I know where you can get chicken **** sandwiches --- if that's a help.
0 Replies
edgarblythe
1
Reply
Sat 12 Feb, 2011 09:58 pm
I ate a blueberry pie today. There was no single berry in it, but they were listed as the primary ingredient before water. They must have pureed them in there if there were any.
0 Replies
tenderfoot
0
Reply
Sat 12 Feb, 2011 10:15 pm
I know someone... serves up a great dish of stew-pit-titty, also includes a good serve of Idio-sin-cristy baked in a micro-anal-ist oven . It tasts rough, smells like you would never believe and helps to remove sense like underarm lotion.
0 Replies
FBM
1
Reply
Sun 13 Feb, 2011 01:15 am
Damn. I just took a shower and forgot to brush my teeth. Should I unass this seat and do it, or just sit here and feel only half clean? *sigh* Dilemmas.
In the Criminal Code of Canada the punishment for being found guilty of publishing material known to be false and harmful to a person’s reputation is up to 5 years imprisonment. This includes posting on an internet forum untrue statements about a person that could entice other people to ridicule or perpetuate the untruths about this person.
Not so sure about that! Some people will claim "political evolution and religious evolution." LOL
0 Replies
chai2
-1
Reply
Sun 13 Feb, 2011 12:11 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
This thread is for polite, friendly conversation only. Keep it clean . . .
No! No, don't you dare . . . don't even mention those subjects . . .
Ok, let's talk about evolution. That's science. It's not on your list, it shouldn't generate any controversy.
Oh!
I want to share this video I watched last night.
At the end, it says that everything said was actually taken off of christian blogs.
Letting you know that in advance makes it even funnier, IMO.
"false and harmful" together, not separate. You can print any shite you want in Canada but if it is "false AND harmful" you can be punished. There haven't been many cases tried and proven and most of those were Holocaust deniers/White supremacists... and so on.
0 Replies
Chumly
1
Reply
Sun 13 Feb, 2011 12:47 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Good grief. Imagine all of us in the A2K "slammer". What a blast that would be!
Actually hens don't have them. Some chickens are roosters and some chickens are hens. Otherwise we wouldn't need chicken sexers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_sexing . That should quash that possible controversy.
