MovieChat Forums > Lord Rake > Replies
Lord Rake's Replies
{And FYI, just because a woman goes over to a friend's house, and that friend is a man, it does not in any way suggest that she's there to get laid. They had even discussed on the phone why she was going there. Are you writing from the time machine of a hundred years ago? }
Cosby didn't exist 100 years ago and therefore if I was from the past, I would not know of him. Case Closed.
"And even IF she had gone over there with sex on her mind, which I guarantee, she had not, drugging and raping her is still DRUGGING AND RAPING HER. THOSE ARE CRIMES."
You're agreeing with me yes? I came out strongly against rape and drugging and I still believe it is wrong.
"Then, in your next post you say that even though she supposedly went over there for sex, he drugged and raped her anyway. You make no sense."
He makes no sense, if a woman showed up to his apartment for drinks why does he need to drug and rape?
"Actually, she went over there to talk about her career."
My apologies, I have no frame of reference here. I have never been asked over to a woman or a man's apartment to talk about my career. If someone asked me to do that a red flag would pop up in my brain and I'd probably bring a friend with me because that sounds like bullsh%t. It's hard to believe women are so naive.
The more I hear about Cosby the less I like him, too bad he won't do real jail time because of his fame and age.
Did they disagree? They agreed he drugged and raped her, but not that she was probably up for consensual sex before that time. She probably went back to his place so they could work on her taxes.
Wow he's an idiot then, obviously she would have had sex with him without the drugging.
probably in the ocean or a hole in the ground. Case closed.
A Cnn source... so we know the opposite is true.
Understanding human faces is what the human brain does best, part of being social creatures. We can distinguish hippies from rednecks pretty easily, even though they both might have crazy beards.
Do we get the super super predator in the next reboot and he will just be 3 ft taller than this one?
I thought it looked pretty terrible. The tough guy soldiers were so annoying to watch and the jokes were just lame.
The super predator, hasn't that been done already?
No welfare back then.
None would still be vocal. The majority are uninformed feelers and the few leading the charge have an agenda.
I didn't sense that at all. Because everyone else is super covered up in the rest of the film. It is probably just a movie mistake.
The superstitious god that took away welfare will be the new villain.
What is your argument exactly? You are throwing bs emotion at me and calling me a nazi.
If we bring allll of Mexico and South America into the country is that enough?
If that is true than enjoy the third world because successful free cultures aren't generated by geography.
99% of scientists agree that Ocean's 8 is happening. No more discussion because they have spoken and agree.
The left is so terribly predictable, they have no argument so they bring out the children. Is 50 million not enough, how many migrants do they want exactly?
The film looks like Sony crap, like the Spiderman franchise. Harrelson might be a bad action star but he is just a bad action star in a crappy Sony movie.
Harrelson is the least of this films problems. I mean, just looking at the recent trailer I think we got a real big munson on our hands and Harrelson isn't even in it.
I don't think that is true. The Thing got a remake and is still appreciated today along with plenty of other horror movies.
As for the OP, I think the anticipation for the remake and the other sequels was just as high so I'm not sure I understand the statement. It would have been cooler if Carpenter hadn't made Ghosts of Mars and just returned after 40 years with a sequel idea for this film. But what's done is done and it cannot be undone, so why sit around wondering about it?