User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6746 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I own a Confederate flag and an old Ole Miss battle flag which has the beloved Colonel Reb superimposed over the stars and bars. I fly one of them pretty much every time I fire up my barbecue smoker, but of course I'm not cowed by the PC thuggery of easily offended folks like David.
One of the reasons I've yet to hunt you down like an animal is that I can always trust you to be literal minded like this. It's oddly endearing. (You do realize that "you voted R on every election for the last 20 years" is not actually well denied by "nuh uh, I voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s!", right?)
Back to the point at hand: you want to broad-brush every college sophomore who ever wore a Che t-shirt as morally identical to Pol Pot, but throw your hands up in the air and scream "false equivalency you rogue!" any time anyone notes that your actual voting and rhetorical behavior *in the world* supports and is supported by the most vile of racists and throwbacks across the nation.
Pick or choose, son. You can't have both.
I have an old "Hitler World Tour" T-shirt - but I NEVER wear it in public.
I have a FEAR shirt with a Panzer Mk IV or III on it but no one knows what it means, so ...
I have a shirt that I used to wear a lot with a dollar bill with a Bhaphomet instead of a presdent that says "THIS IS YOUR GOD" on the front and E is for Evil on the back. That could offend capitalists AND christians.
I have a couple t shirts with naked boobies on them (One a social distortion shirt and One some kind of Russian "The Deep" movie poster) but I am careful about when and where I wear them.
I wouldn't wear a confederate flag. I would wear a black panther shirt or an ANC shirt or even an Idi Amin shirt.
I would totally wear a Mussolini shirt, or a Lenin shirt, or a Soviet Flag, or an Enver Hoxha shirt. I have read Mao's book on Guerilla Warfare, but I probably would stop at a T-shirt in public. I actually have a Lenin pocket watch I picked up in Amsterdam, but I don't really wear it. I have a KGB hip flask.
I probably would not wear a Pinochet or Batista or Al Qaida or Bin Laden shirt... unless the event was topical or something. Nor would I wear an Israeli flag, but I would wear an Israeli army backpack (if my lap top fit).
My "actual voting behavior" *in the world* is not Republican. Sorry to keep pointing out that your stereotype of libertarians -- or at least me -- is false.
I was hoping people would try to figure out which 20 boxes I did fit.
David? David has the entire first row maxed out. Totally rolled 20s on row 1. I still maintain he's a good enough fit for 2.2 Definitely in for 3.1 and 3.4, and when as he gets older he will grow completely into the "The Island" at 3.2. I'll assume he's not going to Thailand for sex, though. See how generous I can be?
4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1 and probably 6.3 all apply as well. But I'll assume he doesn't go to Thailand for sex. See how generous I can be?
I also assume David has never, ever, not once been stoned, fired a weapon, or been anything close to what a reasonable person might describe as "briefly tempting."
Here's the thing about racism and David, if I may be so bold. I don't think David's a racist. I don't care that he's not. He consistently holds positions and promotes policies that enable racists and further racist ends. The fact that he does it out of bloody naivete and insular no-enemies-to-my-right partisanship doesn't make a damned bit of difference to me. I care about what happens in the world, not what someone wishes would happen but never does. A drunk driver that kills a family of four on the road can be very, very sad afterwards. He's still responsible for his behavior and the results of that behavior. Same goes for David and his tap dance around the realities of race in the world.
It's actually a bit of fad (soviet era nostalgia) -- they even have a word for it "Ostalgie".... and I highly recommend the film "Good Bye, Lenin!" -- funny and touching.
Well, it would be easier to guess which 4 you don't self identify with. You've already given us one. I'd say that you are not a stoner, are not a lefty, and that you don't practice statutory rape.
I've got you down for 15 up there. You probably, quite foolishly, believe you're "briefly tempting" too. Add it to the list of things you're wrong about. You may have gone to a gun range once too, but I don't count that. You ain't never fired a weapon at a living thing, I'd wager.
Ditto.
Shut up and roll to hit.
(The others are gross caricatures from a socialist, of course, but identifiable. Don't really read much Heinlein, and in any case the real kooky libertarians read L. Neil Smith anyway.)
I guess I should confess that I wore out my original "Nuke The Whales" T-shirt that I bought from the American Spectator's old Bloomington office about 35 years ago, and a ginormous Sandinista banner that I got at an anti-Somoza event before the real life Sandanistas got into power and started playing Castro Jr. with the Nicaraguan people.
------------------------------------------
I highly recommend the film "Good Bye, Lenin!" -- funny and touching.
There's never been a more perfect sendup of the Stalinist / Leninist mindset than Judy Davis's acidic portrayal of a woman who gives birth to Stalin's final love child in Children of the Revolution. Even Jane Fonda playing herself in 1971 couldn't have done a better job.
Yep -- another one very much worth digging up.
Taking its name from a (typically) great TRex song didn't hurt, either.
Tell me again about the evil bad socialists in the White House, daddy?
I actually just watched Good Bye, Lenin and The Lives of Others in the past few months. Kind of different takes on the same thing, but both great I thought.
ALSO: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days was a real trip into a communist society. I have a few Romanian friends who say it's quite a convincing portrayal.
Boo ####### hoo. Try harder, then.
There were, and are, many legitimate complaints about the political and economic realities in Latin America and the US role in those realities. Those who are comfortable summarily executing others in the name of "revolutionary justice" aren't really in any position to legitimately raise them. Just the opposite in fact.
Basically, if one is going to dress up as a Marxist revolutionary- shouldn't he, at least, dump the Rolex and give it a decent effort? Based on his behavior, as opposed to his poetry, there isn't any reason to think that if Che had gone to prep school in Wallingford, instead of Rosario, he wouldn't have ended up a proud "imperialist" in his own right.
Other than how pretty he was, he looks to be every bit as petty and brutal as those who he claimed to despise.
Funny stuff coming from somebody who weeps and stamps his feet like a petulant toddler every time somebody makes a truthful observation about the perfidious practices of liberals.
The way I see it, politicians and government are inherently corrupting, so it only makes sense to limit their size and influence. Given my experience as a civil servant, and from observation of what is going on around the world, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise, but I would be open to a reasoned argument to the contrary.
Like Tim Watley, the dentist who converted to Judiasm for the jokes, it offends me more as a comedian.
I do sympathize with the cartoon creator, though. Leftist "political" humor is almost always singularly unfunny and cringe-inducing, leaving as the only mystery whether the problem rests with leftism or leftists. That's a tough obstacle for anyone to overcome.
The issue with that view is that any organization are 'inherently' corrupting whether it is a private or public company or organization. Given my experience as a human being on the planet Earth, and from observation of what is going on around the world, I don't see how anyone could acivil servantrgue otherwise, but I would be open to a reasoned argument to the contrary.
It's power that's corrupting, not government. And if government doesn't have the power, somebody else does. We at least have the ability to change the government when it becomes corrupt.
Not really. I mean, you wouldn't be offended if, instead of the 24 types of Libertarians, someone illustrated the one type of progressive would you?
You're right about the pedophilia and segregation stuff, but the libertarian and the modern prog see the world very differently on a few issues (see 427 & 429.) They are supposed to be able to laugh at each other.
Well, that's what you get for having some nebulous preferences for a position on the ideological spectrum that has some tiny percentage of purveyors that wear Che-- I mean, Ayn Rand t-shirts...
Everyone complains about how other people misrepresent them. Everyone's right to a certain extent. Libertarians are no more victimized than anyone else, so... yeah, boo ####### hoo.
You must, to some extent. You expressed it in a public forum, and you wouldn't have if you didn't.
Is this a particular problem of the left? Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places but the right doesn't exactly have a proud tradition of comics does it? Dennis Miller is the only one I can think of off the top of my head and pretty much anything funny I can think of from him was decidedly un-political. I would imagine all confessional political comedy would be lacking somewhat as it inherently dillutes the goal of comedy with the goal of scoring political points.
Good comedians typically have some level of self-deprecation and good satirists typically have some affection for the subject of their satire. A lot of political "humor" lacks both of those elements, which is why it's not funny. It has nothing to do with ideology.
Frankly, that's why it's not really a 'social ideology' or realistic theory of governance... and why it's sort of pointless to talk politics with "libertarians".
I mean, who doesn't find some form of agreement with a thought process that essentially comes down to "leave me, my money, my body, my relationships, et al alone and let me make up my own mind". I don't care if you're conservative, liberal, 'moderate' or haven't ever had so much as a single thought about ideology or government -- there's certainly some aspect of life you'd just assume no one else had any influence over but you.
Whether you want to call him a true libertarian or not might be up for debate, but I'd bet there isn't a single person in the US who doesn't have ONE thing they strongly agree with Ron Paul about...
Yes, and for liberals, those aspects are two: sex and drugs.
Well, three, if we include rock & roll.
I mean, who doesn't find some form of agreement with a thought process that essentially comes down to "leave me, my money, my body, my relationships, et al alone and let me make up my own mind". I don't care if you're conservative, liberal, 'moderate' or haven't ever had so much as a single thought about ideology or government -- there's certainly some aspect of life you'd just assume no one else had any influence over but you.
Whether you want to call him a true libertarian or not might be up for debate, but I'd bet there isn't a single person in the US who doesn't have ONE thing they strongly agree with Ron Paul about...
This is a good point. The sticky issues of politics are always the ares where the rights of the individual to be left alone conflict with the rights of (one or more) of the family, the neighbors, the community, the state, the nation, etc., and somebody's rights have to give.
The problem with Libertarians is that many don't recognize that those other groups have rights, so the arguments become futile. Strangely, they ascribe rights to corporations, but not other collectives.
Whither Stephen Colbert?
I think he's a superb satirists -- granted, I'm ideologically kindred with him, and sure, he misses the mark (especially in interviews) on more than rare occasions, but in many cases, I think his act is hilarious. I thought his Colbert SuperPAC stuff was top notch.
You say that like it's a bad thing! I'm hesitant to speak for such an nebulous blob of people as "liberals" but I think a few of them like Ron Paul's anti-war stuff too.
If nothing else Colbert's satire is impressive. I hesitated bringing him up because while I think he's funny (or thought...I haven't seen his show in probably 5 years or so) such an opinion isn't going to make much headway in the "left vs. right: Who's Funnier" debate.
Yes, and for liberals, those aspects are two: sex and drugs
If only that was actually true.
I admit pedophilia's a low blow. But, please note where I've both admired and proffered Szym as the libertarian spokesman about two dozen times over the past three years. And that's WITH Szym's "I'll tell my daughter we won't buy ice cream there" argument. Or, you could listen to...
Funny stuff coming from somebody who weeps and stamps his feet like a petulant toddler every time somebody makes a truthful observation about the perfidious practices of liberals.
Making things up on the internet is fun. Find where I was offended because someone made fun of a liberal. Until then, keep up with the tiger blood, winning-boy. (Me getting pissed because you called me a thief for paying less taxes than you is not the same thing. Words - important AND easy.)
Well, three, if we include rock & roll.
Not the way Hutcheson defines it. Blech.
(And, to be accurate, liberals are often rather against nazi death metal, actually.)
Not really. I mean, you wouldn't be offended if, instead of the 24 types of Libertarians, someone illustrated the one type of progressive would you?
Give me 24 types and we'll talk!
I'll give you pedophilia (see how generous I can be!?) But our resident libertarian-right chorus has already regaled us previously on the natural rights of segregation, back when Rand Paul was running for Senate.
There's a debate about that? What kind of handicap are you giving the right-wingers that even gets them in the argument?
As you know, Snapper, the rights flow from those of the individual. Corporations are formed by people who agree to be members of the group; but collectives such as "neighbors" and "the state" are not people who have agreed to be similarly bound (*). Corporations don't take from anyone (or if they do, they're subject to punishment); collectives such as "the state" do.
(*) And this is why liberals have to resort to talking about the silly, non-existant notion of a "social contract."
You mean actual bodily rights of the human animal, as opposed to abstracted, disembodied "rights" of some vague, theoretical, legally constructed entity wrapped up in the psychology-masquerading-as-math that is economics?
Yeah. Sure. Put me down with that. And hell, throw in rock and roll while you're add it.
Take it up with the rector, choir boy.
You really hate your mom and dad this much?
When the ACLU supported the rights of Nazis to march through Skokie, were they pro-Nazi? Or merely supportive of the right of all peoples to exercise free speech? Do you understand the distinction? If so, why do you pretend otherwise?
Clearly, since you're doing it right now. But hey, if you want to pretend you're not brittle and thin-skinned in political threads here, go nuts. Just makes it more fun for me the next time you do it.
I would argue that the individual people who belong to that corporation has these rights, but not the corporation itself. A corporation is a tool used to help amass capital, treating it as something else defeats the purpose.
But I don't entirely agree with that. Some rights flow from the individual, but humans are social creatures, we are not autonomous. We have involuntary associations (e.g. family, community, nation) as well as voluntary ones (religion, community organizations, corporations). Both confer rights, priveleges and responsibilities. The simplest example is that a parent has no individual right to not support his minor children; there is a non-voluntary unvoidable association.
The business of social organizations and gov't (as a specific social org.) is mediating the conflicting claims between individual and association (voluntary or involuntary).
Indictment is not humor, doofus.
Words!
EDIT: Actually, that's not really accurate. Oh well. Keep looking, though, I'll wait for you to point it out, Charlie.
Whereas I would expand it and say all kinds of collectives have certain rights (voluntary and involuntary).
Colbert is a good example, and I think it's clear that while he disagrees with conservatives, he doesn't hate them. It's why he's actually funny, while Miller, or Limbaugh/Olbermann when they're trying to be funny, simply aren't.
EDIT: Another way to say it is that shrillness, while sometimes appropriate, is rarely funny. Lewis Black manages to do it, but that's more shtick than reality.
Probably the latter.
I don't know, man. Math is *hard.*
If the ACLU were supporting public policy actions which would *facilitate a rise in power for Nazis and Nazi social programs* I'd have a much bigger issue with the ACLU.
Wait, you mean you were actually offended by that cartoon, and not just having us on? For my own sense of faith in the human race, please tell me it's the latter.
That's not entirely true --
For one thing, corporations necessarily have interactions with individuals -- and all you have to do is look at everything from intellectual property to say, online privacy/personal data aggregation, the misuse of copyright/trademark law, things like SLAPP suits, etc -- to see that corporations are quite capable of trampling the individual, too.
As for 'collectives' like the state - I suppose you don't have much choice where you're born (but then, until you reach adulthood, your choices of interactions with corporations are likewise limited, just by your parents) - but you're free to leave many, even most, states if you so choose.
Yeah - I was trying to think of a good conservative humorist... the best I can come up with is PJ O'Rourke, whom I do find occasionally amusing. The Zuckers used to be funny - but whether pure or coincidence or otherwise - it seems like they quit making funny movies right around the time they changed their political stripes. I actually saw An American Carol - and I really, really, really did try to give it a fair shake... but it's just not funny - there was a tiny handful of moments - but I saw it in a theater, and I don't think I've ever been in a theater for a comedy that drew fewer laughs. It was like 80 minutes of Nelson Muntz using your own fist to punch you and saying "stop hitting yourself stop hitting yourself stop hitting yourself..."
A Roman Catholic Sunday school teacher, in fact...
Some of my favorite comic strips are unquestionably left leaning or straight left. Some of (say) Doonebury or Bloom County (or Outland) is indeed cringe-worthy and/or tired but a lot of it is in fact pretty funny (at least in my opinion -- I know a lot of people can't stand either. And it often has nothing to do with where they stand on the political spectrum, though I think righties are more likely to despise either of the strips)
That's more true than not, but as someone who grew up in the first years of William F. Buckley's National Review, I can testify that there are (or at least were) some exceptions to that, primarily Buckley himself but also including one or two of his cartoonists. And of course the underground humor in the former USSR and the satellite states was legendary in its ability to puncture "socialist" pretensions.
And the truth is that most liberal attempts at political humor are pretty lame themselves. The guy who attempts a sort of Ted Rall impression in the Sunday NY Times Week in Review is just embarrassingly bad, and he's hardly the only one whose bite is less than advertised. But the reason that more liberal attempts at humor succeed than their right wing counterparts is that there's not any large group of truly insane people on the left these days who're the equivalent of those who thrived in the late 60's and early 70's, whereas the rhetoric of today's Tea Party and Republican candidates is like a big fat bullseye that even the sorriest liberal comedian can't always miss.
Absolutely, though at times his cholera wins out over his wit. I've heard he hasn't been well lately, though, and perhaps that might explain part of his recent slippage. But much of his earlier work, like that bit of reporting he did on one of The Nation's cruise ships, was worthy of the best satirists anywhere on the spectrum. Ditto Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic sendup of Leonard Bernstein's Black Panther fundraising party.
I always thought Bloom County was better than Doonesbury -- I'm pretty sure Berkeley Breathed is a lefty, but Bloom County, I think, did an excellent job mixing up the skewerings. Recall Steve Dallas getting transformed into a metrosexual by aliens, for example...
Anybody know where I can find any Meadow Party campaign posters?
I should say so, cholera is no walk in the park!
Wolfe would be another one I enjoy.
Agree there, since the absurdist / anarchic POV is usually the style that holds up best.
But while Doonesbury can sink into the "We Are The World" sort of sentimentalism, some of his best stuff in the old days was just as much of a lampoon of the Left as it was of the Right. It wasn't O'Rourke or Wolfe who created a minister whose cat was named "Kent State", and until he outed himself and became sort of a gay icon, Megaphone Mark was a total sendup of the stereotyped campus radical.
Cancer
(Treatable and in remission right now)
(*) Used very elastically; each is such an easy target that politics per se isn't driving the humor.
(**) Donald Trump was a frequent target, but he outlasted Spy. That isn't a felicitous development.
Interesting column.
I'm reminded of what Christopher Hitchens wrote after being diagnosed:
"In whatever kind of a 'race' life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist."
His earlier stuff is fantastic; Holidays in Hell and Parliament of Whores in particular still hold up very well ...
Is that what Limbaugh and Olbermnann are trying to do?
Seriously, I haven't seen Olbermann enough to comment, but many of Rushbo's audience do think that his jokes are funny of course that would be the scariest knuckle dragging section of his audience. Rush obviously thinks that not only is he funny, but sometimes he thinks he's hysterical (he's not, when he's in his "look at me I could have done stand-up" mode he's actually pretty creepy)
I've seen Maddow's show a few times, and she clearly thinks she's funny, but alas she's not, she's just really annoying.
And then there is Mallard Fillmore- the only thing more constant than its politics is its complete lack of humor- I mean you have a duck giving a deadpan comment, usually about lefties, and usually intended to be ironic in some fashion- but in reality the strips all fall into these categories
1: A deadpan observation regarding some non-existent strawman, no set up, not funny
2: A deadpan observation regarding some nearly non-existent fringe lefties (where it is assumed that such lefties constitute the mainstream of the left- functional equivalent of a strawman argument), no set up, not funny
3: A deadpan observation regarding how liberals are inconsistent and/or hypocritical- most but not all of these simply mischaracterize liberals/ liberal beliefs/ liberal actions, but again no actual joke set up, not funny (even when the observations are "accurate"
I have no doubt that the guy who writes Mallard Fillmore is the type of guy who could be given the 10 best one liners ever created, stand up at a club at open mike night- deliver each 10 and be met with the sound of crickets...
Not all the time, but I've certainly seen them try to be funny. Limbaugh moreso than Olbermann.
Seriously, I haven't seen Olbermann enough to comment, but many of Rushbo's audience do think that his jokes are funny of course that would be the scariest knuckle dragging section of his audience. Rush obviously thinks that not only is he funny, but sometimes he thinks he's hysterical (he's not, when he's in his "look at me I could have done stand-up" mode he's actually pretty creepy)
I think most bad political humor requires that you believe the absolute worst about your opponent, so yeah, that stuff will be lapped up by the true believers. The real question is whether moderates or folks on the other side will find it funny.
#### YEAH!
Cancer
(Treatable and in remission right now)
Glad to know he's likely to survive it. He used to come into my shop about 9 or 10 years ago when I was first selling posters, and he snapped several of them up immediately, including this one and this one and (I'm pretty sure) this one. Anyone who actually bought anything instead of saying "Great stuff---I'll come back when I have more time" is never going to get knocked by me over a little thing like politics.
Individuals do not surrender their natural rights by participating in collective action, whether political, religious, or corporate. This feature of natural rights theory is so obvious that I have a hard time believing that any reasonable person could believe otherwise.
And how bizarre that you would think that "libertarians" don't believe that individuals retain their rights when they are members of churches, nonprofits, or other non-corporate institutions. I would sincerely enjoy speaking with the confused natural rights advocate who supports limiting campaign contributions from churches or PACs or who advocates ignoring first amendment rights depending on when a political primary is scheduled.
Cuba was certainly the most popular tourist venue in the Caribbean / Latin America region, being most famous for its mob-run casinos, its "gay" night life (in the former sense of that word), and its corruption. It was a big fat piece of fruit just waiting to be picked by any guerrilla with a well organized army and the ability to articulate grievances. In terms of standard of living, it was near the top in Latin America, but unsurprisingly, it was also topheavy in terms of distribution.
One other thing of note: From 1954 to 1960, Cuba had a AAA team in the International League, the Havana Sugar Kings, a farm club of (who else?) the Cincinnati Reds. They won the Junior World Series in 1959 with Castro arguing with the umpires and armed soldiers all around the stadium, but by July of 1960 the political situation became so tense that Ford Frick ordered the team to be moved to Jersey City, where for a year and a half they sported the singularly imaginative moniker of the "Jersey City Jerseys". I'd have to guess that Ford Frick himself picked the name.
Of course that depends on what you describe as "natural rights". They certainly give up some rights.
As member of a family, you don't have a right to withhold your income/wealth/property from the other family members, i.e. you can't refuse to support your spouse and children. You give up some of your right to property, and to your labor, in care for the children.
As member of a political entity, you don't have a right to withhold your effort from the national defense of that entity; whether it be the obligation to serve in the militia of an ancient polis, or the obligation of taxation or conscription in a modern state. You give up some of your rights of liberty and property. If you violate the terms of military service (e.g. desertion) you give up your very right to life.
As a member of a business partnership, you give up control of the assets you have contributed, and control of your labor to the collective control of the partnership. Again you give up some of your property rights.
As member of a religion, you give up your rights to hold certain beliefs and take certain actions. If you are a Muslim, you can't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or attend synagogue.
As I understand it, pre-Castro Cuba was the premier tourism destination in the Caribbean. I can't find a cite for that, however.
It's certainly likely that at this point, in an alternate universe where Castro never came to power, it would be the most popular tourism destination in the Caribbean for US citizens (if you take out the US, the DR is the only country that beats Cuba).
It's hard to say now, because the resorts are really shitty compared to the rest of the Caribbean. It'd probably be a strong #2, but it's ultimate destination would be a family vacation/gambling destination (like Vegas).
Cuba was certainly the most popular tourist venue in the Caribbean / Latin America region, being most famous for its mob-run casinos, its "gay" night life (in the former sense of that word), and its corruption.
This, and the rise of Castro/fall of Batista, is a key part of the plot of the Godfather 2.
and Tom Tomorrow / This Modern World
But they are probably too ideological for all you "centrists".
Yeah, during his peak in the 80s/90s, he was laugh out loud funny. Not so much over the past decade or so, but considering his age/health, no huge surprise.
Do you s'pose a person could find a game-worn Jersey City Jersey jersey on eBay?
I was offended by that cartoon as much as I'm offended by people who think Bush or Obama were/are good presidents, let's put it that way.
Don't know, but I've got a bud on one of the Channel Islands that repurposes old baseball uniforms to keep his cows warm. I could ask him if he has a Jersey Jersey City Jerseys Jersey jersey.
This is the answer. There was a pub called the Crown and Anchor, and they needed a new street sign, so they enlisted the services of the local sign maker. He came back a couple of days later and put up the sign, but as he was coming down the ladder the pub owner came out adn complained that the sign wasn't quite right. He said that the word "Crown" was too low, but the word "Anchor" wasn't low enough. So the signmaker thought about it and replied "So what you're basically telling me is that there should be equal spaces between Crown and And and And and Anchor?"
Who would you consider to have been a "good President"?
Nobody since Kennedy for sure, but IMHO Bush and Obama are unequivocally the two worst.
That's an especially bad spelling of either Ford or Reagan (not sure which one you were going with).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main