SudsyFist

The player is a flash app. I don't use Flash at all in my Firefox install, but in IE, it works fine for me. Groovy use of wah, I might add. Whatchoo using?

Hated It.

NO MORE CHEETOS!

Ninjas, pirates, and donuts are boring... cut to the chase: have y'all defiled any relics yet? Made good use of the candlewax or communion media?

There, that's better. Thanks, Betsy. I may be popping in during the holiday boogie... I'll letcha know. And thanks to Claude for putting together yet another badass tracking event. And thanks to Brian and the rest of the Skydive Arizona staff for taking care of us (good spots, plenty of altitude, rides, etc.). And great thanks to everyone who participated, particularly Dusty, whose mad flying skillz kept the heat on and really made me work my ass off. EDIT: And thanks to everyone else for the congrats.

I need all y'all's (thanks, Rebecca) help again. The question of how realistic the admittedly extreme criteria are for qualifying a girl as attractive to me (repeat: to me, subjective, not absolute, lalala) has come up for the 59375th time in the last week, so I thought I'd get some feedback and see what others have to say about what I think is hot. Judging solely from the attached photo, this young lady is totally Sudsy-doable, totally my style. What do all y'all (thanks, again, Rebecca) think?

I understood what you said, and in the context of what you're saying, I agree. In fighting a disorganized, geographically spread force, nuclear weapons don't really provide a tactical advantage, definitely not one which could be justified, anyway. But take a step back for a moment. Birds-eye view. War on Terror, hmm? What sorts of things have been done under that pretext which were not also tactically advantageous against the declared enemy? Executive power grabs immediately come to mind (Patriot Act, semantic designation of "enemy combatant" to sidestep laws, the whole torture memo debacle, etc.). What about military action in general? Aside from an easily justifiable direct response against Afghanistan after 9/11 (as well as the followup Al Qaeda hunt), just how effective is further military action in eliminating terrorism at large (think Iraq's being sold under the War on Terror)? I'll give you a clue: it's not. Aside from specific missions that have rendered Al Qaeda a lot less effective (a *great* thing), the US's growing military presence in that region is inciting terrorism, not curbing it. And if you think that for a minute that incidents of terrorism going through the fucking roof over there has no effect over here, think again. The hate is growing. The War on Terror is a war on ideology moreso than it is on an opposing force. The enemy is amorphous, fueled by fierce and deeply driven (religious/spiritual) territorialism that does not die when shot or blown up. Coming from a layman's perspective, the only effective military solution with which I can come up is genocide. Which, of course, is horribly unrealistic, as no matter how anyone tries to package that one, no one's gonna buy it nor stand for it. EDIT: But I still won't put it past anyone in power to consider, or even try it. There are very, very smart people at top levels of the U.S. government who know all this quite well. It's silly, albeit entertaining, to consider otherwise. So why, then, would the U.S. be taking action under the banner of the War on Terror which pretty much could counter its objectives? Simple: there are other objectives, which have been gone over and gone over and determined to be worth the risk. Worth it for whom? What are these objectives? Does it even fucking matter to me as long as I can crack a beer every night when I get home and watch TV? For those who really do care, it's vitally important to take that step back. Bird's eye view. And see that governments take action that are not in line with stated objectives (or goals under which they're sold) all the freakin' time. I don't like it, I don't think it's right, but it's a fact. In light of this, thinking, "Nuh-uh. No way would we use nukes. Never. I mean, they're not effective against terrorists, so we won't use them," is roughly equivalent to "Not my kid." Only on a global scale. Don't put a damned thing past anyone in power, no matter how unlikely. The moment we let our guard down is the moment we start taking a force-fed liking to intrusion without lube.

Ding! Correct! Now, given that not only is that a chick flick, but it's also a musical... what does that mean for our man points?

Against terrorism? Consider for a moment other reasons for employ, despite the banner under which it might be sold.

And the award for Best Conversation Opener goes to...

And in an instant, the once radiant ember is snuffed by an onslaught of runny poo.

If that's the case, then I'm feeble right there with you. I've never understood nor related with personal pride in something over which the individual has absolutely no control or effect. It's a big WTF as far as I'm feebly concerned.

Yup. Perplexing, isn't it?

You have proof that the world doesn't celebrate His birth (among a number of other excuses) during the Southern Half's summer months? Goodness, professor, even after GTAVercetti's lesson on non sequitur today. Tsk tsk.

Do you, by chance, have children of service age? Have you, yourself, ever served?

Sometimes, you have some moments of serious brilliance.

There *is* a Southern Hemisphere, you know. How insensitive! More Humbug. The southern hemisphere has a winter solstice too. Your comment reminds me of the girl who asked whether England has a 4th of July. Your comment reminds me of the person who thinks Santa only comes when there's snow. Cos if you think just a teensy weensy bit more, you'll recognize that my comment had to do with its being summer in the Southern Hemisphere, during the time which Mr. Rich was suggesting the name, "winter solstice season." Professor, indeed.

Indeed.

I'm sorry, but is your heart bleeding a bit there?

I totally agree. I mean, satirical humour is one thing, but that repetitively condescending, "Shrub," and "sKerry," stuff was pretty lame.

Ah, nobody's gonna miss one Mexican, they all have a dozen kids each, anyway. Texas Justice... YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW! EDIT: Puh-raise Jayzus!

I hate mimes.

I wasn't debating you, dude. My post was definitely tangential. Sorry for not making that clear. EDIT: Whilst I understand that there's such a volume of material presented to Congress that it would be ludicrous for each word to be read personally by each legislator, it is absolutely deplorable for any legislator to not give personal attention to materials regarding an issue of this magnitude, in my opinion.

Nope. Sounds really sad, though. Really fucking depressing.