Well, really all porn.
And DO NOT google "Santorum" and "Porn", I'm warning you.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/#ixzz1pDXuAJPp
Quote from: swake on March 15, 2012, 06:39:30 PM
Well, really all porn.
And DO NOT google "Santorum" and "Porn", I'm warning you.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/#ixzz1pDXuAJPp
This dude is really really trying to give the nomination to anyone but himself. He's beginning to look more like he wants a theocracy more than a republic.
Inquisitions, anyone?
We've got a hell of a lot worse problems in this country than worrying about someone on teh interwehbz fapping away.
Aside from child porn, obviously.
Has he got a plan? Just making it illegal and increasing prosecution isn't going to work
Clever guy. Now he's got the support of underground porn shops.
If he does that, what will I do with all my fre............ wait, what?
But he knows lots of people will throw votes at something that shallow.
Look at what we ended up with as governor.
So Ricky may have hit on a winner! Let's outlaw sin. If the power of government can stamp out porn (never mind that big government/small government bit the Republicans harp on whenever it's convenient) what other sins can it bring to an end? How 'bout adultery? Outlaw divorce and make shacking up with an unmarried partner a crime also. Premarital sex gets jail time. Lying about it gets more jail time. For that matter, being untruthful is a sin, too, so it should be criminalized. Lie about sex - go to jail. Lie about anything else - it brings a jail sentence too. How about that whole "spilled his seed upon the ground" bit? Go to jail. Wasn't there something about "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are of God"? Get caught speeding - go to jail. Refuse to tithe on Sunday - go to jail. Get caught in a motel room with rope, two hookers, 30 gallons of Jello, a Boy Scout manual, and an underage goat -- and you go to jail loooooong time.
We're going to need a lot more jails.
Maybe we could just export these people to France where they'll fit in nicely.
how do you guys type so fast with only one hand?
Hey, if Newt weren't in the race saving our country from this fascist we'd be looking at a %60 Obama landslide....not that we won't be by November anywaze. 8)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 15, 2012, 09:04:00 PM
how do you guys type so fast with only one hand?
I can't speak for the other guys, but I need
both hands for...um...and I use a voice-to-text program for writhing this stiff. I'm hopping Saintborem doesn't take my pogrom away. Hey! Honey! The goat sluice again!
Gotta grow.
Quote from: Ed W on March 15, 2012, 08:43:37 PM
Get caught in a motel room with rope, two hookers, 30 gallons of Jello, a Boy Scout manual, and an underage goat -- and you go to jail loooooong time.
No, you don't.
And it's Miracle Whip - not jello....
Crisco and visqueen.
If you get a 5 gallon bucket of corn oil, ya got a "Mazola Party".
QuoteIf you get a 5 gallon bucket of corn oil, ya got a "Mazola Party".
Ad in some baking powder, flower, and - ahem- vigorous mixing and your "makin' biscuits". (Note you can add some santorum for a frothy filling that resembles chocolate)
Too soon?
I really want to see him get the nomination. It will be hilarious to watch him debate Obama. I can feel my Daily Show/Colbert Report funny bone twitching at the mere thought.
Anyone still question why I'm no longer an (R)?
The jokes write themselves about this guy. When do we hear about the inevitable toe-tapping incident in the Pittsburgh airport?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 11:09:01 PM
Anyone still question why I'm no longer an (R)?
The jokes write themselves about this guy. When do we hear about the inevitable toe-tapping incident in the Pittsburgh airport?
I would dare to say that both parties have left a vast majority of it's constituents. I didn't register independent because I wanted to vote in primaries, and considering where I live, I figure there are going to be many races, especially local, that are decided in the Republican primary alone. I think there was one city council election in Bartlesville some time back that had two seat (out of seven) decided in the Republican primary with no Dem challenger. I think this happens a lot. I, by no means agree with everything either party espouses.
Quote from: jacobi on March 15, 2012, 10:34:06 PM
I really want to see him get the nomination. It will be hilarious to watch him debate Obama. I can feel my Daily Show/Colbert Report funny bone twitching at the mere thought.
I hope we're not voting for the better late night comedy fodder
Who would you vote for given the following scenarios:
a) Romney, Obama, Paul (Here I would go with Paul)
b) Santorum, Obama, Paul (Here I would go with Obama)
Quote from: erfalf on March 16, 2012, 06:22:03 AM
I would dare to say that both parties have left a vast majority of it's constituents. I didn't register independent because I wanted to vote in primaries, and considering where I live, I figure there are going to be many races, especially local, that are decided in the Republican primary alone. I think there was one city council election in Bartlesville some time back that had two seat (out of seven) decided in the Republican primary with no Dem challenger. I think this happens a lot. I, by no means agree with everything either party espouses.
I switched to independent to take a stance against the party system. I accept that I may loose out on the opportunity to vote for someone in an election, but that is one of the problems with the party system in general. No matter what, there will be someone that I can't vote for as long as there are people running in a party I'm not a member of. Tulsa has now gone to a non party system for city council, should be interesting to see how it turns out.
Quote from: BKDotCom on March 16, 2012, 07:53:28 AM
I hope we're not voting for the better late night comedy fodder
Who would you vote for given the following scenarios:
a) Romney, Obama, Paul (Here I would go with Paul)
b) Santorum, Obama, Paul (Here I would go with Obama)
I'm curious, why would your vote change because the person you wouldn't vote for in either situation has changed? I don't know about Paul, I'm picking up on some bigot vibes from him, but I would have to dig deeper on where he stands on issues before I could say yah or nah on him. Obama is, well, Obama. We need strong leadership from our President, but I'm not seeing it coming from any in this batch. In the end, this country may fall due to the inability of getting anyone worth while into office.
If Santorum ends Internet Porn . . .
We will simply have too much time on our hands, and idle hands are the devil's playground. :o
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2012, 08:24:27 AM
If Santorum ends Internet Porn . . .
We will simply have too much time on our hands, and idle hands are the devil's playground. :o
Yeah, if he does that where would I, I mean uh, where would a
friend of mine...
never mind.
If Santo got rid of porn, the internet would shrink by a factor of ten.
EDIT: also I would probably spend more time outside.
Quote from: we vs us on March 16, 2012, 09:24:18 AM
If Santo got rid of porn, the internet would shrink by a factor of ten.
EDIT: also I would probably spend more time outside.
World of Warcraft is losing subscribers, then no more porn?
The internet would cease to exist.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 16, 2012, 09:57:29 AM
World of Warcraft is losing subscribers, then no more porn?
The internet would cease to exist.
Would that mean that Algore will lose royalties since he invented the innerwebs?
Boortz is ripping him a new one this morning!
Quote from: BKDotCom on March 16, 2012, 07:53:28 AM
I hope we're not voting for the better late night comedy fodder
Who would you vote for given the following scenarios:
a) Romney, Obama, Paul (Here I would go with Paul)
b) Santorum, Obama, Paul (Here I would go with Obama)
Not to be critical, but how in the world could you be for Ron Paul in one instance, and Obama in another, when Paul is running both times? They are polar opposites.
How does Romney make Paul more electable than Santorum?
I think this is a Santorum issue, not a party issue.
Quote from: Townsend on March 16, 2012, 10:45:09 AM
I think this is a Santorum issue, not a party issue.
It's a party issue in that he keeps winning states, including this one.
Quote from: erfalf on March 16, 2012, 10:18:05 AM
Not to be critical, but how in the world could you be for Ron Paul in one instance, and Obama in another, when Paul is running both times? They are polar opposites.
I like Ron Paul. He says many things I like on National defense...
From Paul website...
Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country...Guarantee our intelligence community's efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act...Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency...Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid...
I will be voting for Obama however.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 16, 2012, 11:34:02 AM
I like Ron Paul. He says many things I like on National defense...
From Paul website...
Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country...Guarantee our intelligence community's efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act...Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency...Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid...
I will be voting for Obama however.
Why? His economic record is a complete disaster and that's still the most pressing issue for many Americans.
Might as well just flip the giant light switch on the internet to the off position.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/04/screen-grabs-linksys-internet.jpg)
Not sure why he is still in the race.
"Speak English and stop whackin it!"
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 16, 2012, 11:34:02 AM
I will be voting for Obama however.
No surprise with that.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 16, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Why? His economic record is a complete disaster and that's still the most pressing issue for many Americans.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Quote from: Conan71 on March 16, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Why? His economic record is a complete disaster and that's still the most pressing issue for many Americans.
I disagree. The Republicans plan was to cut taxes more and spend less. The "we must reduce the budget deficit" thing hasn't exactly been working well for the Europeans, so why would I think the same plans implemented here would work any better?
Quote from: nathanm on March 16, 2012, 12:43:35 PM
I disagree. The Republicans plan was to cut taxes more and spend less. The "we must reduce the budget deficit" thing hasn't exactly been working well for the Europeans, so why would I think the same plans implemented here would work any better?
The biggest drag on the economy the last two years has been all the public sector cuts at the state and local levels.
The issues in the order that I think they should be addressed are:
1. Economic Growth (Jobs)
2. Energy Prices
3. Issues of Liberty (healthcare, regulation, bureaucracy creep)
4. Educational Reform
5. Ending Foreign Military Engagements
The remaining issues are not weighted as heavily in my decision:
6. Ice Cream
7. Animal Human Relations
8. Global Earth Climate Weirding
9. Hats for Hookers
10. Doorbell Volume
11. Condoms for Law School Students
11. Algae Farming
12. Internet Porn (or at least quality control)
13. The Chevy Volt
14. Blaming Others for Why You Suck
15. 70's Style Keynesian Economic Experimentation
Quote from: swake on March 16, 2012, 01:03:14 PM
The biggest drag on the economy the last two years has been all the public sector cuts at the state and local levels.
^^^^^Post of the year!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
^^^^^Post of the year!
Your understanding of economics is quite thin.
Want to talk about the stock market again? How about we discuss the success of European austerity measures vs our stimulus packages?
Quote from: swake on March 16, 2012, 10:51:15 AM
It's a party issue in that he keeps winning states, including this one.
Have you noted the states he's winning? Full of less educated, "heard it from a friend", reality TV watchers.
They hear a few talking points from him and vote. (they also notice he's not black, old, female, or Mormon)
It's at least not all party driven.
Quote from: swake on March 16, 2012, 01:47:55 PM
Your understanding of economics is quite thin.
Want to talk about the stock market again? How about we discuss the success of European austerity measures vs our stimulus packages?
No need. Your position is well understood, as is mine. . .and Europe is lots of economies, none of which are anything like the United States.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
and Europe is lots of economies, none of which are anything like the United States.
a) You may want to read up on the EEC.
b) It must be nice to be able to so easily dismiss the experience of others, it's a lot easier than bothering to figure out what may or may not apply to us.
Economic confidence sure does follow party lines.
But this thread was not about real jobs, it was about sex related jobs.
Don't make me type it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 16, 2012, 02:23:15 PM
But this thread was not about real jobs, it was about sex related jobs.
Waitaminute, you're telling me that fluffers don't have real jobs?
Quote from: nathanm on March 16, 2012, 02:32:11 PM
Waitaminute, you're telling me that fluffers don't have real jobs?
I guess you could consider them as "job creators" in the truest sense.
How could one like Ron Paul and Obama? I was having a discussion about this with some friends the other day. Essentially you can be so conservative that you go all the way back around to being liberal lol.
For instance, I like urban living and think more of us should live that way. I can get there through a liberal method of say fighting for more transit funding and zoning for urban development, or through the completely opposite super conservative tack, saying no more government funding of transit of any kind including roads and highways and let people build what they want where they want, leaving roads and development up to the free market. The latter way ends up creating more "urbanity" because its up to the developers, neighborhoods, etc. to pay for, maintain, etc. the roads they are on,,, you will end up with denser development and then transit will be far more workable and used, and pedestrians will be more paid attention to than the auto, etc.
The problem is that conservatives tout less government spending and intervention.... but only when its not related to something they want like roads and highways. But when a liberal wants funding for transit/rail the conservatives holler that its not the place of the government to spend money on that. Conservatives say that the government shouldnt tell people what to do or what to do with their property, BUT, when a liberal wants to get rid of minimium parking requirements, allow for mixed use developments, and so on... conservatives have a fit. And on and on we can go.
I am either a liberal or the most conservative conservative. Seems that nobody want's to take their touted fundamental principles to their logical conclusion.
Bad government nanny state "protecting" us from making our own choices when we are perfectly capable Americans. Liberals hollering about industries polluting the air and harming our health, why thats the state not letting the free market work. Go try buying wine on a Sunday. Free market isn't allowed to work, and its the state trying to protect our health. etc. etc. etc.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 16, 2012, 02:48:30 PM
Seems that nobody want's to take their touted fundamental principles to their logical conclusion.
Unbreakable principles taken to their end almost invariably result in illogical conclusions. Liberal ideals taken to their illogical conclusion end up with government taking all income. Conservative ideals taken to their illogical conclusion ends up in anarchy. Both are equally useless at the extremes.
Yet it seems both political parties end up at the same place. How's that for choice?
Quote from: erfalf on March 16, 2012, 04:00:12 PM
Yet it seems both political parties end up at the same place. How's that for choice?
The interesting part of that statement is that actually only one party is playing ball from the fringe. The other is kinda flopping around in the middle and poaching all the stuff the other party formerly believed in.
My other question is: if Obama is so bad, what is the compelling case for either Romney or Santorum on the economic front? From Romney I only hear Obama = badbadbadbadevilbad, and from Santorum all I hear is = moralitymoralitymoralitymorality. The President is putting up solid policy . . . and whether or not you agree with the mechanisms behind that policy, at least he's trying to rationally address the problems in front of him. I have yet to hear from either GOP contenders what they'd do if handing the Presidency. Aside from repeal Obamacare, that is. I'd heard that Romney had a 67-point something-or-other floating around out there, a prescription for fixing what ails us, but I haven't heard about since it got shouted down by the Tea Partiers in the earliest part of the primaries. Anything else I should know about what Romney would do fix our continuing mess? Beside repeal Obamacare, that is.
Quote from: we vs us on March 16, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
Beside repeal Obamacare, that is.
Apparently that's all it would take.
We'd all be rolling in dough.
Quote from: we vs us on March 16, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
The interesting part of that statement is that actually only one party is playing ball from the fringe. The other is kinda flopping around in the middle and poaching all the stuff the other party formerly believed in.
Uh, I would bet that no matter who you asked, they would say that the above statement represented the party that they opposed. ;)
Quote from: erfalf on March 16, 2012, 05:10:15 PM
Uh, I would bet that no matter who you asked, they would say that the above statement represented the party that they opposed. ;)
Except that anyone knows which party the Evangelicals support, and thus morality.
Not to say that Democrats don't support morals. They just don't make it a stump speech.
Quote from: Hoss on March 16, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
Except that anyone knows which party the Evangelicals support, and thus morality.
Not to say that Democrats don't support morals. They just don't make it a stump speech.
That is assuming that just because a persons religious views don't agree with something another's deems as moral, doesn't make it immoral.
Quote from: we vs us on March 16, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
and whether or not you agree with the mechanisms behind that policy, at least he's trying to rationally address the problems in front of him.
I can try to sing but I'm sure if you heard me (try to sing) you would ask what I did with the money my mother gave me for singing lessons.
Quote from: Hoss on March 16, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
Except that anyone knows which party the Evangelicals support, and thus morality.
Not to say that Democrats don't support morals. They just don't make it a stump speech.
Define morals.
(Note that I don't generally agree with the Evangelicals. They stole my Republican party right out from under me.)
Quote from: we vs us on March 16, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
The interesting part of that statement is that actually only one party is playing ball from the fringe. The other is kinda flopping around in the middle and poaching all the stuff the other party formerly believed in.
Let me guess which one you think it is.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 16, 2012, 02:48:30 PM
For instance, I like urban living and think more of us should live that way. I can get there through a liberal method of say fighting for more transit funding and zoning for urban development, or through the completely opposite super conservative tack, saying no more government funding of transit of any kind including roads and highways and let people build what they want where they want, leaving roads and development up to the free market.
So you support getting rid of the road tax on gasoline? We all know that it doesn't completely pay for our roads but it helps. Public transit hasn't paid for itself directly for a long time. Way back when "transit" paid for road maintenance and franchise fees to cities, it did pay for itself but then it unfortunately lead to the transit holocaust. Fringe benefits make public transit worthwhile to subsidize.
QuoteThe latter way ends up creating more "urbanity" because its up to the developers, neighborhoods, etc. to pay for, maintain, etc. the roads they are on,,, you will end up with denser development and then transit will be far more workable and used, and pedestrians will be more paid attention to than the auto, etc.
Maybe. People have been wanting to get out of the "city" for a long time. Wanting to return to urban life on a mass scale is relatively recent. I believe it is due to many of the subsidies to encourage dense living. I'm sure we will have to disagree on that.
QuoteThe problem is that conservatives tout less government spending and intervention.... but only when its not related to something they want like roads and highways. But when a liberal wants funding for transit/rail the conservatives holler that its not the place of the government to spend money on that. Conservatives say that the government shouldnt tell people what to do or what to do with their property, BUT, when a liberal wants to get rid of minimium parking requirements, allow for mixed use developments, and so on... conservatives have a fit. And on and on we can go.
I kind of have to agree except where is the general tax dedicated (supposedly) for public transit? I know some cities have voted for a tax specifically to support transit but so far it has not been the trend. The trend is to request Federal support. Why should Tulsans want to pay for transit in NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, Portland, Seattle, Philadelphia, Newark, Washington DC, St. Louis...... and why should they want to pay for transit in Tulsa? At some level you have to ask why locals won't pay for their own transit.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 16, 2012, 10:32:15 PM
Why should Tulsans want to pay for transit in NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, Portland, Seattle, Philadelphia, Newark, Washington DC, St. Louis...... and why should they want to pay for transit in Tulsa?
Because their transit helps us all. It reduces their energy use, which reduces upward pressure on energy prices. It improves their economy, which means there's more money to spread around for everyone. And it definitely improves my experience (and saves me money!) when I visit a city with a decent transit system. Oh, and it reduces the federal dollars we have to spend on expanding their roads even more, which is obviously more expensive in major cities where land prices are higher and there are more structures in the way.
Ideally, regional transit could be paid for by the regions themselves and the federal government would only have to step in for intercity transit (like high speed rail). Unfortunately, we're not at a point where that can happen. As you pointed out, we subsidize roads to a great degree already, so if we want the benefits of transit, we have to either stop subsidizing roads or increase transit subsidies to compete.
Quote from: nathanm on March 16, 2012, 10:41:00 PM
Because their transit helps us all. It reduces their energy use, which reduces upward pressure on energy prices. It improves their economy, which means there's more money to spread around for everyone. And it definitely improves my experience (and saves me money!) when I visit a city with a decent transit system. Oh, and it reduces the federal dollars we have to spend on expanding their roads even more, which is obviously more expensive in major cities where land prices are higher and there are more structures in the way.
I believe the concept presented (by Artist) was to end subsidies to roads as well as transit (although he didn't say he agreed with it).
Quote
Ideally, regional transit could be paid for by the regions themselves and the federal government would only have to step in for intercity transit (like high speed rail). Unfortunately, we're not at a point where that can happen. As you pointed out, we subsidize roads to a great degree already, so if we want the benefits of transit, we have to either stop subsidizing roads or increase transit subsidies to compete.
Ideally, all transportation should pay for itself but we both know that isn't going to happen. I don't believe we should stop subsidizing roads but increasing transit subsidies (to some extent) is acceptable to me.
Quote from: Hoss on March 15, 2012, 06:50:03 PM
Aside from child porn, obviously.
I think I am going to have to kindly disagree. :coffee:
Quote from: TheMindWillNotLetGo on March 16, 2012, 11:04:39 PM
I think I am going to have to kindly disagree. :coffee:
So does this mean you think that child porn is not a problem that we need to concern ourselves with?
Quote from: custosnox on March 16, 2012, 11:20:30 PM
So does this mean you think that child porn is not a problem that we need to concern ourselves with?
I think people should have their priorities straight.
What is your priority? Eliminating all internet pron, or eliminating child pornography?
Quote from: TheMindWillNotLetGo on March 17, 2012, 12:12:22 AM
I think people should have their priorities straight.
What is your priority? Eliminating all internet pron, or eliminating child pornography?
I have a number of priorities. Of them, high on the list, is eliminating child porn. Also of them, but not as high, is to fight against anyone who tries to eliminate internet porn.
Quote from: nathanm on March 16, 2012, 10:41:00 PM
Because their transit helps us all. It reduces their energy use, which reduces upward pressure on energy prices. It improves their economy, which means there's more money to spread around for everyone. And it definitely improves my experience (and saves me money!) when I visit a city with a decent transit system. Oh, and it reduces the federal dollars we have to spend on expanding their roads even more, which is obviously more expensive in major cities where land prices are higher and there are more structures in the way.
Ideally, regional transit could be paid for by the regions themselves and the federal government would only have to step in for intercity transit (like high speed rail). Unfortunately, we're not at a point where that can happen. As you pointed out, we subsidize roads to a great degree already, so if we want the benefits of transit, we have to either stop subsidizing roads or increase transit subsidies to compete.
bucking globalist.
;D
Quote from: custosnox on March 17, 2012, 12:58:42 AM
I have a number of priorities. Of them, high on the list, is eliminating child porn. Also of them, but not as high, is to fight against anyone who tries to eliminate internet porn.
How do you settle the internal conflict then?
I mean, according to 77 of 77 counties in 2008, if you are against eliminating internet prono, then you are FOR child porn.
Right?
Quote from: TheMindWillNotLetGo on March 20, 2012, 09:54:39 PM
How do you settle the internal conflict then?
I mean, according to 77 of 77 counties in 2008, if you are against eliminating internet prono, then you are FOR child porn.
Right?
Okay, either you forgot to use the sarcasm font, or you have some seriously fouled up reasoning. and what is prono?
Quote from: custosnox on March 20, 2012, 10:48:32 PM
Okay, either you forgot to use the sarcasm font, or you have some seriously fouled up reasoning. and what is prono?
Okay, I'm still a newb here obviously.
I'll tell you what teh prono is, if you tell me what the sarcastm font is.
You see what we're getting at, right?
I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?
Classic Kindegarten game...
i.e. Child molester game....
i.e. You are in favor of child prons?
:D
Quote from: TheMindWillNotLetGo on March 20, 2012, 11:06:49 PM
Okay, I'm still a newb here obviously.
I'll tell you what teh prono is, if you tell me what the sarcastm font is.
You see what we're getting at, right?
I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?
Classic Kindegarten game...
i.e. Child molester game....
i.e. You are in favor of child prons?
:D
the difference is:
consenting adults vs minors.
Quote from: Hoss on March 20, 2012, 11:10:03 PM
the difference is:
consenting adults vs minors.
That's the definition of child porn.
Quote from: Townsend on March 20, 2012, 11:16:16 PM
That's the definition of child porn.
Says the guy monikered similarly to Pete Townshend, guitarist of The Who.
We all know how that ended up.....wait, wut, I can't remember he was convicted of anything...seems like he would be in jail if he was. :idk:
Quote from: TheMindWillNotLetGo on March 20, 2012, 11:22:34 PM
Says the guy monikered similarly to Pete Townshend, guitarist of The Who.
We all know how that ended up.....wait, wut, I can't remember he was convicted of anything...seems like he would be in jail if he was. :idk:
OK, you've already fulfilled step 1 (PWI), you need not PWI any further now.
I love prawns!
(http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/Portugal/Salema/Images/800/Prawns-May06-DC6703sAR800.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 21, 2012, 09:04:38 AM
I love prawns!
(http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/Portugal/Salema/Images/800/Prawns-May06-DC6703sAR800.jpg)
Ok ok, stop gloating about your honeymoon!
Actually, no prawns down there. Aren't they more a freshwater thing anyhow?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 21, 2012, 09:04:38 AM
I love prawns!
(http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/Portugal/Salema/Images/800/Prawns-May06-DC6703sAR800.jpg)
The can in the upper left hand corner looks like a can of moist cat food. Just saying........
Moist. You just had to use that word, didn't you? Hrmph. Moist.
Quote from: nathanm on March 21, 2012, 11:47:12 AM
Moist. You just had to use that word, didn't you? Hrmph. Moist.
If I had said wet, I would get a bill to clean up the library.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 21, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
If I had said wet, I would get a bill to clean up the library.
LOL ;D :o
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 21, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
The can in the upper left hand corner looks like a can of moist cat food. Just saying........
Pâté de foie gras, which is...well... cat food.
Incorrect patric. It is glorious.
Quote from: jacobi on March 21, 2012, 10:27:58 PM
Incorrect patric. It is glorious.
Glorious is subjective.
Not with foie ;D
^^^^^Do you drink with your pinkie in the air?
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2012, 11:06:56 PM
Glorious is subjective.
Especially when referring to glory holes
Quote from: custosnox on March 22, 2012, 12:02:22 AM
Especially when referring to glory holes
So you're the one that visits all those..shops..in Missouri that keep getting shut down.
Quote from: Hoss on March 20, 2012, 11:27:45 PM
OK, you've already fulfilled step 1 (PWI), you need not PWI any further now.
it's true, but I'm afraid there is no stopping me now.
Quote from: nathanm on March 22, 2012, 01:43:20 AM
So you're the one that visits all those..shops..in Missouri that keep getting shut down.
I... Uhhh... heard about em... yeah... from a friend... yeah... one that I just met at a party... yeah, that's it. Nah, I just keep seeing on my internet porn sites, shake my head and move on.
This might help if we can keep it going for a while.
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/536005_406823082680484_205344452828349_1472766_1380518349_n.jpg)
Did You get that from George tekai's Facebook?
Quote from: jacobi on March 22, 2012, 11:50:32 AM
Did You get that from George tekai's Facebook?
I did. His fans send in some funny stuff.
Quote from: Townsend on March 22, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
I did. His fans send in some funny stuff.
How did I miss that one?
Quote from: Townsend on March 22, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
I arrow through them.
that works too. Of course, I like this little gym from FB.
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss9/custosnox/Dontfeed.jpg)
Okay, custo, gotta steal that one.
Thank you Obama for not taking away our guns. We will need them when Santorum tries to take away our porn.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 26, 2012, 08:50:42 PM
Thank you Obama for not taking away our guns. We will need them when Santorum tries to take away our porn.
Nominated for post of the decade
QuoteNominated for post of the decade
Seconded.