I wonder why people conveniently forgot that Jada publicly cheated on Will with her teenaged son’s teenaged best friend for some time…had a relationship with him, not a one time tryst. Anyone else think that, more than anything, triggered Will to overreact thinking her eye roll was at him laughing at the joke, not the joke itself? Once a cuckold forever a simp.

Toxic relationships create toxic people. Don’t stay with someone who disrespects you in such a devastating and demasculating way. That kind of wound never heals, and leads to things like this.

Side note, how is “can’t be in the audience for 10 years but can still be honored and attend pre and post events” a punishment in any way? Sounds like a gift to me….but I hate public speaking.
Also, are they going to let him record acceptance speeches they broadcast? I would bet the answer is yes….so they have now rewarded his violent outburst twice.

Already did my part the first time. I'd love to help you out but, you know, *eye roll* limitations.

should heed newt on that tangled.

that's the straight dope.

they had folks on tape talking about how they shut down power to the state. they laughed about it.

seriously, it might open yer eyes. if anything, you could read how a DEMOCRAT governor got recalled and was replaced by a REPUBLICAN!!!... due to the evilness of Enron.

so at least, there is an *eye-roll* a happy ending /s.

Don't blame the union. Unions have ways of sidestepping that process and contracts have provisions for people to be fired for blatant and flagrant violations of the law.

He wouldn't be on administrative leave if he drove his cruiser through a crowd full of kids while he was drunk. Similarly, there's no investigation to be done here.

He attacked a child - and if there was a reason to justify the first assault, I'm assuming it's the usual "police presumed to be acting in good faith" would be thrown up because that's fair ^eye-roll^; even that doesn't hold up to the second slam. The second slam is an individualized version of a squad-car running through a crowd. It's blatant, flagrant, and criminal.

We need to stop treating COPs (citizens on patrol) like a class of citizens that can get away with this shit or receive any special treatment. If that man was a custodian, he'd be fired on the spot and arrested. Then if he was black it wouldn't matter if his hands were laid flat on the ground and he was spread eagle screaming "I AM NOT RESISTING ARREST AND AM UNARMED" someone would shout

better story telling than any of the movies. that could have saved me 40 hrs of eye rolling if it came out 18 movies ago.

I'd eat you and your baby in a heart beat if it meant survival for me. But the fact is almost nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will, and the more people that become vegan, the less likely that is to happen as well.

So yes, people that have made a conscious decision to not do cruel things while they are unnecessary are superior. Just like in the way you don't go around murdering people for shoes right now, even though in the apocalypse you would, makes you a superior person compared with some thug that does that now. You would probably steal food from people that need it, but you aren't doing that now, so you're definitely superior to people that do steal unnecessarily now too. But you don't see anyone telling people who don't steal to get off their high horses.....

There is no humor because the situation is so serious, not because it's puncturing a balloon of superiority. Or do you think that people who opposed concentration camps where simply doing so to feel superior too?
The other thing that makes it totally not funny is because I've heard this ignorant and false stereotype stuff so many times it makes my eyes roll. Vegans are as a diverse group of people as can possibly be, with the only thing in common is their compassion for animals, and care of the environment.

I'm also not a lion or a chimp, I don't copy their other behaviors like throwing poo or licking my own ass, so I don't see why I'd copy their carnivorous behavior either. It's a good thing I have a frontal lobe and can use reason to make decisions based on my understanding of the consequences.

Also while I would eat meat for survival, I would not be eating it for the taste. It sounds to me like you're under the impression that vegans are like ex-heroin addicts, always being tempted by that next hit. It's not like that all, taste buds adjust dramatically over time, in fact they adjust second to second - eat an apple after a swig of soft drink. It'll taste sour. Yet do it before, and the apple is sweet. I honestly find the thought of meat revolting now, just like you would if you had to eat something like a dog or rat. I feel the same way about milk the way you do about drinking human breast milk. I'm not just saying this to be dramatic or superior, I'm saying it to give you an example how easily your taste buds are influenced.

The fabric thing is valid, but the New Testament specifically exempts food, so the food laws no longer apply. Of course the New Testament doesn't forbid owning slaves, in fact tells slaves to continue to obey their masters... so technically, slavery is still allowed by the faith despite their claims that they are the ones who got rid of it... of course the South used all the slavery verses to justify their use of slavery, just like during the 50's and 60's people used the verses about mixing races to justify keeping segregation going and refuse interracial marriage licenses. Really when it comes down to it, you can use the Bible to prove any side of an argument you want apparently... I guess god really is perfect as his book can be used to justify 100% opposite positions.. <eye roll>

I did the same thing when i was little. i went up the stairs on the outside of the iron banister and climbed through only to get my head stuck. i yelled for help and everyone came running trying help get me unstuck but nothing worked. After giving up and getting ready to cut through the railing someone asked me how I got stuck there in the first place, I stepped through the bars and showed them. Much eye rolling then commenced.

Would love to have been able to see the first driver. How much were they screaming? Lots of eye-rolling perhaps, or gesturing?

We may never know.

I'll admit Dex is pretty creepy there... he should have freaked her out by keeping one eye rolled back in his head and speaking to her in a super low voice NOBODY WAKES ME

The NYT reporter implies pretty clearly that other witnesses say that the cop did not grab Brown by the throat. If you actually take the time to read the article (anyone...did anyone actually read it?) the point of the piece was not to show a handwringing bias, it was to show that the trial is going to be clouded with conflicting stories, and that we need to step back from any kneejerk reaction that we may feel from just one piece of testimony; a concept that is lost to O'Donnell who only interviewed people who had similar stories. He could have gotten the other witnesses' testimony, but no, he just makes assumptions that align himself with his demographic. It shouldn't be surprising that O'Donnell doesn't understand the nuances of print, because he's never actually been journalist. It was eye-rolling to see him sit up there in the beginning of the piece and claim to be an authority on the inner workings of print journalism when he's never actually stepped foot in a press room. The whole spectacle was eye rolling to anyone who would be at all interested in looking for some unbiased information.

"I believe there are nuances and unknowns being ignored or unknown to ChaosEngine and yourself that is clouding both of your viewpoints here."

By the way, this opinion is again not an 'argument' much less a 'fact'.

"I must agree with you there. Compensated emancipation, if it could have been done successfully and non-violently (big if's), would be preferable in my eyes to 'war'"

And yet, this is one of Napolitano's arguments that Stewart decided to ridicule (thus inspiring my original comment). But as a 'comedian' he can get away with non-arguments and instead rely on "funny faces" and other contortions (unlike some other folks I can mention). Maybe some eye-rolling.

Being a Type I diabetic myself, I'd love to see where you got that info. I hope it has something to do with eating therapeutic chocolate. Those are the best cures. *eye roll*

I recently got into it with someone because they kept saying "one hundred hundreds"

"Ten-thousand?"
"NO! One hundred hundreds?"

(in my brain now) "hmmm 100x100=10,000 maybe he means 100 and 100? 200? no... wtf? 100 100? 100,000?"

"One hundred thousand?"
"Yeah...*eye roll* what's wrong with you?"
"ME?!?!"

Damn Volumpt...saw yer poignant plea for divisive assholes and got here as fast as I could!! (I'm a bit thick, remind me again, what rule he broke expressing what seemed to this a-hole, a quite righteous consternation?)

Dear People Who Create a Crinkle in My Particular Pet Peeve With Regard To Site Functionality Relative To A Civil Framework Of Communication:

Myynah, mnyas, nyah (hands on hips and with self-righteous defensive demanor and suitable pout and eye-roll), furthermore, because you, and I dindn't nyah, and myah muh blerp, durka, durka, durka, Mohammed Ghihad!"

“The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend!”
― Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence

Congrats catfart, make it real this go-round and step out into something besides some dooty?