Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

If I recall, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu grossed a quarter-billion worldwide with a Charlie's Angels movie.  

 

1,000,000 years ago the way things are headed....  :D

 

Posted
3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Because they weren’t taking themselves seriously 

 

They were trying to be entertaining 

 

 

 

Another feminist movie bombs at the box office

by Silvio Canto Jr.

 

Original Article

 

.

 

9 to 5 was a feminist movie where 3 empowered women stuck it the man.  It was almost 40 years ago and hugely popular.  And it wasn't preachy and it was entertaining.

 

A 3rd Charlie's Angels movie?  Really?

 

When I was in the USMC, the TV room was full for only 2 things, Charlie's Angels and a Muhammad Ali fight.  We watched Charlie's Angels for the babes.  Seems like an interesting choice to be an empowering woman thing I guess.

 

Mainly to me anyway, it just seems a tired concept.

 

Maybe Deranged can chime in, but I've read that a lot of movies today are based on a formula of what was successful in the past which results in them all seeming the same. Maybe that's the problem here?

Posted
On 11/19/2019 at 8:14 PM, DC Tom said:

If I recall, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu grossed a quarter-billion worldwide with a Charlie's Angels movie.  

Yeah, but that was before men could have periods or get pregnant. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Where else was this going to end up.   

 

If you take it to the "logical" trans conclusion, gays are simply trans people who haven't recognized they're trapped in the wrong gender.

one possible conclusion is see is that... 'no' will not be an option at some point if these ***** get what they so obviously want.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Women women, or women who were born with non-women parts who were actually women women all along, or women born with women parts who have always been men but some might see them as women? 

 

Broads.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
13 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Women women, or women who were born with non-women parts who were actually women women all along, or women born with women parts who have always been men but some might see them as women? 

What about womyn?

 

I find your lack of wokeness to be mysoginexst you raysis litrally Hitler transphoblican

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

What about womyn?

 

I find your lack of wokeness to be mysoginexst you raysis litrally Hitler transphoblican

In my defense, I recently updated my  2BD password, could not recall it, had to go back through gmail to update per Board "password recovery" process, had forgotten the gmail password that I had updated recently, recovered that password, then had to type the damn hyphens in the screen name I chose. By the time I got to typing my reply, I was emotionally drained and neglected to include womyn, I own that and try to live my truth.

 

In other words, while I'm as inclusive as I can be, in some respects I am limited because I'm basically a moron. 

 

 

Edited by leh-nerd skin-erd
Posted
6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

 

In other words, while I'm as inclusive as I can be, in some respects I am limited because I'm basically a moron. 

 

 

 

Awww, sounds like some idiot needs a hug...

Posted
10 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In my defense, I recently updated my  2BD password, could not recall it, had to go back through gmail to update per Board "password recovery" process, had forgotten the gmail password that I had updated recently, recovered that password, then had to type the damn hyphens in the screen name I chose. By the time I got to typing my reply, I was emotionally drained and neglected to include womyn, I own that and try to live my truth.

 

In other words, while I'm as inclusive as I can be, in some respects I am limited because I'm basically a moron. 

 

 

 

Speak truth to power [undefined sibling]!

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

 

 

Scientists Counter Claims That ‘Meat Is Evil’

by Thomas D. Williams

 

Original Article

 

A team of UK scholars have fired back at unscientific claims by PETA and other groups that veganism is a “greener” option that eating meat, insisting that meat has “massive social benefits.” Speaking at a panel in central London, scientists from the University of Edinburgh and Scotland’s Rural College argued that eating meat is crucial for the physical and mental health of children, especially in developing countries, adding that that alternatives to livestock farming would not improve land use. “We feel that while livestock production has a range of economic, social and environmental costs and benefits, the costs have perhaps been receiving far more attention recently than some of the benefits,”

 

 

 

×
×
  • Create New...