Kal-El814

I think I can see the pocket early in the clip, but the reload for sure grew his beard

Just got to the Blood Stained Sanctuary in Cave Story +. Lord.

Or, you know, Dykstra decided not to pick a fight with someone married into a family worth tens of billions of dollars, most of which is tied up in media ventures.

It really is a very good one of these movies, with all of the praise and baggage that implies.

As everyone knows, I don't care about this shit in the least, but uh... are we allowing open character spoilers in thread titles for Episode IX?

They didn’t need to address them at all, that’s my point. I adore Cheers, but a spin-off is a spin-off. For as much as I love that show and its characters, the notion of a new show based on one of its characters needing being beholden to “Cheers canon” is just completely nonsensical. Like... who cares? It’s preposterous that the “follow up” to frigging Cheers is set in the Pacific Northwest and is about an erudite dandy of a psychologist who doesn’t deign to drink beer or watch sports. But Frasier as a show works so again... who cares? Let’s just not act like the connective tissue really mattered to what about Frasier made Frasier great because it didn’t. And the same will hold true of any reboot.

“Forced diversity” is shitheels insisting that the inclusion of people of color, or LGBTQ characters, or non-Christian characters, or god forbid some combo of the above is pandering in the interest of sales. You know, as if ALL decisions in mainstream comics from Marvel and DC aren’t based on what they think is going to move books.

They really didn’t though, at least not in any way that made sense. I’ll give them the dad thing, but his personality is COMPLETELY different. I love both shows and I don’t care about the differences at all, but to say they addressed all the consistencies is only true in the most pedantic way possible.

Frasier DID ignore previous events, but it wasn’t a reboot obviously. Frasier goes from drinking beer to hating it, he goes from having a dead father to Martin being alive, his personality gets a huge overhaul, etc. He’s barely the same guy from Cheers to Frasier.

onegianthand.com has one for everything.

Dog you’re gonna give @sblfilms a run for his money with all the projection you do.

I think that’s nuts, but the US Office is WAY too long in the tooth. Every episode of the British office seems relevant, the US one could lose a couple seasons worth of episodes and the show would be significantly better for the cuts.

Maybe this is the moment.

I’m open to suggestions but I’d rather rely on prosecutorial discretion as opposed to someone’s itchy trigger finger.

Says Michael Cohen ayylmao

I want to be clear that when I say the use of lethal force in self defense should be illegal, I do not expect that people in a life threatening situation should be expected to make a measured response when defending themselves. I understand that is not realistic. If someone uses lethal force in self defense and the state elects to not press charges, or it’s determined in court that there was no lethal intent and someone died as the result of someone defending themselves, I’m not inherently opposed to that. That doesn’t change my mind that lethal self defense should be illegal to remove teeth from what I perceive to be the abject nonsense that is castle doctrine, stand your ground, open carry, etc. ”I got shoved and I feared for my life, so I shot someone in the chest,” or, “I saw someone on my property so I started shooting,” needs to come to an immediate end, forever, and people that do that need to have their weapons confiscated, destroyed, their right to own a firearm forever purged, and those people need to be on trial for taking someone else’s life.

Jim is easily the most stereotypical office asshole with no endearing qualities. Fuck Jim.

Fuck open carry.

Poorly and with great imagination. Snark aside... if we’re sticking with some of the hypotheticals we’re talking about here, the surest way someone can apply lethal force in self defense is with a firearm. I feel there should be less of them in the hands of private citizens. Not too much mote to my logic than that aside from the perspective that the state having a monopoly on the use of lethal force specifically is positive.

I don’t care one way or another. Chris Pratt is a grown ass man and ought to know that you shouldn’t show your dick to people unless asked, especially at work. In the hypothetical scenario in which Amy Poehler didn’t feel like she could raise a stink about it until now, did so now, and Pratt got sacked from GotG3 now, that’s probably a small price to pay for moving the needle on the public’s understanding of appropriate penile etiquette.

This is what it comes down to for me as well. There should be no legal right to lethal self defense. Not because there are no situations in which it is warranted, rather because the aggregate cost for society to behave and to be armed to act in this matter is a net negative.

Yes. The cost to society is too great.

I generally agree with these and and of the opinion that if you’re carrying around a gun with the notion that you need to be able to protect yourself with lethal force at any time you’re far more likely to see lethal intent where none exists.

Also I’m not sure you were aware, but black people were involved.