Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.

 

« Previous | Next »


Obama, move!



barack obama

Obama, move! Elmos on da TV.

(Barack Obama)

Picture by: dunno source Caption by: thechanzeler54 via Our LOL Builder

» View All Captions

Incorrect source or offensive?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Copy & paste this:

» 228 comments

  1. Justacarolinian says:

    Elmo is a lot more entertaining. And a lot more honest.

  2. MoreCowbell says:

    Looks like he’s snapping his neck !!!

  3. boater407 says:

    Obama would have pre-empted Elmo for YET ANOTHER speech about how he saved the economy with nonexistent jobs in nonexistent districts.

  4. VictoryNotVengeance says:

    Wow. The butt-hurt is out early this morning!

    • MoreCowbell says:

      Yes- our butts hurt from being screwed by this bozo of a president.

      • VictoryNotVengeance says:

        No offense pal, but you were screwed long before Obama, and it will only get worse after. What our economy faces now is the unavoidible evolution. Its only going to get worse.

        • keithybabes says:

          Still, mustn’t grumble, eh?

          • VictoryNotVengeance says:

            Grumble all you wish, just try to grumble the problem and not the result.

            • I Like Peanut Butter says:

              VNV: I’m fully aware Mr. Obama inheritted a Charlie Foxtrot from Senor Bush. However as I’ve said before, if you inherit a 8 year old car with multiple problems, and it’s your only way of transportation, you don’t go 8000 miles between oil changes, run up on curbs, and use duck tape to keep the hood closed.

              • Joseph says:

                Thank you, ILPB – that’s brilliant!

              • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                I wasn’t talking about Bush. I was talking about the last 50 years of business management in America, and probably more. Just because it isn’t Obama’s fault doesn’t mean it was Bush’s. People need to get over the fact the the nation is older than 8 years. Obama is doing all he can right now, just like Bush did when the collapse first happened.

                • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                  But if all your credit cards are maxed out, you’re income is dwindling, you don’t go out and SPEND MORE!!!! I didn’t agree with Bush’s Bail Out, I don’t agree with OBama’s Bail Outs. The politicians are being irresponsible, it’s killing the American $, and the Chinese are ridiculing us on our spending.

                  • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                    Its not the politicians. Its the busineses.

                    • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                      Really 300 Billion in one bill 700 Billion in another? That’s spendng in my eyes.

                      • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                        Now think about how many jobs were lost by outsourcing companies, and take those salaries and multiply them out. And make sure to include the jobs lost in the last 50 years due to outsourcing. Then try to blame politicians.

                        • dissimilitude says:

                          Technically, jobs aren’t “lost” due to outsourcing, if you’re thinking globally. They’re moved and given to different people.

                        • mabsba says:

                          Well, since we’re talking about the American economy (aren’t we?), yes, the jobs are lost in that they are lost to US.

                        • mabsba says:

                          Well, we all know that only American jobs are important, anyway? Right? :wink:

                        • bitter troll the vladerist says:

                          economy in troll kingdom is great, outsourcing is punishable by being eaten

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          And why are companies out sourcing? Taxes, regulations, forced benefits, minimum wage, etc etc etc… where does that come from, the Gubberment. You can’t blame business when the politicians force them out.

                        • The Steve says:

                          How dare we require our business to employ people in tolerable working conditions with safety standards…

                          We should legalize sweat shops, then China could outsource to us!

                        • n00bs says:

                          We just end up buying stuff from countries with intolerable working conditions… and very little quality control.

                        • Wait, ILPB, are you saying it’s okay for companies to outsource because the government doesn’t let these companies treat employees like in China? The only way for a company to make money is by using underpaid labor in poor working conditions and shoddy materials?

                        • dissimilitude says:

                          Well, I’m not ILPB, but I’ll just note that, in general, companies try to make the business decisions that will generate the greatest profit margin; employees and customers (so long as they keep buying) are not really a part of the equation for (most of) them. So, if the amount saved by manufacturing your widget in Country X in a sweatshop with no environmental regulations is more than the additional amount you’d spend on shipping, then, yes, most of them will go for that option.

                        • n00bs says:

                          I’m also not ILPB, but… If companies in US are competing with companies elsewhere with NO controls at all, how can they make a profit?

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          Well I am ILPB, and I say that companies were willing to take some loss, however as the government expanded, unions got more power, their profit margins turned to Red. I understand some comapnies take advantage, however I also understand that it’s impossible to compete with some of our laws on the books.

                        • jim says:

                          VNV! You don’t like business, business goes elsewhere. What’s the beef?

                        • A share of the blame for outsourced American jobs lies in the American consumer. We want our goods at WalMart prices and we want good paying jobs and benefits too, but it doesn’t really work that way. Take the US garment industry, for example. In 1965, 95% of American clothing was made in the USA; today, only 5% is manufactured here (per “Schmatta” a garment industry documentary). The reduced cost for outsourced goods is an illusion – and the real cost shows itself in other ways, like job loss.

                        • viking gal says:

                          Not to mention that the outsourced goods tend to be crapola. My dept ordered a largish item for the lab, and I’ve had to email them 3 times now (no directions for installation, a part missing, and a part not fitting because two of the holes were drilled too close together). I don’t think we’ll be ordering from them again, even though we are expanding!

                        • Well, we’re screwed then. There’s no way for us to win. If companies bring jobs back, they go broke. If they make money, the jobs go elsewhere. No matter what happens, we’re screwed. Well, that’s just lovely.
                          I really need to take the economics and business classes my wife took. Everything I’ve ever heard about business & economics sounds like it’s nothing but a catastrophe.

                        • well when you send the american jobs overseas to save money you start to create an america who cant afford your goods.

                        • Default User says:

                          Rando, you have added to my list of reasons to be grateful I’m marrying Keithy and moving to England. *hopes UK economy isn’t screwed like the US economy*

                  • Ceefax says:

                    Fact is, the kind of capitalism that America has been trying to practise is completely unsustainable, as we discovered when the unregulated banks collapsed and the people who got it in the neck weren’t the bankers who took the risks, it was the average guy in the street who had nothing to do with it. It exposed the myth of “self regulation.”

                    • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                      Actually that’s the definition of self regulation. People went above and beyond, banks took advantage, and those banks that stuck to their principals are doing fine. Same with the Auto industry.

                      • Self regulation is a joke. It gives companies the opportunity to fleece the American public while the government turns a blind eye to it.

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          Actually if the Government had turned a blind eye to this crisis, there would be regulation. Now the responisble companies (and people) feel jaded and screwed b/c those that didn’t “self regulate” got bailed out. If they would have had to live with the consequences, they would have learned.

                        • viking gal says:

                          If the govt had turned a complete blind eye to the crisis, the banking/lending freeze would have continued. There was NO trading occurring between banks for a couple months there in the early fall of 2008. None. No bank was willing to trust another bank to make the sort of loan which keeps things moving. Which means no bank was willing to make a loan to any business client–so that the client might make payroll, or buy materials so as to make their product, or to buy stock so as to have items to sell to customers.
                          As it is, the banks still aren’t loaning enough to the smaller businesses, but the zero degree Kelvin-style freeze has ended.

                        • Well, if we didn’t bail them out, how much worse would things have gotten. I HATE that all those companies got a free pass for screwing over the country. But if we didn’t bail them out, how many dominoes would have fallen along the way? Making them responsible would’ve been great, but at what cost? Would the fallout of those companies collapsing have been as bad as the bailout?

                        • here’s how we do it..we take the CEO’s who have been screwing america over to fatten their wallets. like just a few of them against the wall and BANG fire them the old fashioned way. let the others know it could happen t them too…unless they play right.

                        • mabsba says:

                          To understand economics (and economists) you must understand this joke (from a friend who triple degreed in economics, math & classical violin at Oberlin): An economist, a physicist and a chemist are on a desert island with canned food but no can opener. The physicist says, ‘Let’s drop the cans from a tree onto the rocks so they open.’ The chemist says, ‘Let’s build a fire and put the cans in it so the heat will open them.’ The economist says, ‘Let’s assume we have a can opener.’

                          I swear that is how economists do ‘math.’ (I have always called it ‘pseudo math.’)

              • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                So – we should buy a new car? *Thinks of cash for clunkers program*

                Or, we should invest heavily in restoring it?

                I’m really not sure the vehicle analogy works so well.

                • lowly grunt says:

                  My parents, devotees of all things Rush and NOT the Canadian rock band may they live forever, are certain the economy is on the brink of collapse and are very concerned about inflation.

                  As a result, they are buying us a new car. Really. Well, it’s used, but new to us.

                  It is a conumdrum. They want to spend their money before it is worthless and while I am very grateful for the gift, I shake my head at its inception. I would have thought that the fact we have one graduating from high school and on her way to college would have been motivation, not the rantings of a blob of jelly.

                  Oh well! Thanks Mom and Dad!

                • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                  Bitter: You should take care of it. Not run it to the ground. That’s my analogy. If you don’t like it….. then go Fvck Yerself, and that lil dog ToTo too… :-)

                  • mabsba says:

                    But it takes money to keep an old car running (I know this from experience :) ), so I’m not sure I get your analogy. Changing the oil, making repairs, ‘not running it into the ground’ — these all take money.

                    Now I don’t like the way the bank bail out was set up. Other countries did similar things, but stipulated that the money had to immediately go back out of the banks and into the economy. We didn’t.

                    The stimulus $ is to me like trying to repair the car. We are in serious need of a new tranny. I don’t know if it’ll work. I do know that consumer spending increased during the cash for clunkers (not including the $ spent on cars). Personally, I think that’s because it just got people buying again, for the first time in about a year.

                    • dissimilitude says:

                      On the other hand, the money you’re spending to keep the old car running is also helping the economy. Parts manufacturers, oil treatment manufacturers, brake fluid manufacturers, AutoZone, NAPA, PepBoys….maybe even a mechanic!

                      • mabsba says:

                        I don’t see why this is ‘on the other hand.’ I said, “The stimulus $ is to me like trying to repair the car.” I never said we shouldn’t spend money to take care of the car. That’s why I said I didn’t get ILPB’s analogy because it takes quite a bit of money to keep an old car going, and ILPB is saying we shouldn’t spend any money (I think). It seems contradictory to me.

                        • dissimilitude says:

                          D’oh! Yeah, context is important. :oops:

                        • Default User says:

                          I sadly think Jon Stewart had a great solution (it’s sad because the political satirist makes more sense than alot of the politicians). Lend the money to the people with the mortgage’s so they can pay the banks. The banks then don’t have to foreclose on them and won’t lose money from that, the homeowners get to keep their house, and still have money to spend, and in theroy the money gets paid back.

                        • mabsba says:

                          Yes, I heard that one also. It made perfect sense to me. If the banks’ problems are the mortgages, then help the people pay their mortgages (second loans, whatever). Because that solves two problems at once.

                    • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                      TOO LITERAL!!!!! I know y’all know the point I’m trying to make, if you inherit crap, don’t make it crapier. The current political spectrum in Washington should not be so worried about Health Care which costs more money when we obviously don’t have said money to pay for it. Obama inheritted crap, he’s adding to said crap, vice cleaning it up. THERE how about that? We’ll get Obama a pooper scooper.

                      • mabsba says:

                        Obviously if we had understood your point, the confused responses would not have ensued. It’s not really fair to get pissed because someone didn’t understand you.

                      • The Steve says:

                        I’m not sure what your suggestion is to “clean up the crap”.

                        How do we fix the broken car without spending money? If you don’t spend money, the car falls apart, then you need to buy a new car.

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          If the car is busted don’t bust it more. IE if you’re in debt STOP spending.

                          I never said not to spend money to fix the car, I was basically saying don’t add to the problems by compounding the problems.

                          Ok think of it this way:
                          spending money into debt = busted wreck of car,
                          spending more money to get out of debt = running wreck of car too long between oil changes, running up on curbs, not doing standard maintenance. Money only goes on ONE side of the analogy, NOT both.

                        • mabsba says:

                          I think that your analogy doesn’t work.

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          Why doesn’t it? B/C people are focusing on the wrong aspect. I think it’s clear as day.

                        • froofrou: Now 5 times more accurate! says:

                          Here’s one that does: If you’ve got 15 credit cards and all of them are maxed out, you’re not going to pay them off by spending more money. You’re just going to make the situation worse. You have to carefully plan out how you can divide up what money you DO have (because if you borrow more from your mom she’s going to get pissed and cut you off) between the bills and money for food and necessities like car payments rent.

                        • mabsba says:

                          EVERYONE thinks what they write says exactly what they mean it to ‘as clear as day.’ But when no one else gets it, that’s a sign that it’s not.

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          mabs: Some people got it, some didn’t (ironically it fell down the “party” line).

                        • mabsba says:

                          Froo, yes, your analogy is better. At least I believe I understand what your view of our current situation is from it, which is the point. (I don’t agree with your assessment, but I can understand it. :) )

                        • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                          Much clearer!

                          Unless the way out of debt is to invest in job training, a suit for a job interview, infrastructure to make work more efficient, etc. :)

                        • froofrou: Now 5 times more accurate! says:

                          Well, if you’ve figured out how to keep spending money when you’re all maxed out, please share, because there is a refrigerator that I want to buy, along with a 64″ big screen :-)

                        • mabsba says:

                          ILPB, sorry if that’s true and I missed it. All I saw was on this thread was confusion.

                        • mabsba says:

                          Froo, I believe our resident wino answered that very well.

                        • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                          Btw, I am not saying I am a huge fan of the way the bailouts went down, but I am not completely sold on the argument that the answer won’t at least initially involve spending more money.

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          See though Froo’s analogy doesn’t take into account that the problem was inherited…… isn’t clear to me… **winks**

                        • froofrou: Now 5 times more accurate! says:

                          In this case, I think that car payments and rent are analogous with things like Medicare and other social programs that we still need to pay for. Perhaps we should try to pare those down to be more efficient, the same way I’d move into a smaller place to be able to afford it.

                          As far as investing in a new suit or new job training, the analogy can follow that you pare down as much as you can to put that money back, and when you’ve saved up enough for new training (infrastructure or what have you), THEN you pay for it. Especially since getting that new job and having it do you any good isn’t set in stone. If you’re able to survive on what you have now (and the government has more than enough income if it will use it wisely), then do it while you try to be smart about it and plan for the future

                        • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                          Mabs: I think some people were looking at it too literally. Remember we’re not just talking about the spending, but other states of the nation as well. As said earlier Obama inheritted a mess, no one can dispute that. Some liberals tended to focus only on the spending aspect, b/c that’s what they hear the right complain about most. So there is some bias involved, maybe not fully clear on my part by saying EVERYTHING (which I thought I did), etc…. The first response to my analogy was a positive similar “Hell YEAH!”

                        • froofrou: Now 5 times more accurate! says:

                          The thing I feel everyone is missing is that yes, we might need things like job training or a new suit for that interview, but if you’re completely maxed out on your credit cards and you keep spending for whatever reason, you’re going to starve because you can’t put food on the table. And god forbid your children (the country) starve with you because you didn’t budget wisely.

                        • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                          @ ILPB – I understood the point of your analogy, I just think it was limited beyond your initial point.

                          @ froo- Move into a smaller place, huh. Are you saying that we should drop some states or something ;) .

                          I am supportive of paring down some government programs, but I think that we will decidedly disagree on which programs.

                        • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                          We aren’t maxed out yet. China just extended our limit ;)

                          Lets throw a party!

                        • mabsba says:

                          Hey, you can’t drop us (NM)! We have all the nukes! (Well, most of them, anyway.) :)

                        • perhaps we drop the non states first…peurto rico, your cut off. time to grow up

                        • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                          PR is actually a good example. They don’t pay federal taxes in return for not getting to vote in Pres. elections.

                        • but if you are given a broken car, you need to spend some money on repairs or parts AND not drive it into the ground

                        • mabsba says:

                          I know this thread ended a while ago, but I would like to add one thing: I think most Dems understand about why people think we should curtail spending, but are a bit pissed because we never heard much complaining for eight years of Bush pretty much spending money like a drunken sailor. (Now you can argue about his spending choices, but that’s how most Dems felt.) Now our guy’s in, and all of the sudden it’s oh, no, not spending. (I do realize some Republicans protested Bush’s spending, but it sure wasn’t much or loud.)

                          We feel a bit like the fifth kid who, after his four older siblings went to Ivy League schools, is told not only is there no money for him to even attend the state college, but he has to pay all their college debts.

                        • keithybabes says:

                          Hey, but you could stay at home and run the family savings & loan and make averybody happy and when you’re sad and want to end it all an angel will come and show you how different things would have been if you hadn’t been born..

                        • keithybabes says:

                          AND the government would come and bail you out so it’s win win.

                  • bitter troll the vladerist says:

                    huh wha?

                  • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                    Have you ever run a car into the ground before. Its more fun then you might expect. Particularly if you plan to buy a new one.

                    • mabsba says:

                      Well, that’s not always true. My friend had the drive shaft literally fall out of his van while he was driving it…fortunately slowly! It almost flipped him end for end and left an amazing gouge in the street. :)

                      • Bitter wino, the wine steward says:

                        Fair enough.

                        I had an old jeep I was trying to restore at one point (I gave up b\c I was not skilled or dedicated enough to fix things such as the transmission) that the drive shaft fell out of in the middle of Atlanta rush hour traffic. That was one of the less fun experiences.

              • pedo viejo says:

                It’s cruel to tape a duck.

              • viking gal says:

                You do if you are a graduate student! And I so do NOT miss those days…

              • Bradley says:

                Excellent, you win a cookie

    • ay dios mio says:

      I agree he Elmo haters sure are rough. :roll:

      • I Like Peanut Butter says:

        I prefer Grover myself, much more upstanding than this Elmo character.

        On a side bar, anyone see the new toy for pedaphiles this year? Tickle Me Elmo Hands….. CREEPY!!

        • HelOnWheels the Gene Pool Lifeguard says:

          Saw those. Way creepy. And the commercial with the pre-school gangsta’ rap: disturbing.

          • Mina the personal Stalker Troll of HOW says:

            I shall have to look this up after work today. I’m sure it’s on You tube somewhere.

            • mabsba says:

              It really is disturbing. It makes my teenager go ‘yeek’ and grab the remote to mute it.

              • justacanuck says:

                I don’t know if you guys have these down in the states, but as I get older, the Mini-pops (young kids doing the latest pop songs) commercials are freaking me out. Something about a 9 year old singing Britney Spears or Black Eyed Peas…….disturbing…as well as doing the “dances” from the videos.

                • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                  Ahh every pedaphile loves a protesta-tot.

                • mabsba says:

                  Unfortunately, yes. And the clothes for young girls are all slutty.

                  • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                    Ever watch that show “Toddlers and Tiaras”? NOW that is disturbing as well. 2 – 16 year olds don’t need to be in bathing suit judging contests.

                    • justacanuck says:

                      I try to avoid that show. I saw the original documentary it was based on…..gave me nightmares for weeks. Thankfully, I don’t have a girl.

                  • Which makes me fvcking sick. It gets harder and harder to find decent clothes even for a 6 year old!!

                    • mabsba says:

                      One of the advantages of having a boy. T-shirts and pants, that’s all mine wears. And he isn’t too fussy, although I do believe he is eyeballing some of the thinkgeek shirts. :)

                      • My boy is very easy to dress. Star Wars/Pokemon/dinosaur shirts and jeans. My daughter is a battle pretty much every day.

                      • justacanuck says:

                        Boys are so much easier than girls when it comes to fashion. At least mine is! Well, except for getting him to part with the too small and too hole-y clothing.

                        • mabsba says:

                          My sister actually mailed me an outfit her son had outgrown so he would stop wearing it. (“We’re sending it to your cousin as a gift.” worked well, apparently.)

                          No clothes with holes at school, so that pretty much solves that problem. :)

                        • justacanuck says:

                          I leave for work well before he heads to school. I tried that rule, didn’t work. Maybe I’ll up the ante to: if you’re wearing it when I get home, that means you wore it to school and now it goes in the fireplace.

                        • mabsba says:

                          Ah, no, I was actually thinking of the school dress code. But I’m pretty ruthless about making anything ratty looking into rags. (I understand, you probably need the fireplace fuel. :) )

                        • justacanuck says:

                          Well, I have been threatening him with military school…..they have dress codes….. ;)

                        • dissimilitude says:

                          I feel your pain. My son (16!) persists in wearing his old “I’m expecting a flood momentarily!” pants to school even though I’ve bought ones that fit him because the old ones are more comfortable. (Yeah, I know, I need to get rid of them…)

                        • mabsba says:

                          Canuck, I think most American public high schools have dress codes. I don’t know if they enforce them or not. :)
                          My son attends a private high school, and they DO enforce their dress code.

                        • Green Beard the Canuck, Pirate of the Mighty Bow River says:

                          I’m not precisely sure where justacanuck is from, but when the schoolboard around here floated the idea of a dress code in the public schools the screams of public outrage were somewhat overwhelming… I think the poster of a 10yr old in a prison jumpsuit was a little hyperbolic, but it was was definitely effective.

                        • justacanuck who needs a new name says:

                          I’m in Calgary, AB. The schools have a dress code of sorts that varies from school to school (no offensive t-shirts, no spaghette strap tanks on the girls, etc.). A few holes in my son’s shirt and flood pants won’t get him sent home, although they have asked if we needed “assistance” lol.

                        • Green Beard the Canuck, Pirate of the Mighty Bow River says:

                          Gadzukes! You’re like 20min away from me… small world. Out here in the boonies they managed to ban t-shirts with beer logos, pot leaves, and sexually explicit images (not suggestive explicit). When they tried to demand clean pants with no holes and no spaghetti strap tank tops the parents protested… loudly…

                        • dissimilitude says:

                          Wow, at our local public schools the boys have to wear black, navy, or khaki pants with white polo or button-up shirts, the girls can wear the same or a skirt in the same colors, at least to the knee.

                          It always amazes me to watch the high schoolers walking into school in the morning, having taken the literal limits of the dress code and stretching it like silly putty….

                        • justacanuck who needs a new name says:

                          I figured you must be near, given that you’re a pirate on the Bow river! Yeah, depending on the principal and teachers, what’s not acceptable is a school by school thing here in cowtown.

                        • mabsba says:

                          Well, I live near a public high school, and it doesn’t look as if they enforce the dress code that much. The middle schoolers (grades 6-8) have to wear what Diss described. My son’s school’s code is simple: nothing offensive, no baggy pants, no holes, nothing suggestive (eg spaghetti straps). What’s really brilliant is the teachers were tired of sending kids to the dean, so they set up a poster board and for every infraction, they put a piece of doll’s clothing on it. If it gets to 50, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES.

                        • GreenFuzzyLeaf says:

                          My kid is easy peasy, mostly. For him as long as the pants are jeans, he’s happy. Biggest drawback is if it’s a mario shirt. I have to almost hold him down to peel him out of that shirt so I can wash it!

                        • Default User says:

                          50? With weekends, holidays, and sick days that’s like one infraction a day for the whole school year!

                        • mabsba says:

                          Um. Don’t know how you figured that. There are 180 school days in a school year (at least here) and 450 students in that division.

                        • Default User says:

                          I was using my own special magic math! I may have also misunderstood the rules. Is it 50 per student or 50 per division?

                        • mabsba says:

                          I’m sorry. No, it’s 50 infractions for the entire division (that’s why I said how many students there are). 50 per student WOULD be ridiculous. I’m not sure if it’s per year or per semester actually, but it does seem to work. The dean said he hears students being dragged away from his office (glass fronted) with whispers of “Don’t go by Mr. Kim’s office!” Ah, peer pressure. :)

                        • Default User says:

                          Oh :( I liked my way better. I liked my math better too :D

                    • Default User says:

                      Second hand stores are your friend, you can usually find things that aren’t slutty that fit a 6 year old, and since most children grow so quickly the clothes haven’t been worn that much either.

                      • dissimilitude says:

                        At least one of my daughters has had a lot of issues trying to buy clothes over her teen years that are both age-appropriate (naturally she doesn’t want to look matronly) and modest (because she is…). Especially for a few years there when it seemed like all the junior-size jeans started at the pubes and the t shirts and sweaters stopped somewhere in the ribsection. Actually, I think that’s what motivated her to learn to sew.

                        • Default User says:

                          For jeans I actually recommend price club/costco. That’s where I usually get mine, they usually have things with a reasonable cut because not all of us feel the need to show off our underwear to complete strangers. I can understand her pain though, I’ve always been a fairly modest dresser (which is odd given I’m not actually modest). I tended to wear alot of jeans and t-shirts in high school.

                      • GreenFuzzyLeaf says:

                        Value Village is awesome. Just make sure you wash everything you buy (clothing or not). I used to work there… Oddest things would come through. (Like an urn full of ashes)

                  • viking gal says:

                    Go old school–Lands End or LLBean. She’ll get abused for not being fashionable, but won’t look like a garden tool.

        • pedo viejo says:

          pedo It’s pedophiles, not “pedaphiles”. Pedo is something else altogether in Spanish.

  5. Bob says:

    This proves babys are evil

  6. Gringo says:

    Im surprised his teleprompter had nothing to say about this.

  7. mothergoose says:

    Totally off subject, but just came back from the Mall and saw a guy wearing a t-shirt that said “Tiger was framed”… and so it begins…

  8. Sqwirk says:

    What is he doing holding a white kid?

    Doesn’t he have one of his own kind?

  9. bitter troll the vladerist says:

    does this count as the obama LOL people have been crying for ?

  10. Sqwirk says:

    Obama gets teabagged?

  11. LIVE FROM A CONSERVATIVE NEWS STATION

    this just in…new proof that hurracane Katrina was all Obama’s fault….some people say…film PROVEING he was completely at 100% fault…some people say…at 11

  12. froofrou: Now 5 times more accurate! says:

    100th!!

  13. sergio says:

    typical american kid, annoying

  14. Default User says:

    Sorta looks like the kid is picking Obamas nose.

  15. viking gal says:

    Now THAT is a win!

  16. Cowlifornia says:

    Bah! The Elmo is much more entertaining and knowledgeable than you, Mr. Gingerbread-man!

  17. mr. purple says:

    la la la la la la la la la elmos world (elmos world)la la la la la la la la la elmos world(elmos world0 he loves his goldfish his crayons too! thats elmos world!!!!

  18. great website, I found it really very usefull info. will come back and visit again


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Newsletter Sign-up