Dudley Denial peeks before he checks his text to see if anyone's busted him, too-

Thanks for the Dudley Piano Quality

Oh man, the Dudley Moore one was my favourite, I haven't heard him do him, it was excellent.

That would be correct.

>> ^EMPIRE:

it seems like dudley moore.

it seems like dudley moore.

Government is not a business, nor should it be run like one. So a candidate with with business experience means absolutely dick.

As Gen has already pointed out, you obviously have no clue what socialism is. Even if you did, you obviously haven't been paying attention because Obama is not a socialist. He's a moderate republican

Getting off that paranoid tangent and getting back to the actual video. Gotta love Ann's bit about America losing if Romney loses. Because yeah.. its so reasonable to believe that the mustache twirling villain will win if Dudley Do Right doesn't win. Because yeah... the world is THAT black and white.

>> ^lantern53:

Can't understand bit why anyone would want four more years of Obama. Romney could have two heads and I'd prefer someone like him with busihess experience.
Socialists know nothing but spreading a lower standard of living, as BHO has aptly demonstrated.

>> ^Deano:

I've just started Richard Morgan's The Cold Commands (which I think is sci-fi/fantasy with gay characters but I'm not entirely sure) and then I'm going to reread American Tabloid by James Ellroy as I stopped and forgot all about it and I want to read the entire trilogy eventually.


You, sir, have excellent taste in books. Ellroy and Morgan are both awesome, especially the Dudley Smith and Takeshi Kovacs books respectively.

As for me, my last few were Iain Banks Transition, the Atheists Guide to Christmas and Paul Kimmage's Engage (true account of a tetraplegic rugby player, fascinating story and insight into coping with such a horrific accident).

I'm currently reading Milligan's Meaning of Life: An autobiography of sorts by Spike Milligan. It's really just a collection of Milligans other writings but it's great fun.

His interpretation is incorrect. There are several passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality, both in the Old and New Testaments, most notably in Leviticus, Corinthians (written by Paul), and Romans (also written by Paul). As Paul (and most Christians at that time) was a Hebrew, he would have been referring to the Hebrew law derived from the Old Testament.
The passage mentioned in the video above is most likely referring to Corinthians, one of Paul's letters that contains references to both of homosexuality and the hair issue. It should be noted that the passage referring to homosexuality is what Paul refers to as "unrighteousness," or actions that will result in damnation, most notably for those who are Christians that still participate in these actions. This is important to note, because, if I recall correctly, the first letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians was one to admonish them for their significant deviations from Christian beliefs. He was pointing out sins that were occurring amongst their own membership, especially in the first part of his letter.
The second half of this letter, in which the references to hair can be found, consists more of guidelines for a more holy life for the members of the Corinthian church. This is more of a cultural constraint, since during this period of time, it was accepted that men wore their hair short and women wore theirs long. Those wearing their hair otherwise were rebelling against societal norms, which Paul contended was not the Christian attitude that should be displayed. For modern Christians, this passage states that going against societal norms is perhaps not the correct attitude a Christian should take.
Now some modern Christians are a little more literal in their interpretation of this guideline. My own church, for example, is a bit more strict and does follow the whole "men=short hair, women=long hair" deal, but it depends on the church's interpretation. (Also, I'm simplifying here, as there's a bit more to that passage than just how you look to others, but I'll keep it at that for now.)

So what does this all mean? Dudley's example was an incorrect one. Perhaps he misspoke, or perhaps he did get some of his research incorrect. He is right that many Christians are somewhat hypocritical in their actions. I certainly have had my own issues in this area. However, it does not mean that just because they are hypocritical in one area, they should be hypocritical in another. Better to correct the issue at hand than to bring another issue into the mix.

Meh. Old news. This is high school stuff.

The title is also wrong. Nowhere in this piece does CNN call Christians hypocrites, in general. The host paraphrases Dudley as saying that "many of those who use the bible to oppose homosexuality" are hypocrites. I'm guessing that most Christians don't have strong opinions against gays, and if they do, most of them don't use the bible as back up -- they say it's just unnatural, just like non-religious homophobic bigots do.

Shut your filthy fuckin' mouth. You're a complete and utter asshole, whatever the fuck your actual name is.

Don't assume you know a goddamn thing about me or my friend.

He's probably the most kind-hearted and forgiving person I've met and I WON'T have your sorry ass make a mockery of all his hard work and generosity.

His only wish was to own a small business.

Tho since the no-good lyin' sack of shit that sold the pizzeria to him falsified documents, he was unaware the income was overstated until the first quarter was up.

By then, she had disappeared.

He sacrificed sleep, his performance at his day job, and his sanity to keep his investment afloat.

Most months he was lucky to break even.

He took out a second mortgage on his house.
Sunk in $300,000 in additional loans over 4 years.
Exhausted all his resources and back ups.
Yet never saw a goddamn cent in return.

Despite ALL of this, he still paid me well over minimum wage for a year and a half.
Right out of his own pocket essentially

So next time, before you go mount your sure-as-shit high horse of righteousness.

Make certain you know what the FUCK you're talkin' about, alright.


>> ^joedirt:

Your pizzaria guy is just a jerk. Yes minimum wage did go up, do he is paying more.. But in reality he was paying way too little for like 10 years. So, yes minimum wage goes up in step functions while cost of living and inflation go up linearly. So for like 5 years min wage employees are getting screwed and for like 2 or 3 years employers are paying more than "usual". But no, jerkoff pizza guy didn't magically have to shell out extra thousands of dollars. (which is probably like 1/2 the profit from a few weeks)

Shut your filthy fuckin' mouth. You're a complete and utter asshole, whatever the fuck your actual name is.

Don't assume you know a goddamn thing about me or my friend.

He's probably the most kind-hearted and forgiving person I've met and I WON'T have your sorry ass make a mockery of all his hard work and generosity.

His only wish was to own a small business.

Tho since the no-good lyin' sack of shit that sold the pizzeria to him falsified documents, he was unaware the income was overstated until the first quarter was up.

By then, she had disappeared.

He sacrificed sleep, his performance at his day job, and his sanity to keep his investment afloat.

Most months he was lucky to break even.

He took out a second mortgage on his house.
Sunk in $300,000 in additional loans over 4 years.
Exhausted all his resources and back ups.
Yet never saw a goddamn cent in return.

Despite ALL of this, he still paid me well over minimum wage for a year and a half.
Right out of his own pocket essentially

So next time, before you go mount your sure-as-shit high horse of righteousness.

Make certain you know what the FUCK you're talkin' about, alright.





In reply to this comment by joedirt:

Your pizzaria guy is just a jerk. Yes minimum wage did go up, do he is paying more.. But in reality he was paying way too little for like 10 years. So, yes minimum wage goes up in step functions while cost of living and inflation go up linearly. So for like 5 years min wage employees are getting screwed and for like 2 or 3 years employers are paying more than "usual". But no, jerkoff pizza guy didn't magically have to shell out extra thousands of dollars. (which is probably like 1/2 the profit from a few weeks)

Quick service pizzeria. It was an LLC.

The seventh and eighth employees were him and his girlfriend, the manager.

>> ^handmethekeysyou:

Out of curiosity, what was your friend/employer's business?
Also, if he was employing that many people, it's almost certain that he owned a corporation. You can't get workers comp as a sole proprietor & you don't have limited liability.

Out of curiosity, what was your friend/employer's business?

Also, if he was employing that many people, it's almost certain that he owned a corporation. You can't get workers comp as a sole proprietor & you don't have limited liability.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Like Frisk said.
Minimum wage kills jobs. Basic supply and demand.
If you set a fixed price, you throw of equilibrium which results in a shortage i.e. unemployment
My former employer and friend had to close his small business because his mandatory license fees doubled and minimum wage rose just two bucks in two years.
He employed 8 people and barely broke even each month.
The 24% wage increase cost him an extra 5,000 a year.
Can't say the same for corporations tho.
Walmart's minimum wage should be at least 8 or 9 with all the money they save twisting producers arms & using slave labor.>> ^gwiz665:
Make tipping illegal, raise minimum wages.

Really? Are we being that naïve? I know many waiters/waitresses/bartenders. They report nowhere near what they make in tips. This is one of the upsides of the job. When you deal in cash, you get to screw the government.>> ^nanrod:

Both in the US and here in Western Canada (all of Canada of course) tips and gratuities are taxable income and it is the responsibility of the recipient to keep track of how much they receive and report them on their tax returns. Consequently the government is not getting shafted out of income taxes by waiters/waitresses any more than by any other occupation.>> ^Sagemind:

1). The government is getting shafted on the income tax (someone call the IRS)

Both in the US and here in Western Canada (all of Canada of course) tips and gratuities are taxable income and it is the responsibility of the recipient to keep track of how much they receive and report them on their tax returns. Consequently the government is not getting shafted out of income taxes by waiters/waitresses any more than by any other occupation.>> ^Sagemind:


1). The government is getting shafted on the income tax (someone call the IRS)