Æ°

Any news?

I don't know where the hell I am but The Mighty Might Bosstones are on the stereo and it's all so fitting. And Jameson is close enough bitches.

I'm guessing 'Tampon tea bag' or 'Suck your shit off my dick bitch' by Anal Blast. I'm Your Puppet by James & Bobby Purify

I was uncomfortable just watching it.

one more thing:

I don't mean to get this thread closed but... "Hey, she was askin for it."

Someone must have that Fist of the northstar shit where dude pushes his fingers into that other guy's chest?

smeone has drunk fingers i'll be seeing you there soon edit: hahaha, i just noticed I already do smone

Excess in moderation... I throw down the cash now and then, and in that case a strip club and scotch is always in the equation.

What I'll usually do is take a few ice cubes in the palm of my hand and smack them with a tablespoon. I like a little crushed ice with my drink.

I enjoy drinking scotch. And although I always keep a bottle on hand I seldom drink it, but maybe more frequently during the winter months. This is my standard; because it's reasonably priced and tasty single malt. This is another one I'll buy sometimes. It's blended but still good, and pretty cheap. I usually don't treat myself to the expensive stuff, but I was lucky enough to get one of these bitches for my birthday a couple years ago. It's unlike anything I've ever tasted before and was almost unpleasant at first. But as soon as you remember this stuff is over $200 a bottle you can't help but keep drinking. Blue label was the shit that made me realize the gigantic difference only a few years will make when it comes to scotch. I've bought this stuff a few times, but it's a little spendy so they're few and far between. If I could afford it I would drink 15 - 18 year all the time, I think it's the sweet spot for single malt. This is the 'already drunk' scotch, definitely not something you want to start the night off with. I'll get this when I'm in a mood at the bars, no use spending $10 for a drink you'll be slugging down shots of jager with. I just cracked a bottle of the 12y/o glenfiddich that's pictured at the top. I don't venture outside of the johnnie walker/glenfiddich circle much, so if there's any other scotch drinkers around, share with the rest of the class.

Link here New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry. In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin." He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights. The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it." A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read. The letter, which was revealed in the Italian magazine L'Espresso last year, was reportedly only sent to US Catholic bishops, who discussed it in their convocation in Denver, Colorado, in mid-June. Sharply divided on the issue, the bishops decided to leave the decision on granting or denying communion to the individual priest. Kerry later received communion several times from sympathetic priests. Nevertheless, in the November election, a majority of Catholic voters, who traditionally supported Democratic Party candidates, shifted their votes to Republican and eventual winner George W. Bush.

timing

pissing on the pope's popsicle ROME _ If things had gone differently, one of the 115 men sequestered within Vatican walls this week to select the next pope might well have been somewhere equally confining but far less appealing: prison. Cardinal Michele Giordano, archbishop of Naples, was charged in 1999 with allegedly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars in church funds to his brother in what authorities said was a massive loan-sharking ring. The charges followed a two-year investigation in which prosecutors tapped the prelate's telephone and raided his offices. A judge found him not guilty in December 2000. But the cardinal's legal troubles aren't over. In 2002, Giordano was convicted and sentenced to four and a half months' confinement for illegally subdividing a historic palace. The wealthy heiress who bequeathed the property is also suing the cardinal because he sought to convert the palace into apartments instead of a home for poor retired priests as she'd wished, according to Italian news reports. Giordano's lawyer, Enrico Tuccillo, on Monday characterized the matter as a technical legal dispute. "One of the things that went against the clergy is that, by coincidence, one of the architects was a relative of the cardinal's," he said. "That brought a bad odor." The 2002 conviction was upheld on appeal and is now before Italy's highest criminal court. It's often difficult even for Italians to understand Italy's convoluted, delay-prone justice system, but legal experts say that a person with no prior criminal history wouldn't be required to serve jail time in such a case. The loan-sharking charges could have landed the cardinal in prison. The judge's verdict after a short non-jury trial shocked some independent observers, who'd concluded that the evidence against the cardinal appeared solid. "We were scandalized," said Pantaleone Sergi, who covered the affair for the national daily newspaper La Repubblica and other publications. "It was all documented _ the numbers can't lie." Tuccillo disputed that on Monday. "The judge looked at the evidence and excluded usury," he said, noting that the verdict was upheld on appeal. As the case drew international media attention in the late 1990s, the cardinal didn't deny that he'd transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars in church money to his relatives, according to news accounts. But he said he didn't know that the money was allegedly being lent out at up to 300 percent interest, even as he was preaching against usury. "I am clean inside, and someone up there knows it," said Giordano, a colorful figure who once preached a homily in Naples' cathedral in memory of a deceased Italian porn star. Newspapers here said the cardinal was the highest-ranking Roman Catholic Church official to face criminal charges in Italy. He exercised his right to be tried by a judge behind closed doors. How the Vatican handled Giordano contrasts with how it dealt with the scandal that enveloped Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, who resigned as archbishop under pressure despite never having been charged criminally. Through his troubles, Giordano has remained in full control of Italy's third-largest archdiocese. Six months before the verdict in the loan-sharking case, Pope John Paul II issued a special written blessing to the cardinal, saying the faithful "have no reason to tremble in the face of difficulties." National Catholic Reporter columnist John L. Allen Jr., who speaks regularly with senior Vatican officials, wrote after the verdict that Giordano's woes were "a running embarrassment for the Vatican, given that John Paul II has so often preached against usury, and given that Giordano was allegedly stealing money from some of the poorest and most desperate people in Europe." Allen added that "most people were convinced that no matter what happened ... Giordano would never see the inside of a jail cell, for the simple fact that he is a cardinal and this is Italy." He lamented "the clear perception the Catholic hierarchy has created, wittingly or not, that `taking care of its own' is its highest value." The lead prosecutor in the case, Michelangelo Russo, declined to comment on the matter Monday, saying, "I stand on what was presented in court." The charging document accused the cardinal and other defendants of singling out clients in financial trouble who had accounts at a bank branch office headed by Giordano's nephew. They allegedly were lent money at illegally high rates of interest. Evidence in the case showed that $453,000 in lira had flowed from Giordano's accounts to his brother and $235,000 had flowed back, and prosecutors said that showed the cardinal was profiting from the loans. "If I knew that my help ... was being used for illegal purposes, I wouldn't have given it to him," the cardinal said in 1998. "I would have hit him on the head." On Monday, Giordano took his place in the Sistine Chapel, preparing to help select the next pope.

I think I've seen a similar article on 12oz somewhere but I'm not sure. Bush administration eliminating 19-year-old international terrorism report WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered. Several U.S. officials defended the abrupt decision, saying the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate statistics for the report may have been faulty, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism. Last year, the number of incidents in 2003 was undercounted, forcing a revision of the report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism." But other current and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office ordered "Patterns of Global Terrorism" eliminated several weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism. "Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public," charged Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who was among the leading critics of last year's mix-up, reacted angrily to the decision. "This is the definitive report on the incidence of terrorism around the world. It should be unthinkable that there would be an effort to withhold it - or any of the key data - from the public. The Bush administration should stop playing politics with this critical report." A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed that the publication was being eliminated, but said the allegation that it was being done for political reasons was "categorically untrue." According to Johnson and U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the issue, statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State Department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades. The statistics didn't include attacks on American troops in Iraq, which President Bush as recently as Tuesday called "a central front in the war on terror." The intelligence officials requested anonymity because the information is classified and because, they said, they feared White House retribution. Johnson declined to say how he obtained the figures. Another U.S. official, who also requested anonymity, said analysts from the counterterrorism center were especially careful in amassing and reviewing the data because of the political turmoil created by last year's errors. Last June, the administration was forced to issue a revised version of the report for 2003 that showed a higher number of significant terrorist attacks and more than twice the number of fatalities than had been presented in the original report two months earlier. The snafu was embarrassing for the White House, which had used the original version to bolster President Bush's election-campaign claim that the war in Iraq had advanced the fight against terrorism. U.S. officials blamed last year's mix-up on bureaucratic mistakes involving the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the forerunner of the National Counterterrorism Center. Created last year on the recommendation of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the center is the government's primary organization for analyzing and integrating all U.S. government intelligence on terrorism. The State Department published "Patterns of Global Terrorism" under a law that requires it to submit to the House of Representatives and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a country-by-country terrorism assessment by April 30 each year. A declassified version of the report has been made public since 1986 in the form of a glossy booklet, even though there was no legal requirement to produce one. The senior State Department official said a report on global terrorism would be sent this year to lawmakers and made available to the public in place of "Patterns of Global Terrorism," but that it wouldn't contain statistical data. He said that decision was taken because the State Department believed that the National Counterterrorism Center "is now the authoritative government agency for the analysis of global terrorism. We believe that the NCTC should compile and publish the relevant data on that subject." He didn't answer questions about whether the data would be made available to the public, saying, "We will be consulting (with Congress) ... on who should publish and in what form." Another U.S. official said Rice's office was leery of the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate the data for 2004, believing that analysts anxious to avoid a repetition of last year's undercount included incidents that may not have been terrorist attacks. But the U.S. intelligence officials said Rice's office decided to eliminate "Patterns of Global Terrorism" when the counterterrorism center declined to use alternative methodology that would have reported fewer significant attacks. The officials said they interpreted Rice's action as an attempt to avoid releasing statistics that would contradict the administration's claims that it's winning the war against terrorism. To read past "Patterns of Global Terrorism" reports online, go to http://www.mipt.org/Patterns-of-Global-Terrorism.asp

Is this the one that's in his 80's?

No bullshit, I know the guy that created this repulsive fucking tragedy, and the guy that's stuck with this eyesore for life. I used to work with him a few years back; he came into work one day and was showing it to everyone and the only thing I said was, "what is it?" I recognized it right away when I randomly saw it on some bad tattoo website a while back. It's another (less obvious) reason why you shouldn't hang out with crystal meth nazi deadbeat reject humans/tattoo artists that could never get a job at a parlor, so they end up giving other meth heads tattoos at after bar parties. Supposedly dude owed him money and offered to give him a tattoo in exchange. what a great deal

icp aint no joke brother.You dont see me hating on the shit uyou listen to.Music is music,lets all come together Quoted post [/b] how about this one... crap is crap

this is a joke and that man is lying

I'd stay away from that shit, because if you do any reading (comic books) you'll know that the overnight security guard is always the first one to get killed.

The best one I've ever seen said: "Your philosphy fits on a bumper sticker." Jesus was a homeless black man is always good to see.

Maybe I'm overcompensating because my wounds are still a bit fresh. Another factor in forming my opinion is that I don't plan on starting up a family and nesting. Because in that case you do need credit/debt and buying a house would be a good chioce.

The house thing is something I've thought about and I'm prepared to rent for the rest of my life. The single deciding factor was the way they rape you with interest. Now I didn't even know this until a few years ago, but they make you pay the interest on the amount of the loan EVERY YEAR. So if you take out a loan for 100k with a 5% interest rate, you'll be paying 5k in interest every year. I always figured you would just pay the interest once, but I never did much research on it, so maybe it's common knowledge and I've been sleepin. And propery tax on top of that is the nail in the coffin. I can understand how buying a house would be a good financial decision for some people, and I've heard some good arguments. But there is no way I'll have that because from now on I only buy things that I have the money for. Plus I like having the freedom to skip out and move whenever I wish, without debts holding me back. Because until a mortgage is paid off, it's just a huge fucking debt. And if you own a house you'll need credit to buy appliances, it's a vicious cycle. No thanks, I’ll leave that shit to the landlords when my refrigerator breaks or my basement is flooded.

I made some bad money decisions about 8 years ago and fell into some hardcore debt action, up until the last year I was still feeling aftershocks. But now I'm forever done with that bullshit, and I will never do it again. (living on credit) Avoid credit cards and banks AS MUCH AS YOU CAN. Even if you think it's a pain in the ass to get money orders for bills and shit, do it anyway. The less number of times YOUR money gets touched by a bank, the better off you are. Once you start keeping your expendable money in the bank, they have all kinds of dark intricate 'policies' that are designed to plink you for a few extra bucks here and there and it happenes to everyone. As for credit cards, what kind of sucker wants to pay interest on a candybar, beer, or a bill? Spending only the money you actually have helps you learn how to adjust your lifestyle to suit different budgets, because sometimes you have to buckle down and live in buddha mode. I always feel secure because I realize I can live with a lot less when needed. Don't even think about getting any loans. Don't even think about getting any credit cards. If you can live without those two things, it feels fucking awesome.