Author Topic: Idiot of the Day (Read 253971 times)

Shale · « **Reply #1800 on:** June 05, 2011, 07:44:57 PM »

NotMiki · « **Reply #1801 on:** June 05, 2011, 07:51:48 PM »

Motherfucker wrote that article probably eats pizza with a fork.

Quote

A humorous aphorism attributed to E. B. White:

   To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
   To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
   To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
   To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
   To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
   And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

and a "Yankee breakfast" as we call it is absolutely delicious, especially if you put a hunk of cheddar on your apple pie.

Luther Lansfeld · « **Reply #1802 on:** June 05, 2011, 10:35:43 PM »

What the fuck is he even talking about? Did that article have a point?

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #1803 on:** June 05, 2011, 11:16:38 PM »

Pastry racism.

Captain K. · « **Reply #1804 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:17:21 AM »

Damn now I'm hungry for pie.

Shale · « **Reply #1805 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:19:10 AM »

I just picked up some lemon meringue.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #1806 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:21:04 AM »

Funny, I just had a slice of YOUR MOM and apple pie.

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #1807 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:43:16 AM »

Jim does better/10.

Cmdr_King · « **Reply #1808 on:** June 06, 2011, 01:48:36 AM »

I think the joke would flow a little better if it was "I had a piece of your MOM'S apple pie. Last night!"

NotMiki · « **Reply #1809 on:** June 06, 2011, 02:24:54 AM »

My mom, swear to god, makes the best apple pie I've ever had and ever will.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #1810 on:** June 06, 2011, 02:37:49 AM »

Quote from: Cmdr_King on June 06, 2011, 01:48:36 AM

I think the joke would flow a little better if it was "I had a piece of your MOM'S apple pie. Last night!"

Flow be damned, I'm an American. If having your mom and apple pie for breakfast is wrong, I don't want to be right.

NotMiki · « **Reply #1811 on:** June 06, 2011, 05:59:16 AM »

Can we, as a society, have a mature discussion about an important topic? Sex and food. Don't. Go. Together. Put that can of whipped cream away ferchrissakes. Save the chocolate syrup for ice cream.

...

Ok, great idea: market minifridges to nonsmokers so after sex they can have a nice relaxing sundae. Hey, they just burned a lotta calories and they deserve a little reward!

Grefter · « **Reply #1812 on:** June 06, 2011, 09:48:01 AM »

IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR JIM.

Does Ice could as part of this categorisation?

Edit - And can we find someone in this world that eats nipple clamps for breakfast if we mandate this?

NotMiki · « **Reply #1813 on:** June 06, 2011, 10:12:53 AM »

Quote from: Grefter on June 06, 2011, 09:48:01 AM

can we find someone in this world that eats nipple clamps for breakfast if we mandate this?

I never want to know the answer to that question. Unless the answer is no. Which it probably won't be.

Grefter · « **Reply #1814 on:** June 06, 2011, 10:20:19 AM »

Jim takes a hard pro-nipple clamp stance.

Anthony Edward Stark · « **Reply #1815 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:22:09 AM »

Quote from: NotMiki on June 06, 2011, 05:59:16 AM

Can we, as a society, have a mature discussion about an important topic? Sex and food. Don't. Go. Together. Put that can of whipped cream away ferchrissakes. Save the chocolate syrup for ice cream.

If eating my dinner off a naked woman is wrong, I don't want to be right.

NotMiki · « **Reply #1816 on:** June 06, 2011, 02:04:53 PM »

Why the fuck would you want to do that? If service is slow, you'll get blueballs before your main course!

Anthony Edward Stark · « **Reply #1817 on:** June 06, 2011, 08:04:18 PM »

I would think she'd be more worried I'd finish before she does, say "you're welcome" and then fall asleep.

DjinnAndTonic · « **Reply #1818 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:51:24 AM »

Sex and Food go perfectly fine together. You just have to make sure that you don't have sex someplace that's hard to clean, because chocolate syrup is annoying to get out of mattresses.

NotMiki · « **Reply #1819 on:** June 07, 2011, 06:26:21 PM »

I just don't understand you people. Sex and food is like a hot cup of tea and a rock concert.

Anthony Edward Stark · « **Reply #1820 on:** June 07, 2011, 07:17:31 PM »

Sounds like you either have bad sex or bland food. Either way you lose.

So, a new entry from the "South Florida is shady as fuck" file: you can kill people and buy your way out of prison.

http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/5805234-474/editorial-suburban-brat-gets-rich-mans-justice.html

From the presiding judge: "The need for restitution does outweigh the need for prison."

That's the kind of shit you say if you're talking about petty crimes like vandalism, not mowing two people down with your car.

NotMiki · « **Reply #1821 on:** June 07, 2011, 08:26:45 PM »

There is a particularly damaging rule of professional responsibility for lawyers: they're not allowed to lend money to their clients, even when those clients are good credit risks: poor but have a very high chance of winning a case worth a lot of money in the near future. That enables rich defendants to pressure poor plaintiffs to accept settlements at worse terms than they otherwise would; it's the easiest thing in the world to delay the resolution of a civil suit. The family of the decedents requested a lenient sentence because the family of the defendant promised to settle their wrongful death civil suit immediately. If lawyers could lend clients money, you bet your ass the family of the decedents would have been clamoring for jail time, not leniency.

Here's the tougher situation. Same deal, but the defendant has no money on hand, but has a rich career ahead of him. If you let the defendant out of prison, he can make money, and that money can then go to the family of the decedent via the wrongful death suit. If he stays in prison they never see a dime. Criminal cases are supposed to vindicate the rights of society, but it's tough to say you're doing that when you leave the victim of a criminal act in a worse position than they otherwise would be.

Shale · « **Reply #1822 on:** June 07, 2011, 08:44:16 PM »

What's worse for society: Putting the victims' families in a worse financial situation, or turning loose a repeat offender who's killed two people?

Anthony Edward Stark · « **Reply #1823 on:** June 07, 2011, 08:59:29 PM »

Quote from: Shale on June 07, 2011, 08:44:16 PM

What's worse for society: Putting the victims' families in a worse financial situation, or turning loose a repeat offender who's killed two people?

Alternatively, throw him in jail AND force him to pay punitive damages to the victims' families. He's going to do this again; he's already injured three people doing this shit, and now he's killed two.

Hopefully Illinois comes down on him when he gets back. This piece of shit is not going to learn, so he needs to be removed from society.

NotMiki · « **Reply #1824 on:** June 07, 2011, 10:12:27 PM »

The judge in the criminal case had no authority to force the guy to pay damages to the victim. The fact that the guy was found guilty in the criminal case means the defendant would (more or less) automatically lose his civil case, but neither of those facts could force him to pay before the civil case concluded (the civil case would be about how much he had to pay).

Quote from: Shale on June 07, 2011, 08:44:16 PM

What's worse for society: Putting the victims' families in a worse financial situation, or turning loose a repeat offender who's killed two people?

In this case, turning the guy loose is worse. But that's a matter of balancing interests. There are going to be situations where leaving the victims in a worse condition would be the greater injustice.

News:

Author Topic: Idiot of the Day (Read 253971 times)