tantric superman

Plus Black Phillip.

So I got the shot yesterday. Took tylenol first, then advil six hours later, then another tylenol last night. Took advil this morning and am going to stop. My arm has never been sore for a flu shot but it was for this (Pfizer). But no big deal.

My nurse, giving my doctor my vitals when I come in for a physical: "I wouldn't go so far as to call the brother fat, I mean he got a weight problem."

Rotten Tomatoes is moronic. Stop wasting your time, and our time, with Rotten Tomatoes.

If corpulence were private I'd get laid more.

FYI, I was higher than that as a 1B and I just cancelled my shot this morning because I was getting it elsewhere...You should be up.

Oh and I am 1B. Hypertesteronosis. Also fat.

about five posts up. Just had first CVS today. Pfizer. 2nd one scheduled on 3/23 at same place.

Just got first Pfizer in Sherman, TX at the CVS. Shot kinda hurt for a shot. 2.5 hours later, just feeling like I need a nap.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Not sure if serious(ly don't know that Spaniards are some of the worst white devils).

I just feel that I need to point out that, on behalf of the mestizos on this board, we appreciate your women -- especially las pelirrojas. I just wanted to say something nice to you all. Muchisimas gracias for all that you do, X chromosome-wise. You genocidal, racist devils, you.

Yeah, I agree with atom. I don't think it is a smart/dumb thing. I think it is an asshole thing. Ultimately, I think smart policy will win out. But only because assholes get outvoted.

The problem is that "throw money at an issue" is just a loaded, and unhelpful phrase. If you mean spending stupidly on ineffectual programs, sure, that applies to everything. Literally every financial exchange in the world. I throw money at grocery stores to feed my children. If I buy healthy food, I am still "throwing money" at the grocery store, but I'm not throwing it in the same way I would if I bought nothing but Ramen and coca-cola. If we are doing to improve anything, we are almost certainly going to throw some money at it.

Note: It's one of the very few films me and my wife both enjoyed. I liked the extended version, but more from the standpoint of seeing how people edit movies. Wife hated the extended version -- actually kind of pissed her off because she thought some of the back story hurt the front story. You probably know what I'm talking about , RPM.

Sullivan's Travels (1941) This is the first Preston Sturges picture I have been into. It really goes off into a number of different tones - romantic comedy to terror to a really interesting negro church scene. And good god Veronica Lake in a robe. j Ultimately, it felt like a really daring movie, although you had to give it some leeway due to being 80 years old. The Secretary of the NAACP, Walter White, wrote to Sturges: I want to congratulate and thank you for the church sequence in Sullivan's Travels. This is one of the most moving scenes I have seen in a moving picture for a long time. But I am particularly grateful to you, as are a number of my friends, both white and colored, for the dignified and decent treatment of Negroes in this scene. I was in Hollywood recently and am to return there soon for conferences with production heads, writers, directors, and actors and actresses in an effort to induce broader and more decent picturization of the Negro instead of limiting him to menial or comic roles. The sequence in Sullivan's Travels is a step in that direction and I want you to know how grateful we are.[4]

How the hell does ChickenSandwich know why disparities exist, he doesn't even know how a can opener works?

I liked Lady Bird lots too although not everything. Always want to strangle that punk Chalamet in everything he's in. Will hate him even more after watching Dune because he is not Special Agent Dale Cooper.

So, True Romance>Lady Bird>True Lies?

Will drop a footnote.

The whole basis of my point is...SO? I don't think it takes any rocket scientist to realize that each group, indeed each person, has a different history and cause for their poverty. Knowing this may help us better understand the efficacy of our planned solution for poverty, but it doesn't go the fundamental point - can we solve poverty (and will the Constitution allow us to solve poverty) by giving preferential treatment to certain groups based on certain characteristics like ethnicity? And if they do, is it wise policy to target solutions that way. I think if we create expansive opportunity programs based purely on economic need, we will have room to discuss smaller targeted programs based on each groups unique history. And that may not go anywhere, but at least there might be a chance.

Just finished this up (Audiobook, read by Sonnenfeld). Pretty sick, funny, and some cool Coen Bros stuff. Recommend it. The porn chapter is pretty damn memorable. (I'm getting audiobooks from the library using the Libby Ap. Because I am cheap as fuck and don't like to buy books.)