Behold - 1986, Alan Partidge of the BBC on Seve Ballesteros.
Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
04/10/2008 09:49 #43969
Funniest Description of a Golfer04/07/2008 08:37 #43931
Condi for VP?We have a beautiful morning yet again! Just had to say that. I'm glad the better weather is coming because really there is only so much Battlefield 2142 (nearly to Brigadier General on online play) or Guitar Hero III I can play (I got my first 5-star on Expert!). Call me crazy but I kind of like digging my surroundings - maybe I'm a bit of a nerd but on nice days I like to get out and walk around the neighborhood checking out the houses. Winter robs me and all my neighbors of that joy, which is a true shame.
Anyway - on to the article.
First of all, I don't know if this is true, although I suppose if it came from a Republican strategist chances are they aren't lying about something like this. Personally I'd rather see Colin Powell do it, but he has no apparent interest in a political career. To be honest, who could blame him these days? Lawl.
Right now I don't really have an opinion on Condi as VP - she has cabinet level experience, which is as executive as you can get outside of the top two seats. Say what you will but she is an astonishingly brilliant lady. This strategist is claiming that Condi is actively courting the VP slot, which is, I have to say, what I find hard to believe about the whole thing. The previous word is that she was eager to go back into the academic world. If I'm John McCain and I'm picking between Condi and say, Mitt Romney, who do I choose?
On the Democrat side - I wonder who Barack Obama will pick. If he were clever he'd find a retired General that sees things his way, or maybe Bill Richardson. Many cynical raisings of an eyebrow occurred after seeing his La Raza-esque goatee he wore the day he endorsed Obama. Forget the potentially cynical use of facial hair angle, which I happen to think is funny but a bit silly. The goatee just looked shady, period! I think Bill Richardson should shave - he can more than stand on his credentials and he is a Democrat I have looooong respected. It would have been a coup for Al Gore to have picked him in 2000 instead of Lieberman.
I'm beyond Hillary getting the nomination - at this point for her to use the flaws in the system to her advantage would cut the party right in half. The numbers in NC right now are embarrassing. I think she likes being Senator if she can't be President... she won't throw away her entire political career. My brain tells me to insist on taking her at her word and that she'll ride it all the way to the convention, but a part of me also thinks when the cat calls finally get loud enough that they penetrate that Clinton cloud, for the sake of both her and her husbands reputation she will bow out before July. DNC rules as they stand are a mockery, and disenfranchisement is bad not just for Democrats but for the American political system as a whole. I would extend it and say that Clintons are bad for the American political system as a whole but you know, thats just me - and (e:james) possibly!
This just flashed in my head - if Hillary got the nomination, what would be the chances that she would pick her husband for VP? Is that even legal? Taft became Chief Justice after serving as POTUS but I don't know what the rules are for VP, since there are executive term limits and I don't know how or if that extends to VP. They are in the same branch of government, which is what makes me wonder about the legal angle. It may be inconsequential. Anybody know?
In other news...
Our landlady replaced our broken doorbell with one of those RF jobbies. Now my bell goes off randomly and nobody is ever at the door. Either they somehow set it up wrong, or something is interfering with the signal. You can imagine how annoying this was at 6:22am this morning. I'd ask how to fix it, but I think I'm just going to turn it off!
Anyway - on to the article.
First of all, I don't know if this is true, although I suppose if it came from a Republican strategist chances are they aren't lying about something like this. Personally I'd rather see Colin Powell do it, but he has no apparent interest in a political career. To be honest, who could blame him these days? Lawl.
Right now I don't really have an opinion on Condi as VP - she has cabinet level experience, which is as executive as you can get outside of the top two seats. Say what you will but she is an astonishingly brilliant lady. This strategist is claiming that Condi is actively courting the VP slot, which is, I have to say, what I find hard to believe about the whole thing. The previous word is that she was eager to go back into the academic world. If I'm John McCain and I'm picking between Condi and say, Mitt Romney, who do I choose?
On the Democrat side - I wonder who Barack Obama will pick. If he were clever he'd find a retired General that sees things his way, or maybe Bill Richardson. Many cynical raisings of an eyebrow occurred after seeing his La Raza-esque goatee he wore the day he endorsed Obama. Forget the potentially cynical use of facial hair angle, which I happen to think is funny but a bit silly. The goatee just looked shady, period! I think Bill Richardson should shave - he can more than stand on his credentials and he is a Democrat I have looooong respected. It would have been a coup for Al Gore to have picked him in 2000 instead of Lieberman.
I'm beyond Hillary getting the nomination - at this point for her to use the flaws in the system to her advantage would cut the party right in half. The numbers in NC right now are embarrassing. I think she likes being Senator if she can't be President... she won't throw away her entire political career. My brain tells me to insist on taking her at her word and that she'll ride it all the way to the convention, but a part of me also thinks when the cat calls finally get loud enough that they penetrate that Clinton cloud, for the sake of both her and her husbands reputation she will bow out before July. DNC rules as they stand are a mockery, and disenfranchisement is bad not just for Democrats but for the American political system as a whole. I would extend it and say that Clintons are bad for the American political system as a whole but you know, thats just me - and (e:james) possibly!
This just flashed in my head - if Hillary got the nomination, what would be the chances that she would pick her husband for VP? Is that even legal? Taft became Chief Justice after serving as POTUS but I don't know what the rules are for VP, since there are executive term limits and I don't know how or if that extends to VP. They are in the same branch of government, which is what makes me wonder about the legal angle. It may be inconsequential. Anybody know?
In other news...
Our landlady replaced our broken doorbell with one of those RF jobbies. Now my bell goes off randomly and nobody is ever at the door. Either they somehow set it up wrong, or something is interfering with the signal. You can imagine how annoying this was at 6:22am this morning. I'd ask how to fix it, but I think I'm just going to turn it off!
jenks - 04/08/08 00:57
damn, 5-star on expert? I can barely hit 2 notes on hard.
damn, 5-star on expert? I can barely hit 2 notes on hard.
lilho - 04/07/08 23:36
this is pretty much my favorite of all of your posts! congratulations. my thing is that while politics is fun to talk about, i find it really boring to read about or see on t.v. you somehow made it fun for me. you should have a cloumn or something. bill clinton as vp...hahahaha! i think they should start a variety show or something. :O)
this is pretty much my favorite of all of your posts! congratulations. my thing is that while politics is fun to talk about, i find it really boring to read about or see on t.v. you somehow made it fun for me. you should have a cloumn or something. bill clinton as vp...hahahaha! i think they should start a variety show or something. :O)
metalpeter - 04/07/08 18:27
I think Picking Rice could be a big mistake. Often in this country we (who ever we is lets say some of the population who like blacks/women) think that this country is progressive. That isn't really true. There are still a lot of people who in this country if polled would say yeah sure I'd vote for the black guy or the women, but in reality never would. Then you have people who know they never would and are proud to say things like "what if there is a crisis and she is PMSing" and things like that. That crowd is a lot bigger then people think. So if he adds Condi as VP he will lose a lot of votes he was going to get. I'm not going to say that people who don't like blacks or women will come out and vote for him but if condi is VP they won't for sure but there is a good chance. I think that weather it is Hillary or Barack McCain will get votes from people who don't like blacks or women or people who look and sound Muslim. If Bush wants him to win all they have to do is let a terrorist attack happen, not even here but at say another London or maybe toronto train bombing. That fear would be enough to make people double think on his name and not vote for him. And for these Dems who think it is in the BAG the last time we thought that Bush won. I think as long as McCain gets a Good White VP he will win. The exception to that is if the Dems or him find some recent war Hero then that would help out the Dems and if that person was black then the war hero part might not lose the racism voters.
I think Picking Rice could be a big mistake. Often in this country we (who ever we is lets say some of the population who like blacks/women) think that this country is progressive. That isn't really true. There are still a lot of people who in this country if polled would say yeah sure I'd vote for the black guy or the women, but in reality never would. Then you have people who know they never would and are proud to say things like "what if there is a crisis and she is PMSing" and things like that. That crowd is a lot bigger then people think. So if he adds Condi as VP he will lose a lot of votes he was going to get. I'm not going to say that people who don't like blacks or women will come out and vote for him but if condi is VP they won't for sure but there is a good chance. I think that weather it is Hillary or Barack McCain will get votes from people who don't like blacks or women or people who look and sound Muslim. If Bush wants him to win all they have to do is let a terrorist attack happen, not even here but at say another London or maybe toronto train bombing. That fear would be enough to make people double think on his name and not vote for him. And for these Dems who think it is in the BAG the last time we thought that Bush won. I think as long as McCain gets a Good White VP he will win. The exception to that is if the Dems or him find some recent war Hero then that would help out the Dems and if that person was black then the war hero part might not lose the racism voters.
james - 04/07/08 13:20
I have no idea how Republicans feel about Condi. I do know how Democrats feel about her though, and it aint warm and fuzzy. She might butress McCain's standing with party conservative, she might deflate the ZOMG! A BlACK/WOMAN! thing a bit. But, meh...
McCain needs someone from outside the Bush administration or those cat calls of McSame are going to get louder and become a real liability for him.
I have no idea how Republicans feel about Condi. I do know how Democrats feel about her though, and it aint warm and fuzzy. She might butress McCain's standing with party conservative, she might deflate the ZOMG! A BlACK/WOMAN! thing a bit. But, meh...
McCain needs someone from outside the Bush administration or those cat calls of McSame are going to get louder and become a real liability for him.
04/06/2008 15:27 #43922
Gen. PetraeusLiberals will simply never get it. I mean NEVER.
General Petraeus is not a political figure, he is a general officer in the United States armed forces.
I'm not making any friends by mocking this transparent pile of donkey shit cynically referred to by Democrats as support for our military men and women, but to be honest the facts are on my side. Nobody that claims to support military men and women would openly mock a general officer for saying something they disagree with by posting this while at the same time propping up military commanders that say things they do agree with.
It is an issue of respect. Liberals have none for military men and women. When you try to broadside David Petraeus while simultaneously sucking Wesley Clark's cock, you obviously don't respect the military - you use them to bolster political arguments and you think they are pawns on a political chessboard to be knocked over and cast aside on your way to the king.
Liberals aren't really being very clever here. Nobody actually believes that by and large liberals support the military, and liberals that are trying to make the argument are being utterly trumped by their own bretheren. Really, what is being portrayed is a startling lack of respect for Americans that have earned their place in this society. If I'm choosing sides, who am I choosing - a man who has a 30 year career and has dedicated his life to protecting the country, or am I going to choose some asshole blogger armchair quarterback that has absolutely no sophistication with military matters and an axe to grind? I'm not picking the loser at DailyKos - sorry.
You see, liberals have never understood something that is vital to why they have always failed at popularizing progressive politics nationally. Because you see literally everything through a politically motivated prism you are blind to the fact that everyone else really don't operate that way - not even the GOP. In the United States of America people get offended when they see you treat Gen. Petraeus the way you did because they know that he's earned every single piece of metal he wears on his uniform, and that by and large they think that liberal cynicism over Gen. Petraeus' motivations is completely unfounded. You cannot cheap shot a military officer and get away with it, and frankly, that is exactly what has happened.
This is why Americans don't trust liberal politicians with military issues. The last Democrat to give two shits about the military was JFK, and I have news (apparently) - Barack Obama is no JFK and never will be. I'll wait to see Jim Webb run for President before I trust a Democrat iwith the military, because there isn't one sorry example amongst his peers that is qualified to speak on behalf of military men and women besides him.
I know that liberals have not learned their lesson yet w/respect to General Petraeus. You'll see I'm right, and that is hardly something I get off on - if anything its depressing.
General Petraeus is not a political figure, he is a general officer in the United States armed forces.
I'm not making any friends by mocking this transparent pile of donkey shit cynically referred to by Democrats as support for our military men and women, but to be honest the facts are on my side. Nobody that claims to support military men and women would openly mock a general officer for saying something they disagree with by posting this
while at the same time propping up military commanders that say things they do agree with. It is an issue of respect. Liberals have none for military men and women. When you try to broadside David Petraeus while simultaneously sucking Wesley Clark's cock, you obviously don't respect the military - you use them to bolster political arguments and you think they are pawns on a political chessboard to be knocked over and cast aside on your way to the king.
Liberals aren't really being very clever here. Nobody actually believes that by and large liberals support the military, and liberals that are trying to make the argument are being utterly trumped by their own bretheren. Really, what is being portrayed is a startling lack of respect for Americans that have earned their place in this society. If I'm choosing sides, who am I choosing - a man who has a 30 year career and has dedicated his life to protecting the country, or am I going to choose some asshole blogger armchair quarterback that has absolutely no sophistication with military matters and an axe to grind? I'm not picking the loser at DailyKos - sorry.
You see, liberals have never understood something that is vital to why they have always failed at popularizing progressive politics nationally. Because you see literally everything through a politically motivated prism you are blind to the fact that everyone else really don't operate that way - not even the GOP. In the United States of America people get offended when they see you treat Gen. Petraeus the way you did because they know that he's earned every single piece of metal he wears on his uniform, and that by and large they think that liberal cynicism over Gen. Petraeus' motivations is completely unfounded. You cannot cheap shot a military officer and get away with it, and frankly, that is exactly what has happened.
This is why Americans don't trust liberal politicians with military issues. The last Democrat to give two shits about the military was JFK, and I have news (apparently) - Barack Obama is no JFK and never will be. I'll wait to see Jim Webb run for President before I trust a Democrat iwith the military, because there isn't one sorry example amongst his peers that is qualified to speak on behalf of military men and women besides him.
I know that liberals have not learned their lesson yet w/respect to General Petraeus. You'll see I'm right, and that is hardly something I get off on - if anything its depressing.
dcoffee - 04/07/08 19:38
in the last very hyped Petraeus hearings, (the first visit to the capital to report on the surge I think) he was asked if the war was miking us safer. and to his credit he didn't answer, he could have said "yea, sure, why not" but he said plainly that that's not his area. That's kind of the point, why is a general justifying a political policy. He doesn't want to have any less troops in Iraq, cause it will make things harder for him. But the real question is weather or not it's worth it to continue to spend blood and treasure on this war.
in the last very hyped Petraeus hearings, (the first visit to the capital to report on the surge I think) he was asked if the war was miking us safer. and to his credit he didn't answer, he could have said "yea, sure, why not" but he said plainly that that's not his area. That's kind of the point, why is a general justifying a political policy. He doesn't want to have any less troops in Iraq, cause it will make things harder for him. But the real question is weather or not it's worth it to continue to spend blood and treasure on this war.
ajay - 04/07/08 16:20
1. As far as I know, Kos served in uniform. Which is more than can be said about those criticizing him...
2. Gen Petraeus has often given the impression that he's pandering to the politicians, instead of saying what he thinks is right.
3. The junior-level officer corps (Captains, Majors) are quite upset about the fact that the Generals failed the men and women in uniform. For example, read LtC Yingling's article here :::link:::
4. Republicans pushed the country into an unpopular war and left the veterans to fend for themselves, while vetoing benefits increases ("we don't have money for these benefits, but we do have money for tax cuts for the rich") . And it's the liberals who don't respect the military? What kind of crack are you on??
1. As far as I know, Kos served in uniform. Which is more than can be said about those criticizing him...
2. Gen Petraeus has often given the impression that he's pandering to the politicians, instead of saying what he thinks is right.
3. The junior-level officer corps (Captains, Majors) are quite upset about the fact that the Generals failed the men and women in uniform. For example, read LtC Yingling's article here :::link:::
4. Republicans pushed the country into an unpopular war and left the veterans to fend for themselves, while vetoing benefits increases ("we don't have money for these benefits, but we do have money for tax cuts for the rich") . And it's the liberals who don't respect the military? What kind of crack are you on??
james - 04/06/08 22:05
Trusting the military in the hands of the GOP these past five years has been the epitome of respect...
Trusting the military in the hands of the GOP these past five years has been the epitome of respect...
dcoffee - 04/06/08 19:13
Drew, that was amazing. In 5.5 paragraphs you said it all.
We shouldn't paint liberals or conservatives with such a broad brush.
It's unfair for the Bush gang to put general Petraeus in a political situation where he has to defend their policy. That's not his job, and by putting him in the spotlight you open him up to criticism. Then when somebody does criticize him, they hate the troops. Somehow if you send a general instead of a politician, you're all set, if they disagree with what they say, you can call them anti-troops easier.
I share Drew's position on supporting the Military. Those who serve, deserve respect, compassion, and gratitude. And they should always be cared for. Part of respecting and supporting the troops is taking war seriously. The military should be used for self defense. Too often in our history, the military has been used to topple inconvenient governments for economic reasons, not security reasons. World politics is not a game of chess.
The best course of action is to set a high moral standard, based on justice, and avoid making enemies. Then we won't need to spend so much money on the military, and we won't have to send our citizens into deadly and traumatic situations. Not to mention the families at home worrying about them.
Some of my family and my closest friends are in the military. and as a wedding photographer, I've been to a lot of emotional military weddings during this war. I see people, not chess pieces.
Drew, that was amazing. In 5.5 paragraphs you said it all.
We shouldn't paint liberals or conservatives with such a broad brush.
It's unfair for the Bush gang to put general Petraeus in a political situation where he has to defend their policy. That's not his job, and by putting him in the spotlight you open him up to criticism. Then when somebody does criticize him, they hate the troops. Somehow if you send a general instead of a politician, you're all set, if they disagree with what they say, you can call them anti-troops easier.
I share Drew's position on supporting the Military. Those who serve, deserve respect, compassion, and gratitude. And they should always be cared for. Part of respecting and supporting the troops is taking war seriously. The military should be used for self defense. Too often in our history, the military has been used to topple inconvenient governments for economic reasons, not security reasons. World politics is not a game of chess.
The best course of action is to set a high moral standard, based on justice, and avoid making enemies. Then we won't need to spend so much money on the military, and we won't have to send our citizens into deadly and traumatic situations. Not to mention the families at home worrying about them.
Some of my family and my closest friends are in the military. and as a wedding photographer, I've been to a lot of emotional military weddings during this war. I see people, not chess pieces.
drew - 04/06/08 16:19
I humbly disagree. Many liberals have both served in the armed forces and spoken out against Petraeus. He has taken political stands that no active general ever has (like writing a column defending a war) and has not followed his own counter-insurgency handbook (this is not his fault--he doesn't have the troops, but according to his handbook, he knows that his efforts will fail).
I will not deny that moveon and kos sound stupid sometimes. However, I do not think that it is reasonable to assume that they speak for all liberals. The best liberals (and conservatives) respect all people, including the ones with whom they disagree.
As for me, I spent a summer careing for veterans and developed a great appreciation for them. They don't get to make the decisions, but they pay the price of war. It has been a surprise to hear that, as a liberal, I have no respect for military men and women. What does this say about the many liberals who have served? Do they not respect themselves?
"Supporting the military" is a hard thing to define. I support the people within the military. I think they should get health care, and pensions, and the best equipment. On the other hand, I think the military should be much smaller, and used WAY less (hopefully never).
The best best way to get to this goal is not to mock a general, but to simply tell the truth. Non-violence works better and makes more sense. It takes a lot more courage and commitment, but courage and commitment were once defining characteristics of America. If we were clearly a force for good in the face of evil, we would find these characteristics again.
Instead, we have become more and more like our enemies. This is sad.
I humbly disagree. Many liberals have both served in the armed forces and spoken out against Petraeus. He has taken political stands that no active general ever has (like writing a column defending a war) and has not followed his own counter-insurgency handbook (this is not his fault--he doesn't have the troops, but according to his handbook, he knows that his efforts will fail).
I will not deny that moveon and kos sound stupid sometimes. However, I do not think that it is reasonable to assume that they speak for all liberals. The best liberals (and conservatives) respect all people, including the ones with whom they disagree.
As for me, I spent a summer careing for veterans and developed a great appreciation for them. They don't get to make the decisions, but they pay the price of war. It has been a surprise to hear that, as a liberal, I have no respect for military men and women. What does this say about the many liberals who have served? Do they not respect themselves?
"Supporting the military" is a hard thing to define. I support the people within the military. I think they should get health care, and pensions, and the best equipment. On the other hand, I think the military should be much smaller, and used WAY less (hopefully never).
The best best way to get to this goal is not to mock a general, but to simply tell the truth. Non-violence works better and makes more sense. It takes a lot more courage and commitment, but courage and commitment were once defining characteristics of America. If we were clearly a force for good in the face of evil, we would find these characteristics again.
Instead, we have become more and more like our enemies. This is sad.
04/04/2008 13:38 #43899
Hydrogen Battery Powered AircraftIts being hailed as a historic first - Boeing, as proof of concept, has successfully flown the first manned hydrogen battery powered airplane.
I tend to have a wild imagination, so when I see developments like this I get really excited. By their own admission they do not believe that this technology could be transferable to larger passenger aircraft but I don't see that as a failure. After all, what is wrong with marketing hydrogen-powered Cessnas that private individuals can fly at a drastically reduced operating cost? Seems like a winner to me. Or even better - perhaps in their quest to find more efficient means of running airplanes on alternative fuels they end up developing even better hydrogen technology that could be use in cars and trucks.
I think our government should be plowing money to companies who are doing work like this so that research can be sped up. After all, as far as I'm concerned anyway, for 30 years we've known how vulnerable our economic and political stability can be when crude prices fluctuate. It has to end, but where do we start? With ingenuity and technological developments like this one, which is being developed in private industry.
I happen to think that the only answer to effective and faster energy independence will be partnerships between government and private industry, in exactly the same way that military technological advancement takes place between the military and say, Skunkworks, or NASA and Northrop Grumman. Its too important - we have to pool public and private resources and intellectual capital to make it happen, just like we have in the past when quick technological advancements were in our best interests.
Then, maybe when China still insists on stealing secret American technology - - perhaps they will incorporate it into their own power scheme. China's pollution rate is climbing faster than its economy, which is scary.
I tend to have a wild imagination, so when I see developments like this I get really excited. By their own admission they do not believe that this technology could be transferable to larger passenger aircraft but I don't see that as a failure. After all, what is wrong with marketing hydrogen-powered Cessnas that private individuals can fly at a drastically reduced operating cost? Seems like a winner to me. Or even better - perhaps in their quest to find more efficient means of running airplanes on alternative fuels they end up developing even better hydrogen technology that could be use in cars and trucks.
I think our government should be plowing money to companies who are doing work like this so that research can be sped up. After all, as far as I'm concerned anyway, for 30 years we've known how vulnerable our economic and political stability can be when crude prices fluctuate. It has to end, but where do we start? With ingenuity and technological developments like this one, which is being developed in private industry.
I happen to think that the only answer to effective and faster energy independence will be partnerships between government and private industry, in exactly the same way that military technological advancement takes place between the military and say, Skunkworks, or NASA and Northrop Grumman. Its too important - we have to pool public and private resources and intellectual capital to make it happen, just like we have in the past when quick technological advancements were in our best interests.
Then, maybe when China still insists on stealing secret American technology -
- perhaps they will incorporate it into their own power scheme. China's pollution rate is climbing faster than its economy, which is scary.kookcity2000 - 04/04/08 19:04
Hydrogen (PEM) fuel cells like these have a lot of ups and downs in any application, let alone in powered flight.
I wish the article had more technical minutia because I wonder if they were able to ditch any of the equipment you need on motor vehicles.
One of the biggest party-poopers for hydrogen powered flight is the the relatively lousy density for liquid hydrogen storage both in terms of weight and overall volume. (ie a full gas tank is very close in weight and volume to the actual fuel it holds. With hydrgoen not so much.)
Who knows, perhaps hydro-aero-machines will some day soar to new heights in ball-suckery.
Hydrogen (PEM) fuel cells like these have a lot of ups and downs in any application, let alone in powered flight.
I wish the article had more technical minutia because I wonder if they were able to ditch any of the equipment you need on motor vehicles.
One of the biggest party-poopers for hydrogen powered flight is the the relatively lousy density for liquid hydrogen storage both in terms of weight and overall volume. (ie a full gas tank is very close in weight and volume to the actual fuel it holds. With hydrgoen not so much.)
Who knows, perhaps hydro-aero-machines will some day soar to new heights in ball-suckery.
joshua - 04/04/08 14:48
Ha - well, I've always said that I am not a conservative... I can't help it if people never believe me simply because I am not anti-war!
Actually, to take it further, I think certain farm subsidies should be diverted to exactly this sort of thing. I don't think we need to be subsidizing things like caviar production.
Ha - well, I've always said that I am not a conservative... I can't help it if people never believe me simply because I am not anti-war!
Actually, to take it further, I think certain farm subsidies should be diverted to exactly this sort of thing. I don't think we need to be subsidizing things like caviar production.
james - 04/04/08 14:40
"I think our government should be plowing money to..."
First you reregister as an Independent and now you are advocating government subsidies? You have really come around my friend ^_^
I of course 100% agree, just wanted to tease.
"I think our government should be plowing money to..."
First you reregister as an Independent and now you are advocating government subsidies? You have really come around my friend ^_^
I of course 100% agree, just wanted to tease.
04/02/2008 18:37 #43877
In Other News... FROM HELLThats right - I have a fresh news update from hell. Mariah Carey has now trumped Elvis Presley's previous record for #1 singles.
The thing is, I don't appreciate Mariah Carey for her singing voice - I appreciate the fact that at 40 years old she looks amazing and I'd pretty much do anything to her that she asked me to do. A woman like Mariah Carey makes me realize how naughty I actually am.
As a music fan I'm concerned, but as a horny single guy I say, "congratulations!"
The thing is, I don't appreciate Mariah Carey for her singing voice - I appreciate the fact that at 40 years old she looks amazing and I'd pretty much do anything to her that she asked me to do. A woman like Mariah Carey makes me realize how naughty I actually am.
As a music fan I'm concerned, but as a horny single guy I say, "congratulations!"
hehehe.. those hole shooting bastard ballerinas.
Indeed it is! Well done.
Is that a clip from "The Day Today"?
That show is fucking hilarious.