These regional words are whoopensockers. If you don’t use them, you’re a bufflehead.
Hmmmm…interestingly, Firefox dictionary recognizes the latter, but not the former.
These regional words are whoopensockers. If you don’t use them, you’re a bufflehead.
Hmmmm…interestingly, Firefox dictionary recognizes the latter, but not the former.
No, Mr. President, you’ve been making a lot of mistakes as president, but there has been no shortage of stories you’ve been telling the public.
Let’s see, shall we count them?
I could go on and on.
I guess when you have a generation that doesn’t even read, it’s not surprising that they get taken by old people.
The latest listings. I like the second one.
What happens when a ball is pitched at 0.9c?
Verlander’s good, but I don’t think he’s got that kind of arm.
[Update at the bottom of the first inning]
Wow. Between Verlander and (non)Fielder, the Tigers just screwed the American League team. They’re down 5-0 in the first, and the National League hasn’t even batted.
I’m guessing that Verlander’s problem was that he’s not used to pitching just two innings, and was off his early game.
Iowahawk reports on a new pseudoscientific breakthough:
The landmark experiment in Quantum Rhetoric began early this week after legal particle cosmologist John Roberts published a paper in the Quarterly Journal of Tortured Logic that solved the long-debated Pelosi’s Paradox in Universal Health Care Theory.
“Pelosi’s Paradox states that in order to find out what is in a health care bill, it would have to be passed,” explained physicist Steven Hawking. “But in order to be a law it would have to be constitutional, which means someone would have to know what was in it, which would mean it couldn’t have been a bill in the first place. Think of Schroedinger’s Cat, except with a lobotomy.”
Actually, I don’t think that Nancy Pelosi has the requisite equipment for a lobotomy.
Hint to the ladies — it’s not all about you.
Solved: “Randy Barnett made a wish on a cursed monkey’s paw that his commerce clause argument would be accepted. It explains everything, no?”
Seriously, here’s what I think happened. Roberts initially voted with the others to throw out the whole law, and has spent the last several weeks trying to pick up at least one more vote (perhaps from Breyer or Sotomayor — Ginsburg and Kagan were never a possibility) to make it 6-3 instead of a narrow 5-4. At the end, he gave up, and decided to narrowly keep it instead of narrowly strike it down. I think that explains the facts, and the bizarre opinion, which was nowhere near as cogent and well thought out as what became the dissent. And I’ll bet that the new minority is pretty angry at him right now (and have been since he switched).
…it’s about to get a lot worse.