eym_sirius

Otis, it's not "cross-dressing" if you wear BOTH male and female clothes. It's called --- something else..... Otherwise: There goes any shot he ever had at political office!

Mary and Rover go out on their first date. Mary: Do you believe in love at first sniff? Rover: (bark!) Mary: Me too. Mary: Rover, what's your favorite part of the tree? Rover: (bark) Mary: Yeah, mine too! Rover: (whiny sound) Mary: Do you need to go - mark your territory? Mary: Oh, Rover -- not on the first date!! Rover: (whining again) Mary: Do you practice safe sex -- Nevermind, I brought some dog-doms. Mary: Oh, Rover, we're going to be so happy together! Rover: (to himself) talk, talk talk! (to her) Bark! The end

I think that you undermined your own point - whatever it was. It's not "kidnapping" because a dog has no will, something that you pointed out. It would be theft, just like taking any other animal that doesn't belong to you (not you, personally, TOW) Because they have no will and don't have the capacity for consent and because they have no standing except as property under the law, any discussion of marriage rights is just silly. Was that your point, TOW? That it's all just silliness?

Yes, non-smoking. It's great!

"Obama's New Secretary Of the Posterior"

"The economy could use a bump like that!"

The title of the thread is, "Caption This". Hardly anyone has attempted a caption, opting instead for cheap shots. It was a single, out of context frame from a video, so it's ridiculous to try to make anything more of it than a caption joke. So - y'all have any captions?

"Now, THAT'S a Stimulus Package!"

Trust me when I say that I know that a t-shirt doesn't make a person a mass murderer nor does it convey anything especially about his character. So if the death shirt isn't a negative message that the wearer is trying to convey -- why buy it? Are we back at a name brand where young men are paying 60 - 100 bucks for a t-shirt? (a t-shirt?) What status is involved in the items depicting death? Does it say that you have class, money - Is it like "member's only" jackets that imply that you are part of an in group, nevermind the fact that they are available to everyone? Thanks fo

No, it's your opinion - nothing wrong with having it and owning it. I'm curious as to the attraction to the death shirt and maybe your take on why real killers don't wear them. Is death something that troubles each individual and wearing the shirt is a way to deal with the mortality issue -- And that it is something that is unresolved because real killers haven't come to terms with the reality of the finality of death? I think that it's a mannequin. I know. You'd still hit it.

I think that you're exactly right about the fat, dumpy dudes. These don't say evil - I respect your opinion. What do they say? Is is supposed to be a message of machismo? If so, how does being dead equate to manly? I'm really interested in your opinion. Perhaps it's a generational thing because this would have been considered Halloween attire back in my day. And that was associated with the dark side of existence, death, mortality, etc.

I think that if you wear that t-shirt to church, they'd think that you have gone over to the dark side aka the"evil" side. I'm not saying that the shirt is evil by itself, just that it promotes the shadow side of the human condition. I can't imagine why anyone would want their children wearing garments depicting death. Or why a company would want their image to be associated with death. WFAL - I KNEW that someone was going to make that observation. EWWWWWWW!!!! I don't want to see either one!

When the news reporter on tv interviewed a young woman on the issue of smoking in the park, the young woman proclaimed the dangers of "second and third hand smoke"

I'm not suggesting that everyone wear "Have a Nice Day", but I think that marketing "Death Shirts" to young men is, at best, in bad taste. There are demonic overtones that I believe are improper for a major Mens Wear***** chain to profit from. I'm not against profit, just profit from promoting evil.

I can tell you about the one that I had. It's a benign, fluid-filled sac with the fluid being especially viscous (thick) For that reason, it's difficult to drain with a needle. The doctor told me that, though it's sometimes uncomfortable, it's not dangerous. The one that I had was not a candidate for excision, since it was located near my radial artery. It went away when I was lifting weights one day. The pressure made it pop (for lack of a better description). The doctor explained that in olden days, treatment for ganglion cysts was to lay the arm on a table and thump a bible real hard o

Thanks! Mine is the result of (see avatar) a fishing injury. I played football through high school and college without having anything but minor cuts that needed stitiching. But the doctor says, and my research confirmed, that if I don't have the surgery, the structure of my wrist will collapse, leading to certain osteoarthritis. In the face of that, 6 - 8 weeks won't be so bad. My editor asked if I will be able to type one handed. It was an opportunity for a zinger that I did not pass up!

I just found out that I have to have reconstruction surgery on my left wrist. It's for the scapholunate ligament, which was torn and is now gone. I was wondering if, coincidentally, any of you had this kind of wrist injury in the past and if you know anything about Modified Brunelli or the Blatt procedure for reconstruction. I'll have a cast on my wrist for 6 - 8 weeks!

The statement started in prison, it's true. You see, in prison, time is essential. The pants half-way down is a signal of availability to the other prisoners. I'm sure that this is NOT the message that our young people want to send out! In case you have a young'un who insists on wearing his pants halfway down - Give him a jar of vaseline to complete the fashion statement - That's how they do it in prison!

I'll admit to a forceful stream, but it ain't THAT forceful! And I don't do my other business from the high-voltage wires, even though the pigeons do.

This is for the ones who claim justification for smoking in public gathering places by saying that the air is already contaminated and nasty. That is analagous to a person who drops his pants and pees in the pool that you're swimming in. "It was nasty anyway - All kind of contaminants in there!" Smokers who blow their smoke in your face are pool pee-ers. They should be found guilty by a jury of their pee-ers.

The problem with this narrow issue of laws against smoking in certain areas is with smokers who insist that they have a right to force me to breathe their smoke in a place where people gather. I would never presume to tell anyone that they have to give up smokiing - anything. But when it comes to taking ANYTHING inside my body that was just inside another person's body, I have to cringe as I say, "no thank you". A lot of nasty non-smokers - sure. And if any of them tries to tell me that they have the right to make me take something inside my body that I don't want there - And it was just

As I mentioned to Mrs. H, if smokers were a considerate lot, then we wouldn't have to make punitive laws for them. I'm very okay with a person smoking on his own property and letting the smoke dissipate into the atmosphere. I'm not okay with breathing another person's smoke, as his/her right to enjoy his/her habit ends when it adversely affects me to the point that I'm forced to take the smoke into my body.

I think that this presumption is incorrect. I think that the law is in place to protect those in the immediate vicinity of smokers from the effects of second hand smoke. Of course, if there is a breeze in the correct direction, the smoke dissipates into the atmosphere and blows away. Under different conditions, though, the smoke could blow right into your face from the person next to you. If smokers had proper consideration for their neighbors, we might not be talking about this. But the truth is that smokers are among the worlds biggest slobs when it comes to their habit. Proof of this c

This is, of course, an "apples and oranges" analogy. When a local government passes a law regarding smoking, it is done on behalf of the people in the vicinity of the smoker. What you are describing is a use tax, which has nothing to do with the topic of outlawing smoking in public gathering places.