What the frick?!

This forum can be a scary place, 'cause we got lax rules: let's see your war face. Take a breath, and roll the dice, you might find out we're really nice.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:41 am

Regarding the state of US education funding:

Let's look at RuffDraft's source where it has the relevant information. Turns out that if you take the total (primary and secondary, since RuffDraft brought it up) expenses shown there and account for population growth and inflation, real spending per capita has gone up about 1% per year (though the 2009-2010 increase was almost 0). The declining influence of the Baby Boomers in demographics should account for some of that increase (meaning that student-age kids became a larger percentage of the population), but spending per student would still be pretty flat. What could account for the reports of schools having to make drastic cuts?

Recall earlier where I showed that most of the cost of education goes to pay people. It's almost as if a factor of compensation grew much faster than inflation. I wonder what it could be...
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:47 am

so hey we should like really tax the fuck out of the top 1% of America, like 1950s high taxes. Talk about amazing growth for the nation!!! wow eisenhower what a cool guy :O
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:49 am

I got it. All Snafu regulars will put all their money together and buy an island. BR and Val will be the authority over everything. Problems solved.
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:00 am

Image
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:04 am

Stufflikehearts wrote:I got it. All Snafu regulars will put all their money together and buy an island. BR and Val will be the authority over everything. Problems solved.


i am okay with this.

Valhallen wrote:Image


no no, no power struggle here, chum.

valhallen can be Celestia and I'll be Luna without all the Nightmare Moon nonsense.

He can get all the glory so long as I can molest all of you in your dreams.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:07 am

You can molest me in and out of dreams.
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:08 am

Stufflikehearts wrote:You can molest me in and out of dreams.


*leaps into the air, goes SSJ, flying highfive*
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:22 am

BeeAre wrote:so hey we should like really tax the fuck out of the top 1% of America, like 1950s high taxes.

And that would do... what, with 100% certainty?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Q.U. » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:57 am

The Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would be watched by the FBI instead of the CIA. Is that supposed to be a major cost-saver?

It would be a cost saver even if the social tensions would remain the same. Simply because you'd have one fully cooperating group at the border, with a single leadership and incentives. While right now you have separate organisations who don't really cooperate and often don't even exchange information.

So politically unified, with religions, ethnicities, and living standards as they have been "throughout time". How many insurrections do you think the US has had to deal with? Because governments in the real world have to guard against such things even in the absence of foreign concerns, cutting that "lot more" is not a practical possibility. Hence my contention that unifying the world may reduce military costs, but the remainder would still be significant.

I agree, it would be significant in the scenario you presented. You also agreed that if the world was unified in many more ways that same cost would be reduced. And my only argument there was that the overall cost would be reduced in each scenario. Which as you just said, is true. I know there would still be a need for a lot of funds to keep the government in charge, and to keep the people under rule of law in cases of social unrest, but we can agree that the amount of money and people needed would be lower.

That's a conclusion that ought to come after a quantitative analysis. Care to do one to justify your claim?

We're discussing a theoretical concept, and I'm giving the most general estimate possible. I don't see how diving into numerical analysis would help this argument any, because frankly I don't believe either of us can predict the results accurately enough, and take all necessary variables into consideration. If you have any theoretical reason for which a single country-state would have to spend more on peacekeeping than a collective of countries then by all means present it. Until then, I've shown my reasons for which I believe it would cost less. How much less will depend only on the details of the situation, which I don't think we need to specify any further.

Did you read the link I gave before? The Germans went around the Maginot Line, and started serious attacks on it after taking Paris. Even after cutting the Line off from the rest of France and attacking from both sides with air superiority, it didn't go easily. Most of the fortifications were intact and manned when France surrendered. Keep in mind that this was before precision weapons made fixed fortifications completely obsolete in repelling major attacks. Artillery, mortars, and machine guns in armored turrets supported by a network of bunkers, all behind tank and infantry obstacles, was a significant impediment for an attacker with WWII technology. And Switzerland had a network of such things running through the country.

Last time I heard any data on Maginot Line it was while I've been watching Discovery World. And while I admit they tend to oversimplify the information sometimes, I still believe they are historically accurate. And if I remember right, the force going through Belgium did make progress much faster, but both lines of attack did break through eventually. We may try to look up the program that gave me this information if you're really that opinionated on this.

Edit
Though I'd rather not. Not only am I rather weak in history, it's also a complete digression here (while somewhat interesting).
I'd like to remind you that the only reason why we're arguing whether or not Germans went through the Maginot Line is because it was to provide a comparison for why they did not invade Switzerland, and to determine whether they didn't due to fortifications or due to neutrality.
Which in turn we were discussing only as a loosely-related side argument for why it is more beneficial spending-wise to have a single world government than a collective of independent countries.
Which was an unnecessary continuation of our discussion on unifying the world, and on the world economy and monetary systems.

You keep using that word. Belgium declared itself neutral according to the standards of the Hague Convention of 1907 (Belgium decides whether or not it is neutral, not Germany). Germany didn't care and invaded anyway because Belgium provided an expedient route to Western Europe around the Maginot Line.

Indeed. So there were only a couple of differences between Belgium and Switzerland in neutrality. I will concede that the defences and military in Switzerland must have been one of the factors why it hadn't been invaded, but along with this I will still claim that that was not the one major reason. There are several reasons why Germany would have wanted to take over Belgium, as well as Holland. To begin with, it was a great counter-offensive starting point for its enemies. Neutral as it might have been, Belgium did side with the French and British during that first World War, and Germany surely remembered that. If left untouched Belgium would come under more and more pressure from the Allied countries to allow them to land in their country to launch an offensive on occupied France as well as on Germany itself. Such a problem was not present in case of Switzerland. Another reason was the Maginot Line, and Belgium being the only safe passage to France. The though of being stuck in a position fight with the French again did not sit well with Hitler's idea of Blitzkrieg. Lastly, I don't think we should give this much credit to German's "pros and cons" analysis, in case of reasons why conquering Switzerland would bring less profit than it would cost. Hitler was in charge, and if he followed such rules he'd never have attacked the Soviets in the first place. And finally, Switzerland seems to be closer culturally and socially to Germany than Belgium, which I believe to be another reason why Switzerland was not invaded. Germany didn't invade Austria either, they simply forcefully annexed it. They probably had the same plans for Switzerland should they have won against the British and Soviets. Let's not forget that while German generals were reasonable and did follow the standards of thought as to which countries to invade and when and where to fight, Hitler did not fall into many categories there, he was a fanatic who wanted global world domination. I'm certain he would have invaded Switzerland sooner or later if the war played out the way he'd imagined.

Switzerland has a population and GDP (PPP) of about 7.8M and $315B, for a little over $40K per capita. Nigeria has about 152M and $374B, for about $2460 per capita. Fusing Switzerland and Nigeria would produce a country with a population of about 160M and GDP (PPP) of about $689B, for about $4300 per capita. If Switzeria / Nigerland spent per capita for its military what Switzerland does today ($526), military spending would be about 12% GDP, compared to Nigeria's actual military expenditure of about 1.5% GDP. In absolute terms, Switzerland really is more militarized than most places in the world, despite its neutrality and your use of it as an example of a place with the "huge weight" of maintaining a military off its shoulders.

If Switzeria / Nigerland spent per capita for its military what Switzerland does today ($526)

So what now, you fuse the countries by averaging all the values but when it comes to military expenditure you use the plain value of Switzerland? That's not consistent. Be consistent and take an average of both, then you'd see how militarised it would really be.
Firstly, both Nigeria and Switzerland spend 0.8% of their GDP on military, so you don't have to average anything there. It would be $5.5B spent on military.
Again it's silly to compare that if you fuse a rich and a poor country then if it still spent as much per capita on military as the rich one it would be spending loads. Because it wouldn't. Because the amount of spending per capita is dependent for each country on the GDP per capita. If you want to make it an argument you'd have to calculate what % of GDP per capita Switzerland spends on military (GDP per capita $69,838 and spent on military per capita $526, so 0.75% of GDP per capita) thus your fused country would be spending about $32.25 per capita, which makes it about $5B military expenditure in total, and again 0.75% of GDP spent for military.
So no, Switzerland spends more GDP, and more GDP per capita on military than many militarised countries. But that's only because it is still a very low % of their GDP and % of their GDP per capita.

...I didn't forget to mention it. It's at the end of what you quoted there.

I forgot that. You're right.
Anyway, human genetic engineering is generally NOT illegal (care to cite any laws to the contrary?) Certain kinds of genetic modification will probably be made illegal in some places when they get closer to practicality (non-therapeutic embryo modification, say). Keep in mind that we're talking about dealing with the negative consequences of genetic drift caused by the removal of selection pressures, meaning therapeutic changes like susceptibility to type 1 diabetes. I don't see that becoming illegal.

Most countries have a blurred line of legality in case of genetic engineering. The biggest regulators are the Cartagena Protocol and the ICGEB. In some countries they push more (like in the USA trying to force them to sign it), in others they push less (China), some countries are lax with legal status of genetic engineering (Brazil), and others are in general publicly hostile towards any of it (UK).
Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/007 ... ional.html

Why are you confident that the peak efficiency has not been passed?

Because we can see richer schools being much more efficient?

Quantifying the efficiency of education is somewhat nebulous, but do you think that increasing school funding by 10% would increase standardized test scores by more or less than 10%?

Again, depends on how well the money is spent. It's hard to answer your question, since you didn't give me any point of reference. Let's say I believe that a poor and underachieving public school in New York ghetto area with metal detectors at doors and in an area with extremely high crime rates and high levels of poverty would increase its tests results by more than 10% with a 10% extra money invested, that provided the money is well spent where it needs to be and not stolen or wasted. It is hard to make predictions, however, since there are so many other variables which affect the scores that it becomes a truly moot estimate.
I agree that increasing school funding would increase the efficacy (which is the more important consideration at this point), but that's not the same as efficiency.

Nobody said that efficiency is or always has to be linearly dependent on all its variables. And in fact, there is no reason for which decreasing the funding by 10% would decrease the results by more or less than 10%, seeing as other factors change their effect on the school's efficiency in teaching as the efficiency changes. We have dynamic variables to work with. Either way, whether you call it efficiency or efficacy it virtually means one thing. Especially since I never once said that the efficiency of a school can be calculated solely on the standardised test results. In fact, I deem that to be a gross and naive oversimplification. Education is too abstract for us to simplify it like that.
Speaking of which, I just downloaded an A4 page in pdf with the full and complete Standard Model Lagrangian.


And that would do... what, with 100% certainty?

Increase tax revenue? That would be my guess.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3269
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:14 pm

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:
BeeAre wrote:so hey we should like really tax the fuck out of the top 1% of America, like 1950s high taxes.

And that would do... what, with 100% certainty?

Increase tax revenue? That would be my guess.

I was going to say "destroy big business" and "outsource a lot of jobs overseas," and perhaps "cause hyperinflation."

But of course, destroying big business would be a good thing, right BR?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Grey » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:24 pm

you read all the posts and you typity-type
but i think that all you are typing is tripe
so - YOU'RE NOT CRESCENT FRESH
your whole life's a mess
Image
I'm NORML and I VOTE
Soul Silver Friend Code: 0260-2900-0828
Suave Brit

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11148
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:08 pm
Gender: Male
Sexiness: Godlike

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:25 pm

GLENN. MOTHER FUCKING. BECK.

LOST.

HIS.

JOB.



:D
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Grey » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:27 pm

^
lol
Image
I'm NORML and I VOTE
Soul Silver Friend Code: 0260-2900-0828
Suave Brit

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11148
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:08 pm
Gender: Male
Sexiness: Godlike

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:28 pm

Also, how does increased tax revenue lead to hyperinflation now?
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:02 pm

DaCrum wrote:Also, how does increased tax revenue lead to hyperinflation now?


yeah, i am confused on this point because the 1950s were famous for their economic growth despite the 90% tax rate for the highest brackets

because i don't think there was anything like "destroy[ed] big business" there's already a significant amount of "outsource a lot of jobs overseas" despite the extremely LOW taxes, and there was nothing that you could say "cause[d] hyperinflation"; how odd!

Hmmmm. Was Eisenhower, the president for the majority of the 50s because of his work as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II, in fact an anti-business president?
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:23 pm

Nay, he was the first modern Republican.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:26 pm

DaCrum wrote:GLENN. MOTHER FUCKING. BECK.

LOST.

HIS.

JOB.

:D

Except, he's not leaving FoxNews. Glenn Beck is the third-highest rated show on television. I doubt very seriously that they would fire him just like that. What happened was he decided that he doesn't want to do the 5 o'clock show for the rest of his life; he did not lose his job, he just wants to do something else. If he was being fired, he'd already be gone.

And if you don't believe me, check next week and see if he's done anything on FoxNews.

Grey wrote:^
lol
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby EagleMan » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:51 pm

As much as I would love the irony, it is a bit muddled. They (Beck and Fox) probably just came together and decided it was best to discontinue the show. Beck was acting as a lightning rod for controversy and lost many advertisers on his show. His ratings also started to slide (though remained impressive regardless) after the midterm elections, for reasons you can deduce yourself.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:16 pm

DaCrum wrote:Also, how does increased tax revenue lead to hyperinflation now?
Well, right now, we're printing money because we don't have any available to use, what with the way we're spending it. Our GDP has been exceeded by our National Debt.

If the value of the dollar devalues to the point where the price of food, etc begins to rise sharply, we have begun hyperinflation. At the point when government has to force companies to raise their wages just so people can afford to buy food, etc, it's already happened.

Let us say, at this stage in the colorful game known as Economics that congress likes to play with our money, they raise the top marginal tax rate to 90% for people who make over $5M/yr--just for the sake of argument. There becomes a disincentive to create jobs and grow, and the price of food, etc would likely further rise as well, in order to keep paying their workers that same level.

Imagine a loaf of bread costing $300 or more. You remember what happened to Germany, don't you? Of course you do, cuz we were all alive back then and learned from history's mistakes..

BeeAre wrote:yeah, i am confused on this point because the 1950s were famous for their economic growth despite the 90% tax rate for the highest brackets
There was growth because the unions had not overpriced labor to the point where they ruined the industries, which later made many jobs go away.

In Norway, do they have unilaterally aggressive labor unions like in the US?

I rest my case.

BeeAre wrote:because i don't think there was anything like "destroy[ed] big business" there's already a significant amount of "outsource a lot of jobs overseas" despite the extremely LOW taxes, and there was nothing that you could say "cause[d] hyperinflation"; how odd!
So, there's outsourcing with LOW taxes, and you want to RAISE them?

There are signs to hyperinflation. If you don't know that they exist, please go down to the local gas station and check what the price of gas is. Then, go to the local grocery store and notice the rise in the price of a loaf of bread. In 2000, the price of a loaf of bread (average) was about $1.10 or so. As of 2010, it was over $2.80. And while there are other factors at play, I doubt that an increase of 154% is due to scarcity of yeast. Yes, and wheat, okay?

BeeAre wrote:Hmmmm. Was Eisenhower, the president for the majority of the 50s because of his work as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II, in fact an anti-business president?
No, just anti-rich, like you, and others.

EagleMan wrote:As much as I would love the irony, it is a bit muddled. They (Beck and Fox) probably just came together and decided it was best to discontinue the show. Beck was acting as a lightning rod for controversy and lost many advertisers on his show.
Actually, he lost advertisers because they were threatened with boycotts by Media Matters and other extreme Left-Wing groups who want to see Beck and FoxNews taken off the air.

EDIT: And according to Beck, he is dropping the show because he just doesn't want to do it. He didn't want to do it on CNN, and when they offered him the gig on FoxNews, he originally did not accept the offer. But apparently he'll be doing specials on other shows and going around doing what he wants to do now, which will likely lead to decent ratings wherever he goes, heh.
Last edited by Rough Giraffe on Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:24 pm

Well, right now, we're printing money because we don't have any available to use, what with the way we're spending it. Our GDP has been exceeded by our National Debt.


That's increased printing, not increased taxes.

If the value of the dollar devalues to the point where the price of food, etc begins to rise sharply, we have begun hyperinflation. At the point when government has to force companies to raise their wages just so people can afford to buy food, etc, it's already happened.


Still haven't explained where taxes get to this.

Let us say, at this stage in the colorful game known as Economics that congress likes to play with our money, they raise the top marginal tax rate to 90% for people who make over $5M/yr--just for the sake of argument. There becomes a disincentive to create jobs and grow, and the price of food, etc would likely further rise as well, in order to keep paying their workers that same level.


Even if there's no historical precedent to suggest high taxes disturb the economy extensively.

Imagine a loaf of bread costing $300 or more. You remember what happened to Germany, don't you? Of course you do, cuz we were all alive back then and learned from history's mistakes..


Just discussed this in my history class. A combination of PRINTING money, horrible reparations, total demilitarization, loss of land and capital, loss of popular morale... Not higher taxes.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:29 pm

you rest your case based on what? you think norway doesn't have unilaterally aggressive labor unions?

yes, there is outsourcing with low taxes, and i do want to raise them. if we raise taxes, we are one of the last countries that have an evasive tax system, and companies will be forced to do more regulated businesses here if they want access to our still in high demand consumer market, and they'll no longer have their most significant tax haven with which to avoid regulatory costs. O_O

high prices exist because of JUST inflation?

eisenhower was anti-business? he won world war II, right? like, he was one of the major generals responsible for the war campaigns, and he was anti-business. What views of his do you think are not legitimate and well-thought? This is just out of curiosity.

it does not matter how advertisers were pulled away from glenn beck.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:22 am

Image
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:25 am

Totally ignoring everything except Valhallen right now.

Hah! It's like some mutated snake thing.

Oh, Valha, you prankster, you.

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDaAuFFOHI
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:32 am

And again.
Jodi Miller wrote:Betty White is set to star in a TV show that pranks the elderly. Mmm, I believe we already have something like that. It's called: Obamacare.
[Canned Laughter]
Awesome. lol
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Tuor » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:48 am

I really want to talk about the WWII part haha. But I have a feeling it'd be derailment.
"Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather-beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits."
Rest Easy Ethan
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18418
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:22 am
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Wham, Spam, Thank you, Ma'am!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests