Well no, they also have the option of mocking it, which seems to be a popular one.
Well no, they also have the option of mocking it, which seems to be a popular one.
Sure, I get that it's principles, but I have a hard time siding with the guy who's fighting for, say, $3.1m vs. $3.0m on principle.
I know Hart doesn't have a major network show. I think that's the point about "crossing over", getting an audience like that.
Kim Kardashian sexualized herself a long time ago.
I thought that's what he'd already been paid for acting and doing the junket, and he wanted more to include social.
Because Stewart draws in a couple million viewers every night?
I have conflicted feelings about Sony v. Hart. On the one hand, you'd think Sony would have some kind of boiler plate social media aspect to their promotional agreements with talent. On the other, I get why Hart wouldn't want to do extra work for Sony, it just opens up abuse for later. On a third hand, it's really in…
To be fair, he does have the look of a guy who would paint something with his penis.
What, explicitly, is your problem with it? Why is it not ok? What is the different spin?
It's all in the creative use of a foreskin, I'm sure.
If he has an innie, wouldn't it just be plain physically impossible?
Also, why is it okay to treat Kardashian this way?
As long as you wash it. Which he should be doing, anyway.
If faced with an election today, 31% of millionaires would vote for Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States.
Not to rep the Kardashians too hard but...
I'll admit, I semi-regularly watch these Really Bad Christian films on Discount Tuesday's for the yuks. The Persecuted is my favorite in recent memory. It was heavily hyped on Fox News as a masterpiece of cinema. It's not. A pair of Nice Christian Ladies sat near me, and the disappointment when they realized the movie…
Really? Preserving the casual racism in a television show for children is your big stand for freedom of speech?