Squrlz4Ever

Registered bored user

You lookin' at me?

squrlz4ever wrote:
muert Thanks, Muert! Loved Mr. Nutterbutter (23:25). And for the record, let me add that I have never spoken with Mr. Murray.

squrlz4ever wrote:
fuad119 Ummm... I.. I.. I can't help you with that.
squrlz4ever wrote:
Wow. I had no idea Paltrow was behind such a website. Just browsed it and here's a typical offering: A subscription to a daily 6-pill vitamin pack (nothing different from what you'd get at your local CVS, so far as I can see) for $900 a year. This is a website targeting well-to-do, bored, ill-informed, New-Agey women. Uggh.
squrlz4ever wrote:
normalfreak2 Exactly. From the AP story:

"[FBI officials] said they had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why, beyond his animus toward President Donald Trump and the Republicans he felt were ruining the country [my emphasis]."

The poster is absolutely addicted to alt-right outrage to such an extent that he gobbles up stories that manufacture reasons to be outraged where none exist.
squrlz4ever wrote:
littlemissqt Alas, I don't know what movie it is so it's hard to say. You got this on the first pic? I'm feeling like a dufus now. Fancy, sorry for the Venn diagram quip. Apparently this is a movie that is well-known.

Nice to see you back in the threads, Cutie. I was wondering what became of you.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 Actually...? That's probably a great idea and would result in a lot of business.
squrlz4ever wrote:
Picture, if you will, a Venn diagram. The circle on the left is labeled "Movies that Fancy thinks are well-known." The circle on the right is labeled "Movies that actually are well-known."

Those two circles barely overlap.
squrlz4ever wrote:
monkwarrior See? You do have redeeming qualities, Monk! ~Squrlz hugs Monk's ankle~
squrlz4ever wrote:
casaledana Wrist warmers. They're all the rage now. Get with it, Casa! And hurry up and put those quarters in the slot so we can get out of this damn parking lot.
squrlz4ever wrote:
fuad119 We animals have a way of tugging the heartstrings.
squrlz4ever wrote:
I can confirm that this is hilarious when viewed with the Flashdance song playing. To do so:

1. Open this link in a new tab and let it play at high volume.
2. Open this link in a new tab and let it play full screen with the volume muted.

(Best done after imbibing at least one gin & tonic or other beverage of choice.)
squrlz4ever wrote:
spanz Hear hear!

squrlz4ever wrote:
normalfreak2 It's the boobage. Boobage is on the radar. Alert! Those silicon boobs are returning a large radar signature. There's no hiding them.

Have any of you ever dated a woman with stealth boobs? I have. It was wonderful. Second date we were making out in her car and it was like... SURPRISE!

Edit to clarify: I was just describing what I was thinking set Gerry off. By no means do I think a prominent bust equates with sluttiness. See what happens when you have a G&T and start commenting. *shame*
squrlz4ever wrote:
Gerry1of1 Hmmm. Mulling this over with a brain that's been lubricated by a G&T, so forgive any stupidity that ensues....

I dunno, I actually think it's good that women are getting the message out that dressing sexy isn't a license to grope. Now that doesn't mean you should wear erotic lingerie to the office. But I think it's useful for some women in some situations to get the message out there that in a civilized society, they should be able to dress as they please.

Willing to debate or discuss this. I'm feeling loquacious tonight. It's the gin.
squrlz4ever wrote:
pinkminx22 D'awww! Warm fuzzies right back atcha, Minxy!

squrlz4ever wrote:
stifler LOL... right you are. I got to the part about your penis flapping around on the operating table and I said under my breath, "I take it back!"

In all seriousness, I thought your take on this video was most sensible.
squrlz4ever wrote:
rumham Rumham! That's genius. All these years I've been misinterpreting the genre.
squrlz4ever wrote:
cobrakiller Who on Earth downvoted this comment? This place sometimes.... *sigh*
squrlz4ever wrote:
stifler That's very decent of you, Stifler. You seem to be growing more civilized of late. You must be dating someone who's having a good influence on you.
squrlz4ever wrote:
punko I would like to date an Inuit, AKA Eskimo, someday. True fact. Don't judge me.

squrlz4ever wrote:
On the one paw, she's a jerk. On the other paw, I like her homage to Captain Kirk's uniform.
squrlz4ever wrote:
casaledana No, Dan. DrCribbens is not trying to tell you that absolutely no non-citizens (legal or illegal) have cast votes illegally. What she's trying to tell you is that this "study," if we can call it that, is so ill-conceived that it sheds no light on the topic whatsoever.
squrlz4ever wrote:
casaledana You're making a number of incorrect assumptions here, Dan.

For starters: Where on Earth do you get the idea that I "can't even admit" that some non-citizens are voting? Please tell me where. I've never made that statement nor is it something I believe.

Do I think some illegal and legal non-citizens are voting? Yes, I do.

Do I think it's a significant number? I don't know, but I doubt it is. As I've already said to Grendel, every time a Republican state official has decided to get to the bottom of this issue and uncover the rampant illegal alien voting they're convinced is going on, they come up with a paltry number of offenses.

Do I think some mandatory form of easily obtainable voter ID should be required at the polls? Yes.

Any other assumptions I can disabuse you of?
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats DrCribbens wrote 259 words with a laser focus on the topic (grafs 3 thru 6). She's written more about this study, and demonstrated a better understanding of it, than you have. I don't think you have enough education or mental clarity to engage in an intelligent debate with her, which is why you're pretending those 259 words of hers don't exist.
squrlz4ever wrote:
megrendel We are in agreement then, which is always nice.  :)