Bingo. That’d be how many com/soc/fascist countries have learned how capitalism works. What’s in it for me, or do I lose a bit of my human nature?
September 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm
WayneM
I can’t imagine Sam cannot handle Skye’s rhetoric without Zed’s intervention.
Mmmmm… mud wrestling…. dirty girls….
September 16, 2016 at 8:30 pm
Grunt GI
Word.
September 16, 2016 at 9:03 pm
Grunt GI
So, my question is, EXACTLY what does Sam expect Zed to do?
🙂
September 17, 2016 at 1:36 pm
John Greer
Fetch another top.
September 17, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Grunt GI
I rather hope not.
September 16, 2016 at 9:09 pm
Spin Drift
Headlights on! Skye is an idiot, she could have gotten $100 for the top and probably $200 for her knickers. Now that’s capitalism.
Spin
September 16, 2016 at 9:25 pm
rickn8or
Just like with drug dealers; “The first one is free.”
September 16, 2016 at 9:38 pm
Grunt GI
Would that require a pole in the middle of the DDQ?
September 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm
B Woodman
Ummm. . . I think not.
Let’s try to keep the DDQ a LITTLE bit classy, even if it’s not the kind of place you’d want to take your sainted New England mother to dinner.
September 16, 2016 at 10:58 pm
Grunt GI
You’re right…we should stay classy.
I vote for Pamela’s Jello Wrestling idea instead.
🙂
September 17, 2016 at 6:11 pm
MasterDiver
My sainted New England mother was raised at a variety of Army posts in the 30s and 40s. She knew ALL the verses to songs like “The Girl I Left Behind Me” and “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,” ESPECIALY the dirty ones! Naked pudding wrestling wouldn’t rate an eyebrow twitch.
September 17, 2016 at 9:17 am
PaulS
Plenty of poles being erected in the DDQ, methinks.
Skye ain’t wrong. Neither is Red. Capitalists are all whores in one manner or another.
And she’s even inadvertently on to something. Word gets out those tops come off at the end of a nice dinner and drinks they’ll be cranking out a hell of a lot more dinners and drinks. That ain’t giving it away, that’s advertising!
Dang it, forgot to say after acknowledging we’re all whores…
“Deplorables R Us.” I read that somewhere. 🙂
September 16, 2016 at 10:25 pm
eon
Well, yes, whores are capitalists. Heinlein said it best;
A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other, professionals offering services for pay–such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients? It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.
-RAH, “The Notebooks of Lazarus Long” in Time Enough For Love
Legalize it. License it. Make sure the practitioners get regular health checks.
Removes the pimps and mob types from the equation, as much as is possible in any field of business.
Also makes it easier to protect the workers from serial killers.
Problem solved.
(And having a LEO background, I don’t say this lightly.)
Don’t know that RAH ever said it explicitly but he would agree that as I said above, all whores are capitalists and all capitalists are whores. And as an avowed capitalist, I don’t say THAT lightly, but it’s just a matter of intent and context.
In fact much of what is abhorred (heh) as criminal behavior is nothing of the kind.
Use Heinlein’s rational logic above as a template applied to drug use for one glaring example, and every one of his lines and all of his reasoning applies.
And yes most involved with LE would find that too difficult to accept. That is because the very name of their job is Law Enforcement; the laws exist and they are sworn to uphold them. It’s not the enforcers but the laws themselves that are illogical and wrong. Change the laws and eliminate the difficulty officers have in acknowledging that logic.
Another problem solved.
September 17, 2016 at 1:13 am
eon
Legalize all the drugs you like, but you’ll never get rid of the illegal drug trade.
As fast as you legalize “substances”, the dealers will find some new “substance” to flog to keep getting their 10,000% markup. (See; meth, bath salts, etc.)
And there will always be a clientele’ for it. The rich, hip, trendy types. As soon as pot was legalized in The Only Places That Matter, The Only People Who Matter lost interest in it.
Because they can’t maintain their carefully constructed self-image of being Dangerous, Romantic Rebels Struggling Valiantly Against A Corrupt, Oppressive Society (which they largely run, actually) if they’re getting high on a legal drug.
They need the rush of doing something illegal, to flaunt their avant-garde hatred of society’s mores. Never mind that “society” is divided into the elite’, most of whom think like that, and everyone else, who mainly wish the “enlightened ones” would STFU and tend to their own knitting instead of trying to make everybody else Shut Up And Sing from their hymnal.
Add in the number of people who will be engaged in crime simply because they get off on it and have no interest in anything resembling honest employment, and no matter what you “legalize” or “decriminalize”, they will always find another law to break. To thumb their noses at Society as a whole, if nothing else.
You can change the laws all you like. Changing human nature is a lot tougher, and I’d daresay pretty much a non-starter.
clear ether
eon
September 17, 2016 at 8:03 am
Old Codger
Eon,
Kindly show me where Article 1, Section empowers Congress to legislate what substances an adult may or may not introduce into their tender bodies by whatever means they see fit. To paraphrase Jefferson, whatever substance(s) my neighbor uses/abuses neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If while impaired they perform some act which DOES result in fiscal or monetary harm, THAT action is what should be proscribed, not using/abusing one or more substances. Use alcohol as your model. We don’t proscribe consumption of alcohol (tried that once and it failed spectacularly) but we do proscribe certain activities while under the influence of alcohol. Look at the result of proscribing use of alcohol. The compliance rate was terrible and a criminal element arose to supply a commodity in great demand. I submit that proscribing the use of so many substances has yielded essentially the same result. I am convinced that ending the proscription on drugs will yield a result similar to repealing prohibition.
If government gets out of the nanny business all together and stops trying to control how we live that alone will reduce its size. As for people getting out of crime because something is legalized, you’re right, crooks will be crooks. But reducing the number of proscribed acts to those which manifestly, demonstrably and QUANTIFIABLY result in fiscal or physical harm to another person than the actor, would greatly reduce the number of statutes on the books and simplify the task of Law Enforcement.
I challenge you to study the history of Prohibition and show me why you believe that legalizing drug use for adults would not lead to substantially similar results.
OC has it down on this one. Essentially all of the arguments eon made against are effectively refuted, and if one ascribes to the logic of RH on the one, it is disingenuous and irrational to deny it on the other.
I do know where he is coming from though; I would submit that no one has seen the cause/effect continuum more closeup than me, even career leo’s. We can have the in-depth on that another time, but suffice for now to say that I disagree with every single one of the points of logical disconnect that eon presents in this instance, as some are transparently emotional and others are speculative projection. Those are components of the argument for denial of many rights and activities of free men; although certainly with different motivations, the logic and effect are the same.
September 17, 2016 at 11:47 am
Pamela
I work under the premise of do not trust or work with anyone that willingly takes a substance that alters their state of mind in order to transcend to euphoria, lethe or discovering the secrets of the universe. It turns out badly in the end with to high a price for the person and devastation for those surrounding them.
“It turns out badly in the end with too high a price for the person and devastation for those surrounding them.”
Truth. That applies equally to illegal and legal substances and has a lot to do with my choice not to do the booze thing much at all as it is one of the most lethal and damaging of all.
The key to the discussion here is the role -if any- of .gov in making those choices for the individual. The attempt to illegalize booze backfired mightily, creating crime where there was none just as it has a hundredfold for other substances now. You’d think history would have taught that lesson to intelligent people, but apparently not so much.
The assets and expenditures of LE and Corrections are roughly HALF wasted on this proven failure of gov control and has become a self-fulfilling prophecy of ancillary crime and societal effects, and therefore something of a job-security issue for many in the field. But even that is irrelevant to the basic issue of gov control and/or usurpation of personal rights and choice, and that is a very slippery slope indeed in a time when our other Constitutional rights are under attack in the guise of what is “good for the people”.
And that does also call into question eon’s debate tactic of the red herring of the trendy elite, he knows virtually all here despise those scum and attaching them to drug use might gain some support. Some of what he says about them is true, I saw it happen to powder cocaine in the seventies when it went from high-brow to low-tone in its appeal. But again that is irrelevant to government control and is a bit of a disconnect when he cites their effect on the progression of drugs of choice; I have not seen “meth or bath salts” adopted by the cool kids, they are the refuge of the poor when control and law enforcement makes more traditional highs more expensive and more risky. Prescriptions for pharmacy grade substances are available for the price of a pill doctor appointment for folks with the dough, and they play a very minor role in street level narcotics and enforcement…how many of them are robbing c-stores and getting locked up at county?
He is right about one thing, there will always be criminals and there will always be those who seek escape from the reality of their lives; a reality that has been affected for the worse by the same helpful gov that seeks to eliminate illicit drugs. But it is not about “changing laws” it is about eliminating them. And it is not about “changing human nature” it is about eliminating gov’s role in trying to control what is not controllable, for better or for worse.
A lot of discussion here recently about various legal intoxicants, and many would separate that from the type under discussion here. But they are wrong. There is no difference other than gov having learned its lesson about alcohol, but not yet about the rest.
September 17, 2016 at 3:24 pm
RegT
Heinlein had it right. And having been an LEO myself, I couldn’t agree more. Most of the crime came from pimps and from getting the gals hooked on drugs. Tried to talk a free-lance sixteen year old out of it, several times, but she said she was having too much fun between the money/tips/”being treated as an adult”. I left San Diego before hearing – thank goodness – that she ever experienced the many negative possibilities that could have befallen her.
September 16, 2016 at 11:49 pm
interventor
In DC, the lobbyists are located on K St. In the evening, the ladies of the evening take over. It’s said the evening shift has more ethics.
A friend once had a typo and called himself a ‘Conslutant.’
I recently typo’d myself from a Manager to a Mnagger.
I think they both fit….
September 16, 2016 at 9:25 pm
formwiz
Either way, it’s a win-win.
September 16, 2016 at 9:30 pm
Bill G
Nothing deplorable in that scene, aside from Skye’s mindset.
As an aside, this article has some comments from the Instapundit on this idiot Seidman who is saying we should just ignore the Constitution. Other tidbits of interest are included.
‘Deplorables’ merchandise hit the market places fast.
I love it!
September 16, 2016 at 9:48 pm
Kafiroon
Only problem is: Those in power ignore the rule of any law they want. Corollary is: Those in power enforce any rule of law on us.
September 17, 2016 at 8:25 am
Bill G
From the article I cited above:
REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.
September 16, 2016 at 10:12 pm
KenH
Throw her fu…frabbing ass out in the snow
September 16, 2016 at 10:18 pm
eon
Texas. Not a lot of snow until around November.
cheers
eon
September 17, 2016 at 8:00 am
Pamela
Are there fire ants this time of year?
September 17, 2016 at 12:10 pm
Andy
Fire ants are out ALL year in the South of Texas.
September 16, 2016 at 10:34 pm
B Woodman
Yes, I think Skye is inadvertently on to something, even if she doesn’t realize it. All capitalists are “whores”, they sell their products for as much as the market will bear. But “bear” (hehehe) in mind, that most of those products are legal, and beneficial to society as a whole.
Prostitutes, on the other hand (which hand? left? or right?) are a specific sub-species of whore, selling their bodies, which in most places (excepting a few locales in Nevada) is illegal.
SO how do we get the concept of one, “whore”, which is crude but accurate as applies to the DDQ, and “prostitute”, which is more polite but inaccurate, across to both these fine looking ladies?
September 16, 2016 at 10:39 pm
epilitimus
So you’re saying prostitutes in those certain parts of Nevada are actually whores?
September 17, 2016 at 12:59 am
eon
I prefer RAH’s term “hetaerae”, actually;
he·tae·ra
həˈtirə/
noun
plural noun: hetaerae
a courtesan or mistress, especially one in ancient Greece akin to the modern geisha.
I think it is all a dasterdly plot by Skye. She figures if she gets Sam mad enough the last little bit of whatever it is that is holding up Sam’s shorts will give way, at which point the last thing Sam will be worried about is Skye’s top.
Ok, I know what you are all going to say…Skye’s not that smart. Regardless I can dream can’t I?
September 16, 2016 at 10:53 pm
Pamela
All I can say is Newtonian Theory is being challenged in the first panel.
I’d have to be wearing a corset serving drinks.
How about something like “Skye, derp, that’s part of your uniform”?
September 17, 2016 at 2:26 am
L. B. Carlson
Chris, that headline — PRICELESS! Good Lord, you’re good.
September 17, 2016 at 3:07 am
Lucius Severus Pertinax
Vive les Deplorable!!!
September 17, 2016 at 7:19 am
DASTARDLY DAN
Whores, yes, the lot of us.
But I perfer, and often refer to myself, as mercenary.
I go wherever, and od whatever, someone is willing to pay me sufficiently to do.
My rate is determined by location, task, and, to some extent, the character of the client.
If that’s deplorable, then get me one of those T-shirts mentioned earlier.
September 17, 2016 at 7:35 am
Randy
So Chris…When does the DDQ install a Mechanical Bull? 😉
September 17, 2016 at 8:31 am
NotYetInACamp
deplorable me
September 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm
Pamela
But not Despicable or a minion
September 17, 2016 at 9:15 pm
NotYetInACamp
Thank you.
Irredeemable in their eyes. That’s OK.
And all of my hair. (Unlike some who must only have it in fantasy.)
September 17, 2016 at 9:11 pm
Kafiroon
Certain libtard claims I’m Despicable.
I take it as a ‘merit’ badge of honor.
Question for uninformed northern neighbour… what happens if the Hildebeast seizures out while coughing up a lung? Does Bernie get the nomination by default?
WayneM, covered ad nauseum (heh) a few days back. Right, wrong, who the fuck knows, can’t really anticipate the behaviors of the special ones among us, but fun to speculate.
September 17, 2016 at 9:45 am
PaulS
A basket of dewhoreables. (autocorrect suggested “requires less”) Hmmm
September 17, 2016 at 10:25 am
eclark1849
Better a whore than a slut. A whore sells it. A slut gives it away.
September 17, 2016 at 1:33 pm
'TreHammer
My ED has been cured. It’s a miracle!
September 17, 2016 at 9:18 pm
NotYetInACamp
But those girls love the cute guys. It’s a burden.
84 Comments
Yay! Elbows!!!
PUDDING WRESTLING!!!
Make her pay to replace it. Every time she gives it away. She’ll figure it out. Maybe. It is Skye after all.
I like your idea.
Unless Skye winds up selling them for more than they cost her; maybe then the concept of capitalism will dawn on her.
Bingo. That’d be how many com/soc/fascist countries have learned how capitalism works. What’s in it for me, or do I lose a bit of my human nature?
I can’t imagine Sam cannot handle Skye’s rhetoric without Zed’s intervention.
Mmmmm… mud wrestling…. dirty girls….
Word.
So, my question is, EXACTLY what does Sam expect Zed to do?
🙂
Fetch another top.
I rather hope not.
Headlights on! Skye is an idiot, she could have gotten $100 for the top and probably $200 for her knickers. Now that’s capitalism.
Spin
Just like with drug dealers; “The first one is free.”
Would that require a pole in the middle of the DDQ?
Ummm. . . I think not.
Let’s try to keep the DDQ a LITTLE bit classy, even if it’s not the kind of place you’d want to take your sainted New England mother to dinner.
You’re right…we should stay classy.
I vote for Pamela’s Jello Wrestling idea instead.
🙂
My sainted New England mother was raised at a variety of Army posts in the 30s and 40s. She knew ALL the verses to songs like “The Girl I Left Behind Me” and “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,” ESPECIALY the dirty ones! Naked pudding wrestling wouldn’t rate an eyebrow twitch.
Plenty of poles being erected in the DDQ, methinks.
Ha!
But let’s keep ’em under the tent, boys…
HAHAHA, especially if they’re just a pup tent…
Damn, that was supposed to be my inside voice.
Jello Wrestling.
At least it’s edible
So is Crisco oil.
Skye ain’t wrong. Neither is Red. Capitalists are all whores in one manner or another.
And she’s even inadvertently on to something. Word gets out those tops come off at the end of a nice dinner and drinks they’ll be cranking out a hell of a lot more dinners and drinks. That ain’t giving it away, that’s advertising!
Dang it, forgot to say after acknowledging we’re all whores…
“Deplorables R Us.” I read that somewhere. 🙂
Well, yes, whores are capitalists. Heinlein said it best;
Legalize it. License it. Make sure the practitioners get regular health checks.
Removes the pimps and mob types from the equation, as much as is possible in any field of business.
Also makes it easier to protect the workers from serial killers.
Problem solved.
(And having a LEO background, I don’t say this lightly.)
clear ether
eon
Don’t know that RAH ever said it explicitly but he would agree that as I said above, all whores are capitalists and all capitalists are whores. And as an avowed capitalist, I don’t say THAT lightly, but it’s just a matter of intent and context.
In fact much of what is abhorred (heh) as criminal behavior is nothing of the kind.
Use Heinlein’s rational logic above as a template applied to drug use for one glaring example, and every one of his lines and all of his reasoning applies.
And yes most involved with LE would find that too difficult to accept. That is because the very name of their job is Law Enforcement; the laws exist and they are sworn to uphold them. It’s not the enforcers but the laws themselves that are illogical and wrong. Change the laws and eliminate the difficulty officers have in acknowledging that logic.
Another problem solved.
Legalize all the drugs you like, but you’ll never get rid of the illegal drug trade.
As fast as you legalize “substances”, the dealers will find some new “substance” to flog to keep getting their 10,000% markup. (See; meth, bath salts, etc.)
And there will always be a clientele’ for it. The rich, hip, trendy types. As soon as pot was legalized in The Only Places That Matter, The Only People Who Matter lost interest in it.
Because they can’t maintain their carefully constructed self-image of being Dangerous, Romantic Rebels Struggling Valiantly Against A Corrupt, Oppressive Society (which they largely run, actually) if they’re getting high on a legal drug.
They need the rush of doing something illegal, to flaunt their avant-garde hatred of society’s mores. Never mind that “society” is divided into the elite’, most of whom think like that, and everyone else, who mainly wish the “enlightened ones” would STFU and tend to their own knitting instead of trying to make everybody else Shut Up And Sing from their hymnal.
Add in the number of people who will be engaged in crime simply because they get off on it and have no interest in anything resembling honest employment, and no matter what you “legalize” or “decriminalize”, they will always find another law to break. To thumb their noses at Society as a whole, if nothing else.
You can change the laws all you like. Changing human nature is a lot tougher, and I’d daresay pretty much a non-starter.
clear ether
eon
Eon,
Kindly show me where Article 1, Section empowers Congress to legislate what substances an adult may or may not introduce into their tender bodies by whatever means they see fit. To paraphrase Jefferson, whatever substance(s) my neighbor uses/abuses neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If while impaired they perform some act which DOES result in fiscal or monetary harm, THAT action is what should be proscribed, not using/abusing one or more substances. Use alcohol as your model. We don’t proscribe consumption of alcohol (tried that once and it failed spectacularly) but we do proscribe certain activities while under the influence of alcohol. Look at the result of proscribing use of alcohol. The compliance rate was terrible and a criminal element arose to supply a commodity in great demand. I submit that proscribing the use of so many substances has yielded essentially the same result. I am convinced that ending the proscription on drugs will yield a result similar to repealing prohibition.
If government gets out of the nanny business all together and stops trying to control how we live that alone will reduce its size. As for people getting out of crime because something is legalized, you’re right, crooks will be crooks. But reducing the number of proscribed acts to those which manifestly, demonstrably and QUANTIFIABLY result in fiscal or physical harm to another person than the actor, would greatly reduce the number of statutes on the books and simplify the task of Law Enforcement.
I challenge you to study the history of Prohibition and show me why you believe that legalizing drug use for adults would not lead to substantially similar results.
Well said, Eon.
OC has it down on this one. Essentially all of the arguments eon made against are effectively refuted, and if one ascribes to the logic of RH on the one, it is disingenuous and irrational to deny it on the other.
I do know where he is coming from though; I would submit that no one has seen the cause/effect continuum more closeup than me, even career leo’s. We can have the in-depth on that another time, but suffice for now to say that I disagree with every single one of the points of logical disconnect that eon presents in this instance, as some are transparently emotional and others are speculative projection. Those are components of the argument for denial of many rights and activities of free men; although certainly with different motivations, the logic and effect are the same.
I work under the premise of do not trust or work with anyone that willingly takes a substance that alters their state of mind in order to transcend to euphoria, lethe or discovering the secrets of the universe. It turns out badly in the end with to high a price for the person and devastation for those surrounding them.
Right there with you Mz. Pam:
“It turns out badly in the end with too high a price for the person and devastation for those surrounding them.”
Truth. That applies equally to illegal and legal substances and has a lot to do with my choice not to do the booze thing much at all as it is one of the most lethal and damaging of all.
The key to the discussion here is the role -if any- of .gov in making those choices for the individual. The attempt to illegalize booze backfired mightily, creating crime where there was none just as it has a hundredfold for other substances now. You’d think history would have taught that lesson to intelligent people, but apparently not so much.
The assets and expenditures of LE and Corrections are roughly HALF wasted on this proven failure of gov control and has become a self-fulfilling prophecy of ancillary crime and societal effects, and therefore something of a job-security issue for many in the field. But even that is irrelevant to the basic issue of gov control and/or usurpation of personal rights and choice, and that is a very slippery slope indeed in a time when our other Constitutional rights are under attack in the guise of what is “good for the people”.
And that does also call into question eon’s debate tactic of the red herring of the trendy elite, he knows virtually all here despise those scum and attaching them to drug use might gain some support. Some of what he says about them is true, I saw it happen to powder cocaine in the seventies when it went from high-brow to low-tone in its appeal. But again that is irrelevant to government control and is a bit of a disconnect when he cites their effect on the progression of drugs of choice; I have not seen “meth or bath salts” adopted by the cool kids, they are the refuge of the poor when control and law enforcement makes more traditional highs more expensive and more risky. Prescriptions for pharmacy grade substances are available for the price of a pill doctor appointment for folks with the dough, and they play a very minor role in street level narcotics and enforcement…how many of them are robbing c-stores and getting locked up at county?
He is right about one thing, there will always be criminals and there will always be those who seek escape from the reality of their lives; a reality that has been affected for the worse by the same helpful gov that seeks to eliminate illicit drugs. But it is not about “changing laws” it is about eliminating them. And it is not about “changing human nature” it is about eliminating gov’s role in trying to control what is not controllable, for better or for worse.
A lot of discussion here recently about various legal intoxicants, and many would separate that from the type under discussion here. But they are wrong. There is no difference other than gov having learned its lesson about alcohol, but not yet about the rest.
Heinlein had it right. And having been an LEO myself, I couldn’t agree more. Most of the crime came from pimps and from getting the gals hooked on drugs. Tried to talk a free-lance sixteen year old out of it, several times, but she said she was having too much fun between the money/tips/”being treated as an adult”. I left San Diego before hearing – thank goodness – that she ever experienced the many negative possibilities that could have befallen her.
In DC, the lobbyists are located on K St. In the evening, the ladies of the evening take over. It’s said the evening shift has more ethics.
Whore is the second oldest profession after all. Hunter was first.
No, prey was first
Hardly a profession.
“Hardly a profession.”
Tell that to the sheeple on the dole.
A friend once had a typo and called himself a ‘Conslutant.’
I recently typo’d myself from a Manager to a Mnagger.
I think they both fit….
Either way, it’s a win-win.
Nothing deplorable in that scene, aside from Skye’s mindset.
As an aside, this article has some comments from the Instapundit on this idiot Seidman who is saying we should just ignore the Constitution. Other tidbits of interest are included.
Take me out and shoot me now; avoid the June rush. This article:
https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/02/24/the-raj-koothrappali-approach/
Bill G, by the definition of the bitch, it’s a badge of honor:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2016/09/10/?post_type=comic
(See comment by C.M. at 11:47 A.M.)
And today: “Stay Deplorable, my Friends”
Can’t decide which one to get on a T-Shirt. 🙂
JT: There’re no comments on the archive ‘toons, dumbass.
JTC: Oh. Well then, here ya go:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/wheres-there-smoke/
Again, CM’s comment at 11:47 AM
Man, long way to go, but worth it. 🙂
‘Deplorables’ merchandise hit the market places fast.
I love it!
Only problem is: Those in power ignore the rule of any law they want. Corollary is: Those in power enforce any rule of law on us.
From the article I cited above:
REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.
Throw her fu…frabbing ass out in the snow
Texas. Not a lot of snow until around November.
cheers
eon
Are there fire ants this time of year?
Fire ants are out ALL year in the South of Texas.
Yes, I think Skye is inadvertently on to something, even if she doesn’t realize it. All capitalists are “whores”, they sell their products for as much as the market will bear. But “bear” (hehehe) in mind, that most of those products are legal, and beneficial to society as a whole.
Prostitutes, on the other hand (which hand? left? or right?) are a specific sub-species of whore, selling their bodies, which in most places (excepting a few locales in Nevada) is illegal.
SO how do we get the concept of one, “whore”, which is crude but accurate as applies to the DDQ, and “prostitute”, which is more polite but inaccurate, across to both these fine looking ladies?
So you’re saying prostitutes in those certain parts of Nevada are actually whores?
I prefer RAH’s term “hetaerae”, actually;
cheers
eon
High-class whores then. 😉
I think it is all a dasterdly plot by Skye. She figures if she gets Sam mad enough the last little bit of whatever it is that is holding up Sam’s shorts will give way, at which point the last thing Sam will be worried about is Skye’s top.
Ok, I know what you are all going to say…Skye’s not that smart. Regardless I can dream can’t I?
All I can say is Newtonian Theory is being challenged in the first panel.
I’d have to be wearing a corset serving drinks.
They do seem to defy the laws of Nature, don’t they?
That’s okay, so do I when I imagine an all-nighter with the two of ’em. 🙁
I’d pay for that!
They’ve had kids. They never wear bras. But their boobs don’t obey the laws of gravity.
Not “But”, “and”. 🙂
And Zed still has all his hair.Fantasy…
A good Fantasy can get you through the day.
All depends on whose hands are in whose hair. Or not.
Or paradise…where things never sag and hair never falls out…
Those orbs of delight are non-Newtonian and filled with anti-matter. One touch and Zed makes you disappear. Look all you want but don’t touch.
Spin
Methink’s Sam hast grown in recent days…
How can one learn as you have about the female anatomy? Do you take apprentices? 🙂
How about something like “Skye, derp, that’s part of your uniform”?
Chris, that headline — PRICELESS! Good Lord, you’re good.
Vive les Deplorable!!!
Whores, yes, the lot of us.
But I perfer, and often refer to myself, as mercenary.
I go wherever, and od whatever, someone is willing to pay me sufficiently to do.
My rate is determined by location, task, and, to some extent, the character of the client.
If that’s deplorable, then get me one of those T-shirts mentioned earlier.
So Chris…When does the DDQ install a Mechanical Bull? 😉
deplorable me
But not Despicable or a minion
Thank you.
Irredeemable in their eyes. That’s OK.
And all of my hair. (Unlike some who must only have it in fantasy.)
Certain libtard claims I’m Despicable.
I take it as a ‘merit’ badge of honor.
OT (at least for today’s edition)
Ran across a cartoon I think you folks will appreciate.
http://www.michaelpramirez.com/uploads/3/4/9/8/34985326/ramclr-082015-bernie_1_orig.jpeg
Good one, OC…
Question for uninformed northern neighbour… what happens if the Hildebeast seizures out while coughing up a lung? Does Bernie get the nomination by default?
WayneM, covered ad nauseum (heh) a few days back. Right, wrong, who the fuck knows, can’t really anticipate the behaviors of the special ones among us, but fun to speculate.
A basket of dewhoreables. (autocorrect suggested “requires less”) Hmmm
Better a whore than a slut. A whore sells it. A slut gives it away.
My ED has been cured. It’s a miracle!
But those girls love the cute guys. It’s a burden.