Crap Throwing Monkey

Holy !@#$ing sh--. That is a seriously gay ad campaign.

I agree completely. I'm just protective about the rights of idiots to act like idiots; it lets us know who we can safely ignore. I'm also a big believer in dark humor - humor is a form of play, which is (believe it or not) a healthy form of interacting with a situation. "Gallows humor" is actually a valuable coping mechanism, as it allows people to relate to a problem rather than be a victim of it. And McPhee is hardly the fattest bulemic I've ever seen. My friend in college was a bit heavier...right before she died from bulemia. Afterwards, though, her weight loss was dramatic...

Well, !@#$in' duh. What person in their right mind wants anything on someone else's terms?

But Ed has... (Sorry Ed, had to do it. You're not gay...just your car.)

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=46863&st=0 Not a Hamster is actually crayonz' gerbil. Duh.

I won't go to jail. It's a mercy killing. Putting him out of his misery. I mean, he drives a friggin' Honda Fit, for cryin' out loud. It's for his own good.

That list is crap. The Tacoma-Narrows Bridge deserves to be on it...

Ann Coulter? You think anyone outside of Ann Coulter and Wacka would really care if someone said that about her?

Is that musician still there? They revive him yet?

Actually, if you think about it, he compared me to BF. And now I have to kill him...

Funniest thing you ever posted. At least intentionally.

I don't know why...maybe the models...but to me it looks like a costume for a Swedish pop music group...

Please, feel free to let us know what we can joke about. I know mental illness is permitted. What else?

You're pretty much correct. Another very subtle thing to note: the teams the US played collected VASTLY more offsides penalties than the US did. At first, I thought that was just a statistical oddity. But now I think it's a reflection of the lack of aggressive play of the US team, particularly compared with the rest of the world.

You're welcome. Though I do kind of feel sorry for you, as you're required, first thing after you have your balls removed, to go out and buy a Honda Fit...

No scalpel? Having them crushed between a pair of cinder blocks, are we?

Clinton.

Oh, SNAP!

Does covering up constitute an action or not?

So far, looks like you're the only one. Which is pretty friggin' scary. Upon reflection, I should have gone for even more subtle and said "Only in Harrison Ford movies..."

I don't know...the shirt looks pretty clean. No drool stains...

Maybe he apologized for implying she's a virgin?

Except that I forgot to add that it justifies the invasion under the Bush Doctrine...so you have to accept the a priori assumption of preemptive action as well... It also illustrates quite well the fundamental differences between Bush and Clinton foreign policies. With Bush, you can at least discuss it intelligently, agree or disagree. With Clinton, we're reduced to "Why the !@#$ are you letting Mavis Leno dictate your foreign policy?????"

Where's ieatcrayonz been?

Actually, it was presented simultaneously as the need to uphold UN resolutions AND as the need to maintain national security regardless of UN resolutions. In other words, the administration's reasons were simultaneously out of concern and lack of concern for the UN. And yes, that's LITERALLY simultaneously. Two administration officials (i.e. officially representing administration policy) in two different speeches in the same morning said "It's a UN issue, the US can't take unilateral action" and "It's a US national security issue, the UN is irrelevant." Again, those were official administration statements given within an hour of each other. So no, it was never "constantly" presented as that...in fact, there was nothing constant about the administration's presentation. But the thing really missing from the discussion that makes my point is: there's an executive finding, written sometime around 2001-2002, that says "The greatest threat to national security is terrorists with WMDs." Every other justification the administration ever gave was bull sh--...the real reason was that, as a matter of policy, this administration tied terrorism to Iraq via the logic of the international issue of counter-proliferation...which very nearlty makes Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions an anti-terrorism issue and justifies the whole invasion...pretty much makes it a foregone conclusion, really. And it does. It provides perfect justification. If you accept the a priori assumption that terrorist WMDs were a greater threat to national security than pissing off the entire world with the unprovoked unilateral invasion of a soverign nation...