Han Solo movie: Star Wars hunk 'Lando is pansexual, he wants to have sex with EVERYTHING'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ex...al-What-does-pansexual-mean-Donald-Glover/amp

So not only is Disney willing to promote interracial homosexual relationships to the young audience who will show up in droves to see this pozfest of a film, but now apparently interspecies sex is also on the table.

RIP the original series. Though I must say I’m surprised that they would do this to the only notable black character in the original series, played by Billy Dee Williams (who was great in that role). I would have expected them to go after Han Solo for his history of “toxic masculinity” and womanizing in the original canon.

Do you think black Star Wars fans are going to be OK with this rewriting of Lando?

 

I'm a black star wars fan and I couldnt care less. Return of the Jedi is actually the first movie I ever saw in the theater and I have tickets tonight with my brother for Solo. Can't wait. That all said intraspecies sex was always there and Landos sexuality was never established in the original trilogy so this changes nothing.

 

The franchise died 3 movies ago. I may watch it when it comes to cable but only if there's nothing else to watch.
No sense getting worked up about the sex lives of fictional characters.

 

If California voting results for Prop 8 are any indication it would appear you would be in the minority of black men who would be down with this.

 

Millions of kids are going to go see these films and they will become a part of who they become as adults, like the original movies did to kids of that era. These Star Wars films have been utterly dripping with progressive propaganda. Ignoring this would be a mistake. Parents need to take an active role in countering this agenda. The people pushing it do not have the best interest of your children in mind. Quite the opposite. They would laugh when bad things happened to them.

 

Poor Brewskier. It sucks that it's no longer cool to hate on minorities or gays. Whatever will he do on Friday nights now?

And the "interspecies sex" ship sailed decades ago, with the original Star Trek. Even if looking only at Star Wars, you are forgetting what Jabba did to Leia.

 

So? I wasn't speaking for all black men, I was speaking for myself.

God it must suck to be a kid to conservative parents. On the plus side fewer kids in movie theaters is always a good thing so you should keep your children far away from the filth Hollywood is pushing. It's for the best.

 

Yeah, how did anyone have fun back in the pre-pansexual days? You seem like you would be pretty tolerant of that life choice your son would make.

 

I have a daughter and despite my pleas and constant bad mouthing of males as a species she doesn't seem at all interested in the fairer sex. I do have a gay brother though and I have no problem with whoever he chooses to love or screw.

 

Sounds like a pozitively good time. Have fun.

 

Oh I am. Doesn't sound like your having much fun though. You seem to get angry at silliest things. Who cares who Lando(a fictional character) is in to?

 

It seems silly and trivial to you because you’re on board with progressivism.

 

Yea that and because I'm an adult.

 

Thankfully the USSC properly overruled that piece of crap, upholding the 14th Amendment. $70 million in donations from the enemies of liberty down the drain! How much did you give?

 

Yeah there you go, just go to the Supreme Court to ram through a decision that the people don’t want. How “libertarian” of you.

 

How many more threads are you planning on starting about the new Star Wars movie?

It's only a movie, so why do you care so much?

As long as it makes money for the studio, Disney doesn't care.

 

You should avoid my threads. They seem to trigger you so. Plenty of “Drumpf” threads for you to give your surface level takes on.

 

The Constitution was drafted very carefully to protect the citizen from petty tyrants such as yourself who feel it is their place to impose their subjective moral views on the rest of us. I have news for you -- it is not your place, as affirmed by the USSC. I know that had to sting a bit, knowing that you'd no longer be able to control those undesirables and that your government would have to, at least, treat them as equal to you. And the courts exist specifically for that reason. Mob rule is a poor substitute for democracy. And the mob was soundly defeated in this instance, by the Constitution in a near-perfect demonstration of how our government is supposed to work.

And all that tax-free money from religious organizations... makes me want to really revisit the tax code.

 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the Government of any other” - John Adams

You are required to separate the literal translation of the Constitution from the people who wrote it, and their intentions behind it, because that is the only way you could try and square your ideology with anything related to America. You have much more in common with progressivism than you do with conservatism, or anything historically American. The Founders would have never supported the issues that you do. Nobody outside of the lunatic fringe would have for the majority of American history, up til the 1960s, when an explicitly anti-Western and anti-American ideology gained dominance.

 

Translated from the Brewskier: Any societal change post 1783 is bad.

 

Why use the Constitution to justify a position that the people who wrote it would have never accepted as valid? At least as a new world progressive who fundamentally rejects the country’s founding, dominant religion, dominant population, you would be consistent in this, but someone who pretends to be what America is all about? How can they ignore such important context?

 

Odd that didn't actually make it into the text of the Constitution.

The men who wrote the Constitution were flawed like the rest of us. They proclaimed "all men are created equal," yet 3/4 of them owned other men as property (no doubt you'll try to refute that with some claptrap video you found on Stormfront). The framers talked a good game, but when it came to practicing what they preached? Well, it's been a work in progress ever since. I don't know if you are aware of this, but we even let women wear pants now. At some point we may even let them drive. God I hope not.

Wrong on both counts and I've never claimed to be either.

As I already stated they were flawed like the rest of us.

I know it all went to hell when we let blacks pick any seat they wanted on the bus.

 

The framers were flawed like the rest of us. As I stated above. They proclaimed all mend created equal but the majority owned other men as property.

Please stop lying about my position. It's really getting tiresome. Your facile attempt to distort my argument is as transparent as a Folsom Street thong

The context is valuable only in understanding the history of the period. The framers were -- again -- very careful and deliberate of the exact wording of the documents they wrote at great personal peril to extricate our young nation from the Crown. If they wanted gays executed at dawn by hanging from cranes (as they do in some of the world's theocracies), they'd have put that in there. If they wanted blacks to sit at the back of the bus, they would have put that in there.

 

More of the same Progressive garbage I was talking about in the Netflix thread. here it is again. Lando the pansexual. Hope all the Identity politics buttons are covered now.

Not going to get my movie dollars Disney.

 

Way to gabble gabble in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you are saying, as I noted, that any societal change since 1783 is bad.

Which serves to point out the ridiculousness of your position without the need to go any further.

The Founders designed a Constitution founded on a few general principles. They deliberately did not get very specific in most cases, because they understood that for the Constitution to succeed in the long-term, it had to be flexible. It was never meant to be a "dead hand" controlling the country, forever miring us in the mores and practices of the 18th Century.

One example: the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." Nowhere does it attempt to define what that means, and contrary to originalist doctrine, there was not broad agreement in the 1780s as to the meaning of that term. It was left undefined for a reason: it's a statement of PRINCIPLE, the exact definition of which can change as society changes. What might have been considered okay in the 18th Century might be considered "cruel and unusual" today, and vice versa. That's a design FEATURE, not a flaw.

Also, note that the Founders were not a monolithic group: they VIOLENTLY disagreed amongst themselves on many of the key tenets in the Constitution. So any claim that "the Founders" would be for or against something is specious from the beginning, except for a few broad areas.