PDA

View Full Version : New Rules 9/14/07


Hogan11
09-23-2007, 11:43 PM
Because I was on vacation last week....

September 14, 2007

New Rule: The problem with this picture of Vanessa Hudgins isn't that she's a bad role model. The problem with it is that there's no room for it on the flag. If you ask the Marines in Fallujah what they're fighting for, this would probably come up slightly more often than the name Nouri al-Maliki. The only thing wrong with this is that in eight years, it's going to turn into this. [photo of Britney Spears]

New Rule: Technology businesses must cut the baby talk. It's 2007. You're a rapacious, multi-billion-dollar corporation, not a stuffed animal. This week, Yahoo! announced a deal with Bebo, which will help it compete with Google. I had to Wiki Bebo to find out it's kind of like Friendster and Woofy. Gosh, I hope they can all band together and save Fuzzleton Village from the evil Snorgs! Grow up! If I want to see uncaring money-making machines with cutesy names, I'd go to a strip club.

New Rule: We may never know what the World Trade Center meant to our enemies, but our inability to build anything on the site in six years symbolizes our national head-up-the-ass. You know, it took two years to build the Eiffel Tower. In the 1880s. By hand. By French guys, while screwing their mistresses. Of course we can't rebuild Iraq. We can't get **** done in Soho!

And while we're on the subject, New Rule: Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one who's being naļve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think, well, if you believe that was the cause… Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.

New Rule: Stop b*tching that Apple cut the price of the iPhone. Early adopters always pay a premium. "Early adopters" being a business term meaning "dip****s who stand in line for six hours... for a freaking phone. It's not a price cut. It's a repeal on the "Nerd Tax." If you didn't have to be the first on your block to have the latest gizmo, you'd now have an extra $200 to spend on your imaginary girlfriend.

And finally, New Rule - and I never thought I'd be the one to say this, but: Don't show me your tits. Last week, the world's first "Nurse In" was held to protest the case of a woman who was breast-feeding in public, and asked by an Appleby's manager not to leave, but just to cover up a little bit. Because the wait staff got tired of hearing, "I'll have what that kid's having."

Look, I'm not trying to be insensitive here. I know your baby needs to eat, but so do I, and this is Appleby's, so I'm already nauseous.

Breast-feeding a baby is an intimate act, and I don't want to watch strangers performing intimate acts. At least not for free. It cheapens it. But breast-feeding activists - yes, breast-feeding activists, called "lactivists" - say this is a human right and appropriate everywhere, because it's natural. Well, so is masturbating, but I generally don't do that at Appleby's. Not in the main dining area, anyway.

I mean, next thing, women will be wanting to give birth in the waterfall at the mall! Look, there's no principle at work here other than being too lazy to either plan ahead or cover up. It's not fighting for a right. It's fighting for the spotlight you surely will get when you go all "Janet Jackson" on everyone. And get to drink in the "oohs" and "aahs" from the other customers because "You made a baby!" Something a dog can do.

Only in America do women think they deserve a medal for having a kid. In China, women give birth on their lunch hour, and by the afternoon, they're back on line, painting lead onto Barbie dolls.

But this isn't really about women taking their breasts out in public, as much as I'd like it to be. It's about how petty and parochial our causes have become, how activism has become narcissism. It's why Al Gore can't get people to focus on global warming unless there's a rock concert. "Melting icebergs, brought to you by Smashing Pumpkins."

It's why there'll be no end to this dumb war until there is a draft. Because, at the end of the day, Iraq is somebody else's problem.

And, by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It's called "Hooters."

Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 01:08 AM
And while we're on the subject, New Rule: Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one who's being naļve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think, well, if you believe that was the cause. Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.

Hilarious! Gaffney, LABF, are you listening.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-24-2007, 01:47 AM
How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think, well, if you believe that was the cause.

New Rule 9/23/07:

How big of a lunatic do you have to be to believe the laws of physics were somehow magically suspended on 9/11 and the unprecedented happened?

(To say nothing of the profound denial required to ignore the fact that, without the 9/11 attacks, the entire neocon agenda, the Bush presidency, and the "permanent GOP majority" is dead in the water - and to believe all this is just coincidence?)

Now that's crazy. :crazy:

Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 11:48 AM
New Rule 9/23/07:

How big of a lunatic do you have to be to believe the laws of physics were somehow magically suspended on 9/11.

Good question.

W*GS
09-24-2007, 12:39 PM
New Rule 9/23/07:

How big of a lunatic do you have to be to believe the laws of physics were somehow magically suspended on 9/11 and the unprecedented happened?

What "laws of physics were magically suspended on 9/11"?

Can you be more specific?

orangeatheist
09-24-2007, 05:51 PM
What "laws of physics were magically suspended on 9/11"?

Can you be more specific?

Oh, come on, W*GS. Look who you're talking to.

W*GS
09-24-2007, 06:16 PM
Oh, come on, W*GS. Look who you're talking to.

Oh, I know, I know. He's just not willing to defend his driveby postings, that's all. I think we all realize he's a paper tiger...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-24-2007, 07:22 PM
What "laws of physics were magically suspended on 9/11"?

Can you be more specific?

Read the last few 9/11 threads that explain (a) how the fires from the burning jet fuel could not have produced enough heat to melt steel, (b) how a steel frame building has never collapsed from fire, (c) how it would have been impossible for the towers to collapse cleanly and neatly into their own footprints, (no matter where the planes struck them) etc.

Or is that to much work for you?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-24-2007, 07:24 PM
Oh, come on, W*GS. Look who you're talking to.

ROFL!

Says the God-obsessed nutcase.

Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 09:26 PM
Read the last few 9/11 threads that explain (a) how the fires from the burning jet fuel could not have produced enough heat to melt steel,

Didn't need to. Just had to get hot enough steel supports weakened enough
that they could no longer support the load.



(b) how a steel frame building has never collapsed from fire,

No steel framed building had ever been hit by a jumbo jet loaded
with fuel traveling 500 mph either. And none have been since.



(c) how it would have been impossible for the towers to collapse cleanly and neatly into their own footprints, (no matter where the planes struck them) etc.

They didn't. Debris was scattered over a wide area. In fact so much
debris struck WTC7 that the debris caused WTC7 to collapse too.


Or is that to much work for you?

No work at all. In fact it was quite easy.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-24-2007, 09:56 PM
Didn't need to. Just had to get hot enough steel supports weakened enough that they could no longer support the load.


But that's not what happened. Both towers somehow "coincidentally" fell perfectly into their own footprints in a manner that has only been accomplished via controlled demolition.

No steel framed building had ever been hit by a jumbo jet loaded with fuel traveling 500 mph either. And none have been since.

That's not the point. The proponents of the official account claim that the collapses were caused by the heat generated by the fires, and that the temp was hot enough to weaken the steel support beams (all of them simultaneously) to the point of collapse.

This has been shown to be impossible.


They didn't. Debris was scattered over a wide area.

We're not talking about debris - we're talking about the fact that both towers collapsed into their own footprints (rather than asymmetrically like every other steel frame building collapse on record.)


In fact so much
debris struck WTC7 that the debris caused WTC7 to collapse too.


Now that's a claim that has less factual support and sounds nuttier than any "conspiracy theory" I've ever seen.

Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 10:04 PM
This has been shown to be impossible.




This phrase pretty much sums the whole thing up. By who?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-24-2007, 10:10 PM
This phrase pretty much sums the whole thing up. By who?

By everyone who knows how hot steel has to get before it melts or is sufficiently weakened to cause structures like the WTC towers to collapse perfectly into their own footprints.

Bronco Bob
09-24-2007, 10:31 PM
By everyone who knows how hot steel has to get before it melts or is sufficiently weakened to cause structures like the WTC towers to collapse perfectly into their own footprints.

And who are they? And what are their credentials?

W*GS
09-24-2007, 10:32 PM
Read the last few 9/11 threads that explain (a) how the fires from the burning jet fuel could not have produced enough heat to melt steel,

What about everything else that was burning? And steel doesn't have to melt to lose enough strength to collapse under a load. You're also neglecting the damage from the plane impacts.

(b) how a steel frame building has never collapsed from fire,

Again, you're neglecting the damage from the planes' impacts. Why?

(c) how it would have been impossible for the towers to collapse cleanly and neatly into their own footprints, (no matter where the planes struck them) etc.

Neither WTC1 nor WTC2 collapsed "cleanly and neatly into their own footprints" - if they had, WTC7 wouldn't have been struck by falling debris, and they wouldn't be in the process of deconstructing the old Deutsche Bank building.

Some time back, gaffney claimed that the distance of the debris from the towers' base proved controlled demolition took place - since only explosives could have provided sufficient horizontal momentum to put the debris at such a large distance from the base.

You two need to get your stories straight.

Or is that to much work for you?

I've answered your three piddly objections above; got any more?

Clearly, you're quite unfamiliar with what happened on 9/11 - I suggest reading the NIST report to help ensure you don't make such a fool of yourself. But, you've never taken my advice before in regards to your education; why would you start now?