Sodium lauryl sulfate is there to make things foamy, but also:

"Like all detergent surfactants, sodium lauryl sulfate removes oils from the skin, and can cause skin and eye irritation. It has been shown to irritate the skin of the face, with prolonged and constant exposure (more than an hour) in young adults. SDS may worsen skin problems in individuals with chronic skin hypersensitivity, with some people being affected more than others."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_dodecyl_sulfate#Toxicology

I remember Foamy! And CDs, barely.

It's not trying to eat the finger or taste it. It's trying to anoint itself with the scent of the finger. There's another video by the same user (you can see it in the suggested videos) that's 4 seconds long showing the behavior.

Hedgehogs, when confronted with strange new scents, lick and gnaw on the object until they have enough of the scent in their mouth. They then foam up their spittle and reach around and spread the foamy stuff on their quills.

It's really weird. No one really knows why they do it.

Foamy still exists? Wow.

>> ^Fletch:

Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.
Your argument is so much stronger without this foamy cruft.



You're certainly aware of how effective this is at painting the rest of your argument as the same kind of "us-vs-them" garbage (regardless of its merits) so it comes across as so much chest-puffing and strutting about. That is to say, when you argue like this, you're obviously not arguing for effect - you're showing off for your friends.

Mr. Brown's argument is belied by his body's reaction: profuse sweating and foamy mouth. Ick.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^rebuilder:
I still don't understand how marriage should be the state's business in the first place.

Well, essentially it's a legal contract. You each endow the other partner with certain rights (medical decisions for instance).
So in that sense I understand how it's the states business. I fail to understand how it's anyone else's.


To listen to the discussion around the matter, that really doesn't seem to be the sticking point. And even if it were, I still don't see why it's the state's business. Why do you need an exclusive institution to let people make such contracts among themselves? Whether or not homosexuals may marry is just one aspect of the problem. What about, say, polygamy?

There's got to be a better way to give family units the legal protections offered by marriage without making arbitrary decisions about what kind of family qualifies.

>> ^rebuilder:

I still don't understand how marriage should be the state's business in the first place.


Well, essentially it's a legal contract. You each endow the other partner with certain rights (medical decisions for instance).

So in that sense I understand how it's the states business. I fail to understand how it's anyone else's.

No, we're not supporters of Santorum.

BOOM! :-)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You embarrass yourselves every time you start brainlessly running around, regurgitating whatever foamy diahrrea come back up...

There's no nice way to say it. Boy, are you Trog-Lib-Dytes stupid. Any bit of propoganda the Obama campaign craps out their crusty, diseased sphincters you will run up to and dreamily start licking up and loudly proclaiming it is the most delicious chocolate ice cream you've ever had. You embarrass yourselves every time you start brainlessly running around, regurgitating whatever foamy diahrrea come back up after eating the DNC's sewage. Honestly - how can you guys really be this dumb? Do you really believe there is any commonanity in ANYTHING Reagan (one of the most aggressive tax cutters ever) ever said and anything Odumbo says? You're like a bunch of drowning men desperate for a life-preserver, who will grasp at an anvil because youv'e got nothing else to hold onto. Pathetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-quoting-reagan-out-of-context/2012/04/11/gIQAaOsZBT_blog.html

"On a superficial level, Obama is echoing Reagan’s anecdotes when he speaks of the Buffett Rule and tax fairness. But it is misleading for Obama to suggest that Reagan was “pushing for the same concept” — and to label the Buffett Rule the “Reagan Rule”-- when the former president actually barnstormed the country to argue on behalf of a broad-based tax cut that reduced taxes for the wealthy, the middle class and the poor while greatly simplifying the tax system."

If Democrats are counting on the STUPID vote, you guys are a lock.

All better. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*dead

Oh yay! The most succinct squirrel there is. Thank you for sharing a great one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
foamy fan?
http://videosift.com/video/the-jiggly-butt-foamy-the-squirrel
well i am.

Man I haven't seen foamy in probably 6 years or so.. that girl seems a lot...larger... than I remember

Thank you, good sir. May you have a hot and foamy day with just a whisper of cinnamon, such as might give an allusion to the moments after a rain shower in the summer heat.

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
Oh man, good stuff. One of my favourite Frasier moments. *quality

yes foamy. i remember this from my tween years.