Lol, this is the internet equivalent of a toddler thinking if they can’t see you, they are hidden.

To me, what I feel like they take away is valuable screentime. This opnion does hinge upon the fact that I feel most sex scenes are superfluous and don’t add anything to the movie they are in. To be honest, these seems to be further backed by the fact quite a few sex scenes are done at the behest of sudio executives and not directors, because they know sex sells, at least with older generations. I feel like a lot of younger people recognize this and don’t really care for a sex scene for the sake of itself.

This is all not to say I think there shouldn’t be sex movies. I do think it can be part of the plot and add to the narrative, I just don’t think that is always why we get one.

Lol, I hear people in the US commenting on Putin all the time and the only reason they don’t actually endorse other candidates is because they don’t know shit about Russian politics. I’m not saying I do either, but I’m not going around commenting on Russian plotics all that often either. I would say commenting on other countries politics is incredibly common in the US. I would also wager a guess that a lot of the people from other countries who comment on US politics know more about it then a lot of the US citizens commenting on other countries politics.

Are we going to keep letting these politicians murder our children? Why are we enforcing the religious doctrine of a few religions over the sanctity for life? (This is all rhetorical by the way, I know the answer, I’m just furious)

Lol

Thank you!

No it doesn’t because a person chooses to get intoxicated. One does not choose to be a child or be mentally impaired.

I upvoted the post before the end and then saw your comment and was confused. The I read the end…

I believe it, but also what the fuck lol

Edit: also just saw their username haha

Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman, who ruled with the majority, criticized Evnen and Hilgers for attempting such a massive rollback of voting rights right before a major election. “Why now?” she wrote. “Why not take the opportunity to challenge the laws long ago with available remedies, rather than creating uncertainty at this time?”

We all know why

Depends on what I am using it for. I quite like oat milk in my coffee drinks. I feel like it is nice to have the oaty flavor paired with the coffee taste.

A nice pay check I would imagine

There are at least 4 different ones around where I live. I know, because they are all wrapped in different colors. One unwraped, one blue, one red, one white, and one black. Its astounding that many people bought it out around here

5/10 show your work next time! /s

This is what is so fascinating to me about most people, they don’t understand that companies hord their assets in my different kinds of investments when they are this large. Having real estate gives them an asset they can can store large sums of money in that generally appreciate in value over time. If a company is under finacial duress, they can fire a bunch of employees, then sale the land where those employees worked and and save themselves from much larger losses on revenue for a given time period.

You do understand that large corporations invest in many kinds of assets in order to diversify them right? Real estate is one of the oldest investments any entity can make, and is often considered a pretty strong investment. Everyone needs land right?

Lol, “my personal anecdotal story, means someone else is crazy and wrong, despite me having no other evidence either.”

• This person

Take my breakdown with a grain of salt, as I did not dig into all of it, owing to the quantity of citations. Picking some at random, I found a mix between sources contemporary to the time period and ones that are secondary. I did not check the relevancy of the wiki quite, this was just 15 minutes of snooping around.

This one was interesting as it claims it was minutes from a meeting of a contemporary society called the the American Philosophical Society.

[103] Ord, George (1840). “Minutes from the Stated Meeting, September 18 [1840]”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1: 272.

They still seem to be running to this day, and sound like they have a long history in the US. Not to say they are trustworthy, I know nothing about them.

It will not, because those laws already largely exist. It has been quite well established I’m the US that inciting violence is not considered protected speech. The laws just don’t apply the same to wealthy people like Trump as they do to anyone else.

Your edit gave me a chuckle

Lol