Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal the_mad_poster's Journal: Little Green Footballs Is Afraid of Me (Reposted) 84

Journal by the_mad_poster

The little babies were too scared to bother coming over here with few exceptions. They had to hide on their site to whine about me.

I guess when the best thing you can come up with to respond to is the knock about printer cartridges (which, ironically, is a stab at a certain Mr. Bill Clinton) it isn't in your best interest to come out of your echo chamber and actually attempt to take someone on.

(reposted to disable AC comments)

This discussion was created by the_mad_poster (640772) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Little Green Footballs Is Afraid of Me (Reposted) More

Little Green Footballs Is Afraid of Me (Reposted)

Comments Filter:
  • Most posters on lgf are just bone weary of leftist political dogma and spare very little time in refuting it.

    If you believe in learning and intellectual honesty I urge you spend some time looking at the headlines and reading the comments on lgf. Start with the faq and then read the threads in and around 9/11/2001.

    I used to hold your beliefs and voted democrat my entire life, until 2001.

    • Precisely. Why have the same arguments over and over when I've already won them? -jg PS Nice UID to the parent and journal poster.
      • Stupid HTML formatted text. argh Sorry about no line breaks

        -jg
        • For someone who thinks low UIDs are so great, you sure are clueless.

          Preferences > Comments

          Near the bottom of the page you can change your posting prefernce to be "Plain Text" so you don't have to use HTML whitespace.
          • I did change it, thank you. Also, I believe it's "preference" not "prefernce".

            Do you want to have a discussion about why you are wrong about so many things?
            • Start here [techcentralstation.com]

              And after you realize that your political opponents are not stupid, or evil or brainwashed, we can continue.
              • Start here

                So...by linking to a page that complains about liberals unfairly generalizing about conservatives, then proceeds to unfairly generalize about liberals, we are now to have a basis for discussion?

                And after you realize that your political opponents are not stupid, or evil or brainwashed, we can continue.

                Well, at least that much we agree on. May I also add "elitist", "snobbish", "amoral", "immoral", "pro-terrorist", or whatever other labels seem to be fair dinkum for anyone to the left of Bush

                • My point is that while I may be against a liberals definition of progress that does not mean I am a bad person.

                  Considering the comments made on this thread and the one on lgf I'v concluded that mad_poster does believe that conservatives and folks that oppose his 'good' vision of progress are bad and evil.

                  I'd like to lower the temperature of debate and argue policies on their merits.

                  • I'd like to lower the temperature of debate and argue policies on their merits.

                    So would I. But I don't exactly see LGF as having contributed towards that goal in any way -- unless latching onto printer cartridges is a highbrow form of political debate I wasn't previously aware of.

                    I could also quite effortlessly reel of a list of rhetorical injustices real and imagined towards those of us of a more leftish persuasion. But that doesn't raise the level of discussion -- it just cements it in the sewer.

                    "Li

                  • My point is that while I may be against a liberals definition of progress that does not mean I am a bad person.

                    I think I've commented elsewhere about chips and shoulders and such. Get some skin or something, and recognize that political rhetoric can be heated without meaning anything personal.

              • My political opponents aren't stupid. I've had numerous enlightening political debates with people I disagree with here.

                However, when one is started by a Mr. Charles Johnson calling me names, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the conversation, as you might imagine. When I've been accused of being everything from anti-American to inbred before I'm even made aware I'm the subject of discussion, it makes it a little worse, you see? Not that I'm complaining - fire away. Just don't get all pissy when you're
          • Those that spend their time thinking that their self-righteous attitude somehow puts them on a moral highground will not listen to what you say, no matter how right you maybe.

            The best thing to do is not to feed the trolls.
      • Why have the same arguments over and over when I've already won them?

        Why do I have this feeling you were always the banker when you played Monopoly?

        By the way, it's news to me that Prague is in "Deutschland". (Referring to your photo album [mac.com].) The locals wouldn't take too kindly to suggestions to the contrary.

        Cheers,

        Ethelred

        • I love Monopoly, playing a game where the outcome is in question (though I do win most of the time :-D) is different than having an argument where I already know the right answer.

          If you guys want to have an argument (not just talking points), I'd be happy to.
        • It's true that Prague is part of the Czech Republic, but I went there on a trip to Germany. Close enough. They would be part of Germany if it wasn't for us and the Russians, so I guess that's good.
          • It's true that Prague is part of the Czech Republic, but I went there on a trip to Germany.

            I'll remember that when I visit California and post my "México" photo album.

            They would be part of Germany if it wasn't for us and the Russians, so I guess that's good.

            Funny, we'd be part of the British Empire if it wasn't for the French. But hey, we're all pals now, right?

            Cheers,

            Ethelred

            • We have paid our debt back to the French several times over history, but there is no gratitude now except for the elderly generation in France and now they are being overrun by Muslims and the French Heritage is being destroyed.

              Too bad, the cheese and champagne world will never be the same.
      • Precisely. Why have the same arguments over and over when I've already won them?

        OMFG!!!1111oneoneone

        Bwahahahahahahaa-my sides! They hurt! :')

  • Dude (Score:2)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) *
    Dude, you're an idiot. An absolute moron.

    Look at one of the comments (#110) -

    #26 Florida Heat /. is full of people who hate the US government because of copyright laws.

    What's wrong with copyright laws?

    And what is the DMCA?

    I mean -- these guys do not _know_ what DMCA is, and support copyright laws (the current versions of which are a a perversion of their original intents).

    Bah, you're arguing with folks like this?

    What's WRONG with you!?
    • #26 is an inaccurate comment, keep reading, some posters on lgf are pointing this out and attempting to educate others on DMCA, copyright, GPL and Open Source.

  • "Iron Fist"

    Okay, these people are a piece of work, but what are you going to do. Let's review, shall we?

    Bush Backers are complete morons because:

    1. They don't support fiscal responsibility. Tax-cut and spend is not how you stave off insolvency. Doh, the dollar is now severely weakened; it must be Clinton's fault. Oh, it must not be really that weak. Wait, why does gas cost so much?
    2. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with "Terrah" and Saddam, while a bad man, was nowhere near as true concern to the US
    • 1. High rates of taxation discourage economic activity which reduces the revenue created by taxation. Do you disagree? The Romans figured this out a couple thousand years ago, why can't we?

      2. The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Read World War IV [commentarymagazine.com]

      3. Name one instance of someone losing their civil rights due to the patriot act? Just one?

      4. Why redefine marriage? Read The End of Marriage in Scandinavia [weeklystandard.com]

      "In other words, if you support Bush, you are completely ignorant about how the wor

      • Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ethelred Unraed ( 32954 ) * on Saturday November 27, 2004 @06:29PM (#10933441) Journal
        High rates of taxation discourage economic activity which reduces the revenue created by taxation. Do you disagree? The Romans figured this out a couple thousand years ago, why can't we?

        Except for the minor detail that the Romans never abolished or reduced taxation: they leveled it out. Sort of a proto-flat tax, if you will.

        The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Read World War IV

        Ah. Random propaganda links as a basis of discussion. Whee, let's link to Chomsky to even out the yin and yang a little.

        Anyway, "part of the War or Terror" is neither here nor there. The idea is setting priorities. Iraq wasn't a high priority (what exactly would they have done?). Iran and North Korea clearly are. Now we're stuck in the Iraqi tar baby and can't deal as effectively with Iran and North Korea as we'd like -- and they know it.

        Why redefine marriage? Read The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

        Try reading a load of tripe? Such as:

        Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

        Well, that's odd -- and here I thought allowing two people who, you know, love each other get hitched sent the signal that marriage means something.

        Name one instance of someone losing their civil rights due to the patriot act? Just one?

        Funny that even the Bush Administration wants to rescind parts of the Patriot Act as being too restrictive.

        Really? Please list the foreign policy success's of the Clinton Administration then. Or of any Democratic administration since Truman, if you please.

        Cuban Missile Crisis. Ending the Bosnian war. Ending Serb oppression of Kosovo. Preventing an all-out war in Macedonia. Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. Just to name a few off the top of my head.

        Now to balance the Force, name a few Republican ones for us. And I'll even happily note some Democratic failures -- if you name some Republican ones, too. Isn't being fair fun?

        Cheers,

        Ethelred

        • "Except for the minor detail that the Romans never abolished or reduced taxation: they leveled it out. Sort of a proto-flat tax, if you will"

          Actually taxation went up and down. This edu site [lmu.edu] and this site [unrv.com] make it plain that the Romans were aware of the burden of taxation and makes the case that the burden of taxation upon those that could most influence the economy played a direct role in the demise of the Roman Empire.

          "Ah. Random propaganda links as a basis of discussion."

          So you read a 40 page art

          • I think that the possibility of a terrorist group receiving WMD's from Saddam was worth going to war. You obviously disagree. Iran and North Korea are different and less urgent threats and solutions are being sought.

            You can't just make that sort of claim and expect it to back itself. Weapons inspections show no WMDs in Iraq. Three reports have all come to the same conclusion: no weapons, couldn't get them, no threat.

            Iran and N. Korea are both known to be working on nuclear programs that could produce bo

            • Please read...

              Regime Strategic Intent [cia.gov]

              from
              Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraqs WMD [cia.gov]

              "How is that less of a threat?"

              Because at least we know of it, during the previous administration NK lied
              about their program and the admistration believed them.

              And how exactly should we stop Iran and NK, more talks, more agreements,
              more UN resolutions?

              • Because at least we know of it....

                Excuse me? So... everything we don't know.... is a threat?

                I sincerely hope that's not what you meant, because if you did, and I'm not just misunderstanding, that's the most ridiculous thing I've seen yet. I'll wait to actually respond until we've clarified this point to make sure I understand what you're getting at.

                • Because at least we know of it....

                  Excuse me? So... everything we don't know.... is a threat?

                  No, being lied to is not something we don't know.

                  The Clinton Administration negotiated the Agreed Framework [ceip.org] and announced that NK had given up it's Nuclear ambitions.

                  In 2002 the US found out the NK had lied and cheated and had kept operating a Nuclear Weapons program.

                  Better to know the truth than trust in a lie.

                  • You're not making sense. Iraq: all ACCURATE indications were that they posed no threat. Everyone but Bush, Blair, and cronies said so. Solution? Go in with guns blazing. Result? Totally fucking wrong.

                    Iran, NK: we KNOW they want bombs, we KNOW they're working on the capability to get them, we KNOW they will use them if given the opportunity. How is knowing that they're a direct threat LESS of a threat?

                    • Did you read the pdf?

                      all ACCURATE indications were that they posed no threat.

                      Every intellegence service including Jordan and Egypt believed that Saddam had and would use WMD's, read Tommy Franks book. In 1998 the official US policy towards Iraq became regime change, in 2002 Democrats including Kerry voted in support of the Iraq war. Iraq shot at our planes patroling the Northern and Southern no fly zones on a near weekly basis. The UN oil for Food program was completely perverted and used to finance S
          • Actually taxation went up and down. This edu site and this site make it plain that the Romans were aware of the burden of taxation and makes the case that the burden of taxation upon those that could most influence the economy played a direct role in the demise of the Roman Empire.

            One theory among many -- though actually the large numbers of cross Germans coming across the borders, as well as widespread famine, just might have had something to do with it as well.

            Not to mention you claimed "the Romans le

          • Ronald Reagan won the cold war over the objections of liberal democrats who favored a nuclear freeze and more detente.

            Ronald Reagan, for all the things you COULD have listed as successes, did NOT win the cold war. He just happened to be the lucky guy in office when the cold war came crashing down because 50 years of soviet mis-management of their own economy finally caught up with them. US Policy across ALL of those 50 years did help bring that end, but no one President can take credit for it. Any who c

            • Ronald Reagan opposed communists since the mid forties. While the left and the democrats were busy with detente and realpolitick, Reagan opposed them and called them what they were.

              Years of SALT negotiations got us treaties that the Soviets cheated at. Years of diplomacy got us Soviet expansionism all over the planet. These policies stopped under Reagan and by 89 the Soviet Union crumbled.

              Want a biased opinion, ask Natan Sharansky and other Soviet prisoners who had the largest impact in winning the col
              • Ronald Reagan opposed communists since the mid forties.

                Yeah, they were cowering in fear of his Mighty Acting Powers.

                Give it up.

                • Ronald Reagan received a degree in Economics from Eureka College in 1932. Found good work during the Great Depression, served his country during WW2. Became a Union Leader during the 40's 50's. Entered politics in 1964 and won the governorship of California twice...

                  Reagan lived through WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War

                  but..

                  Reagan seems to be the only Hollywood actor that the left belittles and denigrates?

                  Read his own words..

                  Reagan: A Life in Letters [amazon.com]

                  Reagan, In His Own Hand [amazon.com]

                  As a pers
                  • I wasn't aware liberals attacked the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11... in fact, as I understand it, it was a group of ultra-conservatives.... Spend time on neocon sites... novel idea. Why don't we start with LGF where I was insulted in every manner known to man BEFORE I got there and the most insightful comment offered was for me to go "juggle chainsaws". Yes, I'll be sure to take your views into appropriate consideration in light of the truly intelligent support they've been given to date.
                    • I wasn't aware liberals attacked the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11... in fact, as I understand it, it was a group of ultra-conservatives....

                      Do you consider Muslim terrorist to be ultra-conservatives?

                      Just exactly who do you think attacked the WTC and the Pentagon?

                      Please be specific.

                      Do you realize the difference between the message and the messengers?

                      Logical Fallacies [datanation.com]

                      Please take a good philosophy class. It will help you make good arguments and stay on point.
                    • Actually, your message isn't any better than the idiots delivering it, if you're suggesting that it's just a matter of LGF being full of stupid people who latched onto a more intelligent message.

                      And - ah - yea, the muslim extremists that attacked are pretty damn conservative.
                    • Do you consider Muslim terrorist to be ultra-conservatives?

                      Which part of "extreme fundamentalist islamofascism" do you not see as ultra-conservative, in their own cultural context?

                    • Which part of "extreme fundamentalist islamofascism" do you not see as ultra-conservative, in their own cultural context?

                      All parts.

                      Then please clearly identify the relevant cultural context when using the term 'ultra-conservative'

                      In common American usage conservative or ultra-conservative has nothing in common with "extreme fundamentalist islamofascism"

                    • Except when you omit the "islamo" part.
                    • Logical fallacy. Who said anything about legislating religious morality?
                    • Certainly not me. The point is, the terrorists are ultra conservatives. They just aren't american christian ultra conservatives. That is obvious on it's face to anyone who doesn't have some invested need to identify themself as an ultra conservative while making it clear that they're not terrorists. Honestly, I don't know of many american "ultra" conservatives who come anywhere close to the terrorists in their degree of "ultra" and so I would be hard pressed to draw any comparison between the groups.

                      But

                    • "The point is, the terrorists are ultra conservatives."
                      No they aren't. They're fundamentalists and they're authoritarian. They're not conservatives.
                    • Your incredible grasp of the culture you so virulently hate and wish genocide upon is truly astounding.
                    • Damn near every conservative I know is authoritarian (hardcore law & order types ya know) and most are religious fundamentalists of one stripe or another. Even those that profess to be atheists hold (or claim to hold) very simple "traditional" codes of morality that mainly differ from the religious types by saying that the code has some other source than God. Of course there are exceptions to each of these tenets, but of course I wouldn't expect people who consider islam to be without exception a terr
                    • That's it? Is that all you've got? Genocide? How far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that out?
                    • Not far since it's written all over your rathole.

                      I do begin to see your point, however. Vermin... such as yourself... might just be better off being exterminated.

                      Here, eat your own words:

                      Fundamentalist Islam is simply the conservative wing of Islam, just as fundamentalist Christianity is the conservative wing of Christianity.

                      Farther down the page:

                      Most Middle Eastern terrorists are probably fundamentalist Muslims...

                      From here [religioustolerance.org].

                      Commence bullshit write-off of source based on some nonsensical, perceiv
                    • How about more of the source, retard?

                      "Most Middle Eastern terrorists are probably fundamentalist Muslims, but they share little with their fellow fundamentalists. They represent an extremist, radical wing of fundamentalist Islam, which is composed of people who believe that the Islamic state must be imposed on the people from above, using violent action if necessary."

                      The problem, aside from the fact that you're a fucking moron, is that you're confusing political conservatism with religious conservatism.
                    • In common American usage conservative or ultra-conservative has nothing in common with "extreme fundamentalist islamofascism"

                      Let's try again. "ultra conservative" in American context is extreme, commonly fundamentalist, and has a very strong authoritarian stance that at least borders on, if not crosses over into, fascism. The cops always get the benefit of the doubt--that's exactly what you need for a fascist police state. The cult of the corporation is also a co-symptom with fascism, though of course d

                    • Nice response. Glad to see you agree with me, even though you're too mentally inferior to admit you were wrong.
                  • Reagan lived through WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War

                    My Dad lived through all of those except WW1, and he served in the military too. Doesn't mean he won the cold war either.

                    Reagan seems to be the only Hollywood actor that the left belittles and denigrates?

                    You need to re-read what I said. YOU implied that he started his assault on the cold war in the forties. Here, read again: "Ronald Reagan opposed communists since the mid forties." A public position against communism in the 40's is hardly

                    • I would have said the same thing if you were crediting Bogart with winning the cold war.

                      Actually, I would like to take this opportunity to claim that I won the Cold War.

                      (You're welcome.)

                      Cheers,

                      Ethelred

              • /me offers you a nice cup of tea
              • Ronald Reagan opposed communists since the mid forties.

                So did most Democrats. Truman, George Kennan, McNamara, Kennedy, Acheson, Albright, Brzeznski, Johnson...

                While the left and the democrats were busy with detente and realpolitick

                Uh, how are Democrats responsible for detente, which was Kissenger's idea [sandiego.edu], or Realpolitik [wikipedia.org], which was an idea also espoused by Kissenger and Nixon, and led to the rapprochement with China? In fact, Kissenger's Realpolitik was a noticeable weakening of Democrat containment

                • Ethelred,

                  I chose bad examples. Thanks for pointing this out. Time for more research.

                • Ethelred,

                  Looking more closely at your statements...

                  Lets look at the wikipedia entry for Détente [wikipedia.org]

                  Seems that the US warmed up and acted nice, while the Soviets continued their expansionist ways and cheated at the existing SALT agreements.

                  SALT may have been Nixon's thing, but SALT II [wikipedia.org] was Carter's thing.

                  Realpolitik [wikipedia.org] "(German for "politics of reality") is foreign politics based on practical
                  concerns rather than theory or ethics."

                  When opposing Reagan, the Democrats were more than happy to espouse
                  R
                  • Seems that the US warmed up and acted nice, while the Soviets continued their expansionist ways and cheated at the existing SALT agreements.

                    That's beside the point -- I'm not arguing the merits of detente. I'm asking you: why blame Democrats or "leftists" for it, when it was the policy of Republicans in the Nixon Administration?

                    SALT may have been Nixon's thing, but SALT II was Carter's thing.

                    Yes, because Carter at first chose to continue detente (against the advice of many Democrats!) -- and then end

                  • Reagan dealt with the Soviets from a moral and ethical level and called that totalitarian dictatorship what is was. Evil.

                    A curious thing that i've noticed in the past is that i am unable to consider the Soviet Union evil. But neither am i one of those pining for "the good old days." Perhaps i'm too young for these things (i was six years old when the Berlin Wall fell, eight when the Soviet Union broke up). Perhaps i'm simply morally crippled. But i can't see black and white -- all i can see is a sort of K [wikipedia.org]

                  • SALT may have been Nixon's thing, but SALT II was Carter's thing.

                    START I was Reagan, START II was Bush, the INF treaty was also Reagan. Your point?

                    Seems to me that it was mostly Republican Presidents who wanted to disarm.

                    Oh, and lest we forget Carter was considered a hawk back in the day. He was for the Trident program, the Los Angeles class attack subs, and the Nimitz class carrier program.

                    He was skeptical of the value of the B1 bomber (particularly the initial version as designed) and the MX missle
          • And what makes the article tripe? The fact that you disagree with it?

            No, the fact that is full of lies and misrepresentations. Yes, I live in Scandinavia.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I think the grandparent's right, for what it's worth. Without terrorists, how can you have a war on terror?

            Eh? The grandparent stated "The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror", which is a non-argument. In effect he is arguing that Iraq is "part of" the so-called "War on Terror", therefore it was right to attack Iraq when and how we did. One does not lead to the other.

            The article he linked to doesn't even back up the point he was trying to make, other than to assert that Iraq is a "front" in the w

        • Except for the minor detail that the Romans never abolished or reduced taxation: they leveled it out. Sort of a proto-flat tax, if you will.

          Two problems with this, leveling out taxes over time is nothing like a flat-tax. I believe that is what is being discussed here. Second, as pointed out later, the tax rates did fluxuate depending on emperor.

          Iraq wasn't a high priority (what exactly would they have done?).

          It isn't even a matter of priority. I don't imagine a president sitting around and saying "I'v
      • Read The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

        I don't know what drugs he's on, but they seem like a lot of fun. I don't have any non-Swedish links to give you, but he's right that we're looking more on marriage as a religious thing. The rest is hogwash - we're marrying in droves and divorce rates are slipping. There was a dip in marriage rates in the 90s, but that had a lot of other explanations (some of which he lists), it had nothing to do with gay marriage.

        The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror.

      • Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:3, Informative)

        by tuxette ( 731067 ) *
        The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

        I live in Scandinavia (Norway). The twat who wrote that article knows nothing about Scandinavian society, and has probably never been in Scandinavia or talked to Scandinavians (except for maybe the bible-thumpers, who make up a minority, and are seen upon as a joke here). As for the gays, their rate of breaking up a civil union is lower than the rate of heterosexual divorce.

        I really wonder what kind of drugs the author was on when he wrote this article.

      1. Tax-cut and spend is not how you stave off insolvency.

      2. I'm not sure what you want to prove with the dollar's relative value across the world. Then again I'm not a strong-dollar advocate. I think that too strong a currancy hurts your own economy. Its never good to be on the heavy side of the ecomonic spinning top.

        But that is only secondary to your complaint about what you call 'tax-cut and spend'. Bush has maintained the lowest unemployment average (and peak) of any president through well planned fiscal s

  • Thanks mad, now I have to go wash my brain with bleach to get the stench off.

    Long ago I decided to ignore sites like LGF, FreeRepublic, and the idiotarians. If you want conservative and/or rightwing sites where a somewhat higher standard of discourse prevails they are out there. Tacitus is one.

    As they say, don't feed the trolls.
  • I'm so jealous right now...how the f**k did you pull this one off?
    • Dude, you got a mention too. They mentioned your comment about target practice.
      • D'oh, looks like it's my fault...

        Apparently, I'm the "trigger-happy nerd" that "took a slam" at little boogers?

        Some people take themselves too seriously, I think...

        Heh, these are people who advocate gun ownership and education? I guess the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to those who have differing political views from them, and who might want to protect themselves from extremists?

        Of course, their boorish, psychotic comments have only proved my point: American citizens should arm themselves to protect thems
  • I would like to take the opportunity to apologize for implying that I should be free to exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights so that I won't be defenseless should the shit ever hit the fan.

    See: ten years ago I moved to a part of the country where my interracial marriage and/or judaism would not be the cause for threats of violence - so thinking about defending my family from zealots isn't a regular occurence anymore.

    Fortunately, sites like Little Boogers exist to remind me that such hatred and bigotry still e
  • So let me see if I got this straight...
    1. Mad Poster posts incoherent rant
    2. LGF picks up on it as typical incoherent leftist rant
    3. Mad Poster posts on LGF, complaining that they are mocking safely from a distance.
    4. Mad Poster posts Journal Entry so he can try to do the same thing with a much smaller and less enthusaistic fan base.

    Wow, Bubble Girl pwned you [littlegreenfootballs.com].

    Is that the best response you could think up? "WTF makes you think I cared about any of that:...?" Its just not fun to watch you get hammered after a wh

Slashdot Top Deals

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Close