Red Tick Beer. Hmm... Bold, refreshing, and something I can't quite put my finger on. -Hmmm needs more dog.

Well this seems like a good waste of time. Someone in Canada is claiming that a restaurant has violated her Human rights by naming a beer the Albino Rhino. Furthermore she complains that in Africa where she was born albinos are often ritually murdered which is why she moved to Canada. Well you live in Canada now you goof get over it. Had anyone in Canada attacked you or mocked you for being Albino? In Canada/the US being albino is no different than being a redhead. I knew an albino kid at northwestern it was no big deal. In Canada there is no shame in being albino, but even if there was, naming a beer the albino rhino wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights. If you don't like it don't go to that restaurant. Why is it that so many people today feel comfortable trying to force their opinions views and offensive upon everyone else. If one person thinks it's offensive then everyone thinks it's offensive.

You know what really aggravazes me? It's them immigants.

They wants all the benefits of living in Springfield, but they ain't even bother to learn themselves the language.

Well this makes sense. This guy has been convicted of terrorist related crimes, he is not a british citizen, and yet the british government is spending $10,000,000 a year to let him live in a nice house in britain instead of deporting him. And then the government runs a massive deficit and has to cut spending on education. Only government beaucrats who believe there is an infinite amount of money could possibily believe this is a good idea.

The only thing a loser like me is good for is taking beatings. - There you go! That's the spirit!

I guess to Obama it seems like everyone punches above their weight class. (In this scenario Obama is homer, and everyone else in the world is drederick tatum.) No other commentary, just something that struck me as funny.

What is it with you kids and that word? I'm going to shave you bald, young man, until you learn that hair is not a right: it's a privelege!

Why is it that schools continue to insist that they can treat their students as sub people who do not have any rights. So a student from home posts something on her facebook page and the school thinks that's their business and they get to assign detention over it? Not only that, but they have the right to demand she tell them her password so they can look through her private messages? I would say i hope the teachers responsible for this get fired, but obviously that's impossible because of the teacher's union. The teachers will never face any repercussions which is probably why they feel so comfortable trampling all over their students. As a side note it's silly for the article to compare abusing students rights to making requirements of teachers and college athletes. Going to college/getting a job as a teacher are not rights, those are positions you have to earn and you will be representing your school. If they want to have certain requirements to offer a job or scholarship that's their prerogative, but elementary education is not a privilege, it's a right, in fact it's not only a right, but a requirement. You're required by law to go to school, and then the school requires you to give up your right to free speech. Therefore you are essentially legally required to give up your constitutional right. Which is obviously illegal.

You promised me dog or higher.

So as you may be aware the federal government has been involved in a series of expensive long term sting operations to capture dangerous villains selling unpasteurized milk to eager customers. Surely the take over metropolis can only be days away. Here are a couple of articles presenting opposite view points on the safety of non-pasteurized milk. Basically the first says it's safer, and the second says that's only true of the mass produced milk that comes from factory farms and is full of bacteria. Normal milk from a well run farm is both safe and healthier. While there are some good points made by the second article that really isn't the point. I guess it's another argument against the government, but even if i conceded that pasteurized milk is safer, I would still not concede that the government has the right to tell you what you get to eat or drink. If i chose to eat a box of nerds for dinner that's my prerogative, and if i choose to can my fruits and risk getting botulism that's my prerogative too. And if i want to drink myself stupid every night until i die of cirrhosis the government has no objection. But if i want to drink some unpasteurized milk, the same way people have been drinking it for 1000s of years, now the government is going to step in and say they can't allow that. I'm all for protecting customers from fraud/misrepresented products. But if someone comes to a farmer and says may I please purchase some unpasteurized milk and the farmer agrees, who in this country really has a problem with that? Can we have a vote on this? Instead of government of the people, by the people, and for the people we have gotten a government of the bureaucrats by the bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats who install whatever rules and laws they see fit regardless of whether they are benefiting people, or even make a basic level of sense. As far as i can tell the only purpose of having this law is to higher more people to enforce it. Thus the government continues to spawn and feed off of it's host (us).

First you must answer 1 question about Japan. Is the answer japan?... Yes.

This is kind of amazing, but my question is who's idea was it to invent this? Was it intentional? Did someone decide you know what the world needs an anti-talking ray? Or were they working on something else, or was someone just goofing around and to play a joke on his friend created something to shoot his words back at him? It seems like the joke idea makes the most sense. It would be a funny prank to start with, but after it turns out the person can't speak it becomes double funny. Also i would be a little concerned about the long term affects of messing with the brain like this, but it would be nice to have sometimes.

Wait a minute... there's something bothering me about this place. I know. This lesbian bar doesn't have a fire exit. Enjoy your death trap ladies.

I'm not sure what this woman is upset about. She has chosen to be a member of a religion that considers homosexuality to be sinful, and now she's upset that the priest of that religion was not accepting of her homosexuality. It is my understanding that you are not to take communion if you are not clean of spirit. If you have sinned and not confessed/repented your sins or if you are not a true believer than it is a sin to take communion. In the eyes of the priest it would be leading her further into sin to give her communion, and it would also suggest that the sinful life she is currently leading is okay. I'm not saying i agree with catholisms stance, but pick a different religion. I would agree that it was extremely rude and improper to leave the funeral. That is disrespectful of the diseased and for all we know she was a pious individual who is yucking it up in heaven right now. But as far as the communion goes, you don't get to join somebody's club and then be upset because you think their rules are stupid.