Goodbye Chunky Rice

theavc:


How board games sum up the meaning of life through colorful cards

Nerd alert. We will never apologize for being wonderful.

This is actually a good thing to do with the oodles of petri dishes I have in the cubby space. Also, pandemic is great

theavc:

How board games sum up the meaning of life through colorful cards

Nerd alert. We will never apologize for being wonderful.

This is actually a good thing to do with the oodles of petri dishes I have in the cubby space. Also, pandemic is great

socialismartnature:

(Photo) The Marxist analysis has got nothing to do with what happened in Stalin’s Russia; it’s like blaming Jesus Christ for the inquisition in Spain.

socialismartnature:

(Photo) The Marxist analysis has got nothing to do with what happened in Stalin’s Russia; it’s like blaming Jesus Christ for the inquisition in Spain.

(via cruickymonster)

tumblaighre:

HEY! That’s a half-truth!

wtfpoliticalcartoons:

Because a news program edited down a long audio clip, removing unneeded bits, black kids deserve to be shot. Got that.

wtfpoliticalcartoons:

Because a news program edited down a long audio clip, removing unneeded bits, black kids deserve to be shot. Got that.

chuckle.

chuckle.

(Source: textfromdog)

wtfpoliticalcartoons:

itswalky:

siphersaysstuff:

itswalky:

Jack Chick is right.  We must rise up against Family Guy.

Leviticus 18:22 specifically mentions Family Guy?

I would imagine that passage is the infamous one about how you have to kill gay people for being an abomination.

Family Guy on a Chick Tract? Oh my god, this is hilarious.
Anyway, not that there’s much more I need to say than “it’s a fucking chick tract, there’s nothing of value there”, I would like to point out the statistical improbability that the kid would be the one who has a problem with homosexuality while his parents don’t object.

hahahahahaha

wtfpoliticalcartoons:

itswalky:

siphersaysstuff:

itswalky:

Jack Chick is right.  We must rise up against Family Guy.

Leviticus 18:22 specifically mentions Family Guy?

I would imagine that passage is the infamous one about how you have to kill gay people for being an abomination.

Family Guy on a Chick Tract? Oh my god, this is hilarious.

Anyway, not that there’s much more I need to say than “it’s a fucking chick tract, there’s nothing of value there”, I would like to point out the statistical improbability that the kid would be the one who has a problem with homosexuality while his parents don’t object.

hahahahahaha

(Source: ohnojackchick)

leasthelpful:

Personally, I always liked my grandma’s traditional AIDS recipe more than any of that fancy stuff.

Genuinine lol

leasthelpful:

Personally, I always liked my grandma’s traditional AIDS recipe more than any of that fancy stuff.

Genuinine lol

secotm:

This is one cartoon. Copy the link and open it in a new tab, it’s just one image.
What’s their connection? What does one have to do with the other? I don’t know. Why didn’t Muir just put one up today and the other tomorrow? I don’t know. Is this a thing of his? A 2-for-1 special?
But let’s look at the cartoons themselves.
1) Obama’s “socialist” state means it’s hard to juggle raising kids and holding down a job. Or maybe that’s just how things have always been. (I’m not even going to bother commenting on the ‘Obama is a socialist’ bullshit. He’s been in office for three years, Muir. Stop drinking for a second, take all your beer bottles down to the recycling center, get the deposit from them all, and use the money to buy yourself a fucking clue.)
Also, why does the brunette look like she just got out of bed and threw on the dress so she’d be presentable to answer the door?
2) ROE=rule of engagement. Maybe I missed it, but has there been any recent story about soldiers in Afghanistan having their hands tied by the ROE? Has there been a series of incidents where soldiers have been unable to perform their duties because of the ROE?
I honestly want to know. I want to know what Muir is talking about here, because in the absence of a story like “Taliban leaders escape because ROE prevent soldiers from firing on fleeing enemies,” I can only guess as to what Muir is complaining about here.
Like, say, maybe it’s not something specific here. Maybe Muir just doesn’t like that soldiers can’t straight up murder civilians who look at them funny. Maybe Muir thinks soldiers should be able to abduct and torture random Afghans, but those pesky ROE, that pesky Geneva Convention, has sissified the military and now we need to be careful about their feewings instead of just shooting them all and letting God punish them for worshipping the wrong deities.
Really, unless there’s a specific, real story about a soldier or soldiers being restricted unnecessarily, my mind is just going to gravitate to the idea that Muir wishes soldiers could do unspeakably brutal things to the people of Afghanistan. And considering the most recent story out of Afghanistan I can recall was this, I have to wonder if Muir isn’t sympathetic to the shooter. Is he complaining the ROE forbid that?

This is an excellent tumblr. Hat tip.

secotm:

This is one cartoon. Copy the link and open it in a new tab, it’s just one image.

What’s their connection? What does one have to do with the other? I don’t know. Why didn’t Muir just put one up today and the other tomorrow? I don’t know. Is this a thing of his? A 2-for-1 special?

But let’s look at the cartoons themselves.

1) Obama’s “socialist” state means it’s hard to juggle raising kids and holding down a job. Or maybe that’s just how things have always been. (I’m not even going to bother commenting on the ‘Obama is a socialist’ bullshit. He’s been in office for three years, Muir. Stop drinking for a second, take all your beer bottles down to the recycling center, get the deposit from them all, and use the money to buy yourself a fucking clue.)

Also, why does the brunette look like she just got out of bed and threw on the dress so she’d be presentable to answer the door?

2) ROE=rule of engagement. Maybe I missed it, but has there been any recent story about soldiers in Afghanistan having their hands tied by the ROE? Has there been a series of incidents where soldiers have been unable to perform their duties because of the ROE?

I honestly want to know. I want to know what Muir is talking about here, because in the absence of a story like “Taliban leaders escape because ROE prevent soldiers from firing on fleeing enemies,” I can only guess as to what Muir is complaining about here.

Like, say, maybe it’s not something specific here. Maybe Muir just doesn’t like that soldiers can’t straight up murder civilians who look at them funny. Maybe Muir thinks soldiers should be able to abduct and torture random Afghans, but those pesky ROE, that pesky Geneva Convention, has sissified the military and now we need to be careful about their feewings instead of just shooting them all and letting God punish them for worshipping the wrong deities.

Really, unless there’s a specific, real story about a soldier or soldiers being restricted unnecessarily, my mind is just going to gravitate to the idea that Muir wishes soldiers could do unspeakably brutal things to the people of Afghanistan. And considering the most recent story out of Afghanistan I can recall was this, I have to wonder if Muir isn’t sympathetic to the shooter. Is he complaining the ROE forbid that?

This is an excellent tumblr. Hat tip.

(via wtfpoliticalcartoons)

doubleclue:

Still one of my favourites

doubleclue:

Still one of my favourites

tentaclesandteacups:

Smashed out the blackwork of the floral steer head today. Pretty pleased with progress, despite fucking up a stitch or two :3

Good work, but how about a bit of credit to My Little Stitches for the wonderful design.

tentaclesandteacups:

Smashed out the blackwork of the floral steer head today. Pretty pleased with progress, despite fucking up a stitch or two :3

Good work, but how about a bit of credit to My Little Stitches for the wonderful design.