Nah, I’m sensing that he is quite the giver in the bedroom, lol.

That’s called “Praying Mantis” style.

It is known

Wait... Are people surprised by this? Because Momoa has always had “douche-bro jackass” written all over him. Like, another “charming big guy” I’ve always suspected being secretly like that is Dwayne Johnson, but he at least sell his “good guy” persona very well, to the point I’ve genuine uncertainty about it. Not…

I don’t even like men. I could make an exception for him.

No judgement. You could think of it as a preying mantis sort of ritual kill.

Ah, the time-tested 14 Day Trial By Orgasm. The old ways are the best ways.

When I hear actors tell these “behind-the-scenes endearing” stories that are actually terrible about their costars, I like to believe it’s purposeful and they’re finally taking their revenge with a smile, faking cluelessness with a morning talk show host.

I’d give him two weeks to convince me not to murder him by having lots of sex.

Physical destruction of co-workers’ property is grounds for dismissal out in the real world. 

It’s not playing grammar police, it’s playing syntax police.

Are we still respecting everyone’s religious beliefs about clothing? Probably not and with good reason.

Except there’s no sect within Christianity that believes you should always be holding a cross and bible, thus when someone is doing it it’s pretty logical to think they’re thinking about their religion at that specific moment. In contrast to a headscarf, which some Muslims do wear all the time. For instance, I don’t…

You’re just persistently mistaking the thing for the symbol of the thing. The problem with religion in government is legislators attempting to impose their religion on others by force of law (or force of arms). Wearing or not wearing a religious symbol has nothing to do with it, and would not affect the legislators’…

I’m good with removing the “under god” as well, along with any official mentions of religion or god from any speeches/statements that the MOCs make in their official capacity.

But they are citizens, and I believe they should be able to wear whatever personal items they want in their work places. For one thing, I think…

Which is still rather suspicious timing. Almost like due to a rising number of Jewish immigrants the Senate decided to take action. The hat ban is still Anti-Semetic (and Anti-Muslim and Anti-Sikh) in its current form regardless of its intent.

I would say that if they feel the need to have faith present in the guise of a chaplain they should rotate and have a rabbi and imam too. Allowing a headscarf or yarmulke to be worn is no big deal IMO.

Correct, it does not conflict. The House regulates plenty of speech in the context of their rules but that’s not unconstitutional. That clause doesn’t apply to internal rules.

and please remember - the state health department needs to test the brain tissue to confirm or deny the presence of rabies. When you’re trying to determine the best method to humanely euthanize a possibly rabid family member, keep this in mind.

my family’s real tight, and our core body temp is too low to harbor the virus, so...