Bungee Jumper

Yeah, I can. But I won't. I gave it careful consideration, and decided to not even indulge your lunacy this time around.

What age is he supposed to be before I'm allowed to pick on him?

You weren't even gone. You went to Argentina, and posted just as usual. What kind of loser does that?

I was kidding. Please tell me you are, too.

Sharpton should be ecstatic, nappy-headed ho that he is.

I tried...I just couldn't get a good handle to make a funny joke out of. I thought of going with your joke...but then, I was trying to be amusing, not totally bug-!@#$ insane.

So !@#$ing what? Stick to relevancies. Well, then, that would be kidnapping, wouldn't it?

Hey, Newt, remember when you did the same? Not that I dislike Newt all that much...but it is pretty ironic...

I'd call it a completely different situation. From all accounts, the Iranians entered Iraqi waters to detain the British sailors. At worst, there's a dispute as to exactly where the sailors were. There's no dispute that Iranians were detained in Iraq. Had US forces actually crossed the border into Iran and "detained" five Iranians...yeah, that would be kidnapping. Detaining them in Baghdad...not so much.

That actually makes the most sense of any tale I've heard so far. It's completely unsupported, of course - but then, so are most of the rest I've heard. And if you think about it, "Bush was pushing for indictments for political gain" is far more worrisome than "Bush was firing attorneys for political reasons".

Actually, I suspect Sawyer didn't have much choice in the matter. I'm sure she wasn't "made" to wear it...but I'm equally sure it wasn't "pretty please with sugar on top, respect our customs when you're here?" It was probably "We require, by Islamic law, women be covered. If you don't respect Islamic law...no story," and Sawyer chose the story and the scarf. And the head scarf isn't intended as something demeaning...not originally, at least. It's original intent was...well, rather complicated, actually. Too much so for this crowd, now that I think of it.

She's a member of the Buffalo Teachers Federation. This isn't exactly an example to engender pro-union feelings.

The kid's liability cover should cover EVERYTHING (depending on state laws, but I doubt CA's any less protective of car accident victims than VA). Your medical bills, therapy bills, lost income, cost to repair or replace the car. Everything. That's what liability coverage is for. You shouldn't be out a damned cent. Neither, for that matter, should your insurance company.

Yeah...can you see me at McHolcomb's? "D'you want fries with that?" "No, thank you..." "Why not? What kind of a moron are you?" I think I'm going for a service job more like, oh, I don't know, maybe pharmaceutical manufacturing...

The actual controversy, as far as I can understand it, is that they were investigating Bush's friends/cronies/fellow conspirators/whatever, and apparently there's a hidden clause that says the President can only make decisions when he has no interest in the outcome of said decisions. At least, that's the story I've seen. I don't know if it's true, and I don't particularly care.

Yeah, and I argue statistics with retards. We share the same interest in abject futility.

Will can't fathom much from his ivory tower, frankly. Really, columnists like him and Buckley...do they ever leave the friggin' house? They all have the same ridiculous "Everyone I know agrees with me, so I must be right" attitude that the rest of the press has, but compounded by the mistake of believing that their eight martini-sipping old-money goofball tennis buddies are somehow representative of the entire nation.

I think I said it more elegantly. But yours is good too.

Ten bucks says this study leads back to the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine. ...which is, of course, nothing but a front for PETA...

Wish I knew why. Wait...no I don't. That would imply I cared.

Anyone can question something, bozo. It doesn't mean you have insight.

:lol: ...whew...got me there...

That's not exclusive to military service. That pretty much goes for any 18-year old, no matter what they do. Of course, the only way 18-year olds figure that out is to have life beat the experience into them...so why are you wasting your time? Would you have listened to your advice when you were his age?

Now I'm actually more confused. You see, upon my first impression that it was serious, I though "Well, that's pretty !@#$ing dumb." (I also thought "It's really not like KD to post something so dumb".) Then I read Joey Spaghetti's reply and thought "Well, that's just the sort of shallow, non-sensical reply a post like that deserves. Good for you, Joe." But now, it turns out your original post was satire...so now both my estimation of that and Joe's reply are off kilter, and I'm forced to admit that maybe both posts were satire...or not. Now I don't know who the !@#$ing retard is. I don't like that. I'm uncomfortable being unable to spot the retard. When you can't spot the retard, before you know it retards are sneaking up behind you, eating your house plants and drooling on your shoes, and you're standing there saying "But you're a retard, why didn't I see you coming?" There's clearly only one solution to this dilemma: I must go back to just naturally assuming that PastaJoe is the retard. Aaaah...that feels much better now.