OMG George Takei sin't gay

Sulu is gay in the next ‘Star Trek’ movie. George Takei isn’t happy about that.

He can't be, because he disagrees with the leftwing and the Gaystopo on one issue. So like Clarence Thomas isn't black. I'm sure the gay rights movement will strip him of his gayness, because of this transgression!
Have you always had this insipid disease of stupidity? I bet you were a top notch, A-1 trooper..It has nothing to do with anything you have tried to twist together..It has all to do with George respecting the authors creation..
Moon lick my asshole. Again the left bots missed the point, my point is he can't be gay when he soppoaes.the left, only the left can allow you to be gay. Black, a woman, and only if you support their agenda, just ask hazelnut who said Clarence Thomas wasn't a real black man
I am going to guess the word is supposes for 2k John..The left can only let you bet ghey, what hogwash with cornbread...
Yep the left will out gay b people who disagree with their policies. They say blacks like Clarence Thomas aren't black, and say no blacks vote republican. I give them names and they say they aren't real blacks.
So now you are so desperate as to put words in mouths you can't quote...
No this post wasn't refreshing you personally.
Sulu is gay in the next ‘Star Trek’ movie. George Takei isn’t happy about that.

He can't be, because he disagrees with the leftwing and the Gaystopo on one issue. So like Clarence Thomas isn't black. I'm sure the gay rights movement will strip him of his gayness, because of this transgression!
Have you always had this insipid disease of stupidity? I bet you were a top notch, A-1 trooper..It has nothing to do with anything you have tried to twist together..It has all to do with George respecting the authors creation..
Moon lick my asshole. Again the left bots missed the point, my point is he can't be gay when he soppoaes.the left, only the left can allow you to be gay. Black, a woman, and only if you support their agenda, just ask hazelnut who said Clarence Thomas wasn't a real black man
I am going to guess the word is supposes for 2k John..The left can only let you bet ghey, what hogwash with cornbread...
Yep the left will out gay b people who disagree with their policies. They say blacks like Clarence Thomas aren't black, and say no blacks vote republican. I give them names and they say they aren't real blacks.
So now you are so desperate as to put words in mouths you can't quote...
Yeah Moonglow don't talk about the subjects, just say how I started this thread about you? What a fucking tool, you know that shit happens all the fuckinng.time from liberals, so either talk about the subject or get the fuck out.
 
He felt he played the character a certain way. They rewrote the character to reflect the fact the actor came out years later.

Of course, the way the new movies have bastardized the original characters, making Sulu Gay is the LEAST of their sins.

In case you didn't notice, the new Star Trek series is based on an explicitly-altered timeline.

Jim Kirk is a very different character—a much darker character—because in this altered timeline—his father died, and he was raised by an abusive uncle.

Spock, more subtly, is also a different character, due to whatever subtle influences the altered timeline had on his upbringing. These are clearly established in the first two movies.

The manner in which the timeline was altered at the start of the first movie leaves things wide open for whole new portrayals and interpretations of all the characters.
 
Of course, they didn't even bother giving the poor guy a FIRST NAME until the sixth movie. That's how much depth the character had. (Poor Uhura never got a first name!)

She did, in the first movie of the reboot. Nyota. It's a name that had unofficially been established in some of the third-party novels, years ago, but the movie made it official. Her first name is Nyota.
 
Yep the left will out gay b people who disagree with their policies. They say blacks like Clarence Thomas aren't black, and say no blacks vote republican. I give them names and they say they aren't real blacks.

I suppose it's funny, when their hero, President Barack Obama, is ethnically only half-black, and has no part at all in the heritage that most Black Americans have, distinct from that of white Americans.

But then to those on the wrong, a conservative black person is basically the modern equivalent of a runaway slave.
 
In case you didn't notice, the new Star Trek series is based on an explicitly-altered timeline.

Jim Kirk is a very different character—a much darker character—because in this altered timeline—his father died, and he was raised by an abusive uncle.

Yes, I'm well aware that they are on the "Full Retard" timeline now.

Spock, more subtly, is also a different character, due to whatever subtle influences the altered timeline had on his upbringing. These are clearly established in the first two movies.

yup. Now he can't act and forgot what it was like to be cool.

The manner in which the timeline was altered at the start of the first movie leaves things wide open for whole new portrayals and interpretations of all the characters.

Well, a couple of things on that.

If they are open to new ideas, why are they just doing the same old shit, but worse. The first one essentially had the same plot as Star Trek Nemesis- Renegade Romulans go around with a super-ship weapon of mass destruction.

Second one- Oh, Gosh, we have Khan coming back. Except now he's boring.

Third one- We destroy the Enterprise- again. We've already destroyed it twice, so it's not like THAT'S an original idea.
 
Do we have leaders or mob followers?

and look at Hazlnut's post, that's the shit I'm talking about. To be black, you have to be a liberal democrat, to be gay, you have to be a liberal democrat, to be a woman, you have to be a liberal democrat, ect.....
 
He felt he played the character a certain way. They rewrote the character to reflect the fact the actor came out years later.

Of course, the way the new movies have bastardized the original characters, making Sulu Gay is the LEAST of their sins.

In case you didn't notice, the new Star Trek series is based on an explicitly-altered timeline.

Jim Kirk is a very different character—a much darker character—because in this altered timeline—his father died, and he was raised by an abusive uncle.

Spock, more subtly, is also a different character, due to whatever subtle influences the altered timeline had on his upbringing. These are clearly established in the first two movies.

The manner in which the timeline was altered at the start of the first movie leaves things wide open for whole new portrayals and interpretations of all the characters.


And however they write it, Checkov is now history.

J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek' won't replace Anton Yelchin
 
Sulu is gay in the next ‘Star Trek’ movie. George Takei isn’t happy about that.

He can't be, because he disagrees with the leftwing and the Gaystopo on one issue. So like Clarence Thomas isn't black. I'm sure the gay rights movement will strip him of his gayness, because of this transgression!
Why don't they just make Sulu bi sexual and everybody's happy. He swings both ways so all the former character activities match up with the 2016 characters activities. Problem solved.
 
Sulu is gay in the next ‘Star Trek’ movie. George Takei isn’t happy about that.

He can't be, because he disagrees with the leftwing and the Gaystopo on one issue. So like Clarence Thomas isn't black. I'm sure the gay rights movement will strip him of his gayness, because of this transgression!
Why don't they just make Sulu bi sexual and everybody's happy. He swings both ways so all the former character activities match up with the 2016 characters activities. Problem solved.


Well the Gaystopo doesn't like it....and Takei is no longer authentic and down for the struggle.
 
Sulu is gay in the next ‘Star Trek’ movie. George Takei isn’t happy about that.

He can't be, because he disagrees with the leftwing and the Gaystopo on one issue. So like Clarence Thomas isn't black. I'm sure the gay rights movement will strip him of his gayness, because of this transgression!
Why don't they just make Sulu bi sexual and everybody's happy. He swings both ways so all the former character activities match up with the 2016 characters activities. Problem solved.


Well the Gaystopo doesn't like it....and Takei is no longer authentic and down for the struggle.
I know Taki is trying to be true to Roddenberry but there is not way Roddenberry could have made a gay character back in the day even if he wanted too. That said maybe he's right and they should have created a new gay character for the role as I also would like the franchise to stay true to Roddenberry's vision. I personally think it could be done with a Bisexual Sulu but I also didn't know Gene Roddenberry.
 
Sulu is gay in the next ‘Star Trek’ movie. George Takei isn’t happy about that.

He can't be, because he disagrees with the leftwing and the Gaystopo on one issue. So like Clarence Thomas isn't black. I'm sure the gay rights movement will strip him of his gayness, because of this transgression!
Sin't?
Freudian slip?:dunno: Or perhaps just like me and gets the letters in the words backwards. I sometimes see my numbers backwards too.:)
 
Sulu is gay in the next ‘Star Trek’ movie. George Takei isn’t happy about that.

He can't be, because he disagrees with the leftwing and the Gaystopo on one issue. So like Clarence Thomas isn't black. I'm sure the gay rights movement will strip him of his gayness, because of this transgression!
Sin't?
Freudian slip?:dunno: Or perhaps just like me and gets the letters in the words backwards. I sometimes see my numbers backwards too.:)
Lol.


Just a typo
 
No, I am pretty sure he is still gay.

View attachment 81073
nobody can "oh my" like sulu

oh-my-takei.gif
 

Forum List

Back
Top