hmmm let me try now
*quality

and thanks again for the kind words everyone, makes me feel all warm and squishy

Tags for this video have been changed from 'commercial, smell, good, you need it, squishy red chair' to 'commercial, smell, good, you need it, squishy red leather chair' - edited by doogle

Tags for this video have been changed from 'commercial, smell, good, you need it' to 'commercial, smell, good, you need it, squishy red chair' - edited by doogle

That's one loooooooooooong painting in the back there.

Accented on both ends by a squishy red leather chair.
*squish

>> ^Payback:
Am I the only person here who knows what RAVAGE means? How has this cop caused wholesale destruction and devastation to the countryside around this bicyclist?
He got PWND pretty bad, but it was little more than a hearty shove. Looks to me like he had a bunch of soft, squishy onlookers to fall on.


Main Entry: 1rav·age
Pronunciation: \ˈra-vij\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from ravir to ravish — more at ravish
Date: circa 1611
1 : an act or practice of ravaging
2 : damage resulting from ravaging : violently destructive effect <the ravages of time>

Main Entry: 2ravage
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): rav·aged; rav·ag·ing
Date: circa 1611
transitive verb
: to wreak havoc on : affect destructively
intransitive verb
: to commit destructive actions
— rav·age·ment \-vij-mənt\ noun
— rav·ag·er noun

Am I the only person here who knows what RAVAGE means? How has this cop caused wholesale destruction and devastation to the countryside around this bicyclist?

He got PWND pretty bad, but it was little more than a hearty shove. Looks to me like he had a bunch of soft, squishy onlookers to fall on.

Whenever you have a discussion with someone, you should ask yourself if you're in it to get your point understood, "win" or just rant. Generally speaking, I like to get my point understood. I feel I have done so in this discussion but you just want to rant. Rant away.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

In fact, here's a hint: it's "discussions" like yours (AKA spiritual verbal abuse) which creates backlash. I've no interest in that. You make some interestin points I agree with and some points I'd be willing to discuss. "America Sucks Because the American People Suck" is not one of those points.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

no, I said your point that America is in decline is not worth discussing in the context of overal perspective. We both agree. You want to skew the view so that the reason why America is in decline towards an empire is because of its people's attitude. Yet you agree that such movement is inevitable for any country. I don't care to sit around bashing America with someone who takes such great pleasure in pinning it all on the "arrogant americans". Being snide and contemptuous doesn't change or help. I'm an American. What? Because my country has serious problems (and I haven't met an American yet who isn't ready and willing to admit that and discuss it) I'm supposed to sit around beating my breast and hanging in my head in shame? What would that accomplish? Yes, millions are allowing this to happen, but millions also are perfectly aware of it and trying to do something about it. You could discuss how even though decline towards empirical attitudes has been shown to be historically inevitable, there is sstill a large faction of Americans trying to like hell to resist that decline, but you'd rather focus on the people who live in ignorance and fear. Its a matter of perspective and if I thought like you did about my own country, I'd probably give up entirely and become a hermit or another greedy "I got mine, jack" asshole.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

too cute. Squishy basset puppy lips are irresistible

In reply to this comment by ant:
http://ihasahotdog.com/2008/06/17/funny-dog-pictures-sneeze-loading-84/

Eyes don't react like that when cut. They burst like soft shelled eggs and smelly goop is everywhere. The lens is neat though, kinda squishy like a hard gummy bear but doesn't bounce back into shape. Oh, and before you think I'm Jeff Dahmer, this was for a school science project and it was a deer eye.

By far the year's best candidate. Name me another who has included squishy cheek sounds in his platform?
.
.
.
Yeah, that's what I thought.

i'm not against this little-ass dude. Squishy womens have GOT to go.

Some of those dogs looked more like squishy chew toys for bears.