.

Mocking, blaming, and belittling victims of assault. And then calling for their imprisonment.

Yikes.

You have some serious struggles with reading comprehension.

It's just fine, thanks.

The only thing you understand is how to play the victim narrative like it's a suit of armor. I guess I can't ever say anything bad about someone who got punched in the arm. Life doesn't get any worse than being punched in the arm.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Fam_Fam posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Anyone who calls the cops on a black person in America should be arrested for attempted murder

and a hate crime.

totally agree.

Honestly, it should be viewed as a much less serious form of Swatting. There should be the threat of jail time for knowingly or even ignorantly calling the cops on people for petty reasons.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

DKC Tropical Freeze
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Funbazooka posted...

Not a good look, Tommy.

Mocking, blaming, and belittling victims of assault. And then calling for their imprisonment.

Yikes.

You have some serious struggles with reading comprehension.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

But they assaulted me just for having different political beliefs...

It isn't ok to assault someone, but they are really playing up the victim card there. Their political beliefs are basically to screw other people over. Most right wingers lack any basic sense of empathy which drives their political beliefs. They don't deserve to be assaulted, but they deserve to be told how horrible their entire belief structure is and how much harm it does to other people.

Literally crying about getting punched when your policies can completely screw over someone's life. People need to own up to the fact that politics aren't a silly little game. It can be life or death for some people.

People shouldn't go around threatening and enacting violence on these people so they can cry like brave little victims. We should be helping to make sure they don't get elected. Some of these politicians belong in a jail cell too.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

iPhone_7 posted...

Youre married but you put Ms. instead of Mrs. Your vote is invalid.

Probably this. Beautiful country we live in...
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

yusiko posted...

remember when she traded lil her coloring book for a reptar space helmet
and traded phil his reptar doll for crayons

so that lil would give him a reptar space helmet for a doll he no longer has
and phil would give lil crayon for a coloring book she no longer has

god she was a delightful little bitch

LOL

I watched this episode last year before Christmas. I was dying laughing at the Angelica parts. Such a hilarious character.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Crash Bash
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

No way would Disney ever let someone like J.K. Rowling maintain sole control of her own IP. They would want to morph it to their liking. Look what happened to Marry Poppins.

It was very natural for Harry Potter to end up with Universal. The movies were pretty good despite a few flaws.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

I pretty much only wear briefs, but sometimes I wear thongs. I own an excessive amount of underwear.

Calvin Klein makes a lot of really nice briefs. All sorts of colors, designs, and fabrics. Emporio Armani makes the best thongs.

I'm a pretty fit bisexual dude. I'm pretty comfortable with myself to wear this sort of thing.

Any dude who thinks whitie tighties when I say briefs just doesn't know. They make way more stylish types of briefs than that.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Blue_Thunder posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

Pretty privilege in men should be encouraged.

No.

You changed my quote and you know it. The idea is that women will be less valued for their beauty alone if they don't have such a monopoly on it.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Sativa_Rose posted...

I laughed out loud at this thread.

At my job, instead of getting fired people just decide to disappear without a trace without telling anyone.

Check the dumpster
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Men should be valued for their beauty more. Puts less of a focus on women and their beauty.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Wow, these people seem pretty terrible. They seem too crazy to be real.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Is this a Futurama quote?
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

creativerealms posted...

Antifar posted...

Were their actions the same?

Only in the sense that both are celebrities now supporting politics. Yet the way they are doing it can't be more different. Taylor has limited herself to her own state and is just urging Liberals and others who might be sick of republicans to vote. Kanye has jumped all the way to the top talking about things he knows nothing about.

I don't like ether of them and both have the rights to but the way Taylor is doing this is better then most celebrities since she is sticking to her own state for now.

I want to add to this and say that I absolutely hate Kanye like crazy, but also very much dislike Swift. You can hold differing negative opinions of both individuals. There really is absolutely zero way to defend Kanye though. Guy is just beyond awful.

Swift is just generally full of herself in a regular celebrity who is really out of touch sort of way. Kanye belongs in a padded room.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Yeah Jasmine's actress is super hot. Can't wait to see her in costume.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Hasn't really done anything good since Silver Linings Playbook which was amazing.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Damn people are harsh. She certainly is a bigger girl, but she has some decent shape to her. She is fairly proportional.

Would definitely smash and be open to dating if her personality meshed well with mine.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

httpgrandmaster posted...

TommyG663513 posted...

httpgrandmaster posted...

it was badass

although i did go into it expecting garbage due to the critics

I've had this happen to me plenty of times. Go in with low expectations and be very surprised when you start to enjoy the film. It usually makes for a pretty good first viewing, but your satisfaction declines quite a bit upon future viewings.

I felt the same way about X-men Apocalypse and Suicide Squad. I still get enjoyment out of these movies today, but the flaws stand out pretty strong on repeat viewings.

that's fair tbqh

Yeah I'm hoping this will be the case when I see Venom on Tuesday. If I don't hate it then I enjoyed it. Probably won't buy it on home release. I just want to be able to participate in online discussions about the film for a little while. Honestly, that feels like one of the biggest reasons I ever see movies these days.

I do expect Tom Hardy to elevate the movie somewhat, but I will in all likelihood view this as his weakest film. Not a hard bet when the majority of movies he's been in have been fantastic.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

So how did she see him grab stuff out of his locker? Does this place have lockers out in the open? By junk did she mean junk or perhaps did she mean he was adjusting his genitals?
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

httpgrandmaster posted...

it was badass

although i did go into it expecting garbage due to the critics

I've had this happen to me plenty of times. Go in with low expectations and be very surprised when you start to enjoy the film. It usually makes for a pretty good first viewing, but your satisfaction declines quite a bit upon future viewings.

I felt the same way about X-men Apocalypse and Suicide Squad. I still get enjoyment out of these movies today, but the flaws stand out pretty strong on repeat viewings.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

What a hilarious non partisan thread
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Illuminoius posted...

i think the time in 3 i rolled a 1 four times in a row (thanks to reverse shroom and a door) and landed on chance time four times in a row was actually the best aspect

This. If low dice rolls can be used to trigger game changing events then they can be pretty great.

It all depends on how the board is laid out.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

This topic delivers.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

This topic delivers
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

As if there was any doubt that the guy is a scumbag
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

You are on a football team for guys in their 40's?
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Coffeebeanz posted...

You can literally live a completely normal life with HIV if you get on medications and are consistent with them.

Isn't there also medication for HIV that prevents you from being able to spread it? I've heard it referred to as prep.

Also, to TC, any idea how you go infected with HIV?
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

nicklebro posted...

I bet it'll be just fine. It's really crazy to me when people shit on a movie that not only they havent seen, but isn't even out yet. Then again it's the internet and especially CE where being a hater is cool.

The odds are very clearly on this movie not being good. There certainly is a chance it could be enjoyable though.

I will still see it OW, but I'm mostly just very curious. I'm also a huge Tom Hardy fan. I like the entire superhero genre. I still expect this to easily be among the worst if not the worst superhero movie of the last 5 years.

Though I do have a hard time imagining this being worse than Fant4stic.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156

Is this real? I'm too lazy to click on the link and trusting enough to go by other people's opinions. It just seems easier to type this out than do the very minor investigative work myself.
---

just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156