Saturday, July 21, 2007

Eureka

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

27 comments:

my dog said...

The fountain of Daniel Miglavs' wisdom and powers of perception never ceases to amaze and delight.

BEAR said...

just checked....my dog's breath smells like cat. guess the neighbors will be headed to the animal shelter....again.

Anonymous said...

woah my breath smells like cat and dog...oh yeah went for chinese buffett

Tim Lewis said...

Does no one watch The Simpsons?

Chris said...

I watched it when I was a kid.

Anonymous said...

That's what happens when you don't swap spit with your butt licking dog.

OregonianInDC said...

"It says "It says I choo-choo-choose you and there's a picture of a train on it"

Anonymous said...

More Simpsons quotes that I remember:

"Snowball was my cat......but she died. She died."

"I eated the red ones! They taste like burning."

"I bent my wookie"

Anthony DeLucca said...

This message is for Daniel;

I could care less about your past. I'm an excellent judge of character. Even as a Police Officer, there were criminals I saw on the beat every day who had more character and integrity than some "Upstanding Citizens" I've known.

I've met you once, at a carousel event, and can say to everyone here, "I'd trust Daniel a hell of a lot more than I would 99.9% of the anon posters who bash him on a daily basis."

Have a good week pal.

OregonianInDC said...

Bart: Grandpa, didnt you wonder why you were getting checks for doing nothing?

Grandpa: I figured because the democrats were in office...

Bart Simpson said...

We're still waiting for a reply from Daniel Miglavs on how he reconciles "rule of law" with Dick Cheney's intriguing theory of the fourth branch of government. Doh!

no illegal aliens said...

Mayor Tom Potter wants to set up official day-labor sites.

Portland's going to hell in a handbasket.

LocalNewsDaily.com story

no illegal aliens said...

I checked my dog's breath. It smells like dog shit. I went to clean up my dog's poo in the backyard, nothing was found. Hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

... and while we're waiting for some comment about Dick Cheney, we can also look forward to thoughtful commentary on this blog about how -- or whether -- "rule of law" applies to the current U.S. Attorney General, who has managed to lose the support of a majority of the U.S. Senate because it's become clear the man is a shameless liar, but somehow, curiously, has not elicited so much as a one-day rant from Daniel "rule of law" Miglavs.

Anonymous said...

P.S. Rants that Gonzales doesn't hate illegal immigrants as much as Daniel Miglavs hates them don't count.

Calhoun said...

anonymouse, if you start your own blog, you can comment on Bush, Cheney and Gonzales all day long! It's a great deal.

For the record, I don't like Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales. Nor do I like their illegal alien pals.

the observant one said...

My asshole smells like my asshole.

the hypocrisy police said...

Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Will Daniel "rule of law" Miglavs object? Demand his resignation? Activate the phone tree? Fire up the fax machine? Dispatch his redneck peanut gallery with marching orders against this threat to the rule of law? The man is, after all, only the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country. Surely "Rule of Law" Miglavs will spare a minute or two to say something about this. The rule of law hangs in the balance ...

Let's wait and see ...

Calhoun said...

"hypocrisy police" you can have your own blog! Then you'll be able to bitch about Gonzales all day long!

My opinion -- if they put Alberto in jail, I won't cry, and I don't think Daniel will either.

hypocrisy police said...

I don't want to bitch about him ... I want to see if Daniel will. Because you know goddamned well that if it were Janet Reno we were talking about, he'd be having a fucking field day.

So let's see what really motivates Daniel Miglavs ... is it "rule of law," like he claims, or something else?

R Huse said...

The difference being that Janet Reno, in one of her first acts as AG, approved a plan that resulted in 80 some odd deaths, for an ill defined crime, while she went to a fund raiser and Gonzales had something to do with a terrorist surveillance program and something with congressional testimony that uh, kinda sorta nobody really gives a rip about.

Gee, so lets see, Gonzales is motivated by trying to stop terrorism and overstepped, Reno was motivated by, well, god knows what and people were more pissed at Reno, go figure.

One last time, do you guys ever think through your arguments? I mean its kinda shootin fish in a barrel time if this is the best ya got.

Nice try hippo police. See YA!

Anonymous said...

An even larger difference is that Bush has launched an enterprise in Iraq that's killed 3,600 Americans and more than half a million Iraqis.

One finds not so much as a whiff of anger or opposition to that from the Miglavians on this board. Please ... if you can't even express anger about the American side of this equation, don't even TRY to convince me that the Branch Davidian deaths -- people you probably assume were destined for hell anyway because they hadn't "accepted" Jesus Christ -- is something you think was worthy of legal action against Janet Reno. Don't go there. You've forfeited the right to go there. How long has this war been going on? How many words have you expended questioning it, criticizing those who started it, condemning it, calling for accountability from the government, which you're otherwise so fond of kicking the shit out of?

My guess is ... ZERO.

P.S. The above post applies equally to Miglavs, DeLucca, Bear, and Big Mike. Idiots all.

R Huse said...

Look, just because I support one thing does not mean I have forfeited a right to oppose another entirely unrelated event.

Don't come on to me with your bible thumping "accept my morality or else" idiocy. Moral authority is not yours to dispense or withhold. I would suggest that if you believe it is you join the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or any of their ilk who decree themselves judge and jury of who is moral and who is not.

If you cant see that approving a raid that was that risky and attending a fund raiser during its execution is abysmal judgment, then you are beyond any capacity for rational argument.

Here is your black suit sir

Here is your bible sir

No go stand on the corner and scream red faced about all your moral authority.

Anonymous said...

... another entirely unrelated event.

It doesn't matter whether they were related, dumbfuck. Jesus, why even explain it to you ... ? Fuckit.

R Huse said...

Actually it is essential that they be related otherwise the logical construct of your argument falls apart. Without some relationship, the moral equivalency fails, as it did here since even you cant defend it.

As I often say here to the "holier than thou" crowd - think out your argument before making it. Your friends might accept your pious pomposity at face value, I don't and Ill call you on it every time.

Anonymous said...

... as it did here since even you cant defend it.

Well, I can defend it, but I agree with the above poster that there's no point in trying. The way you describe your own approach to analyzing such issues points to a level of knuckle-dragging stupidity that begs the question of why you even bother discussing politics with others at all. The problem, ultimately, is that a true idiot does not know he is an idiot.

Trust me, RHuse, you ARE an idiot.

R Huse said...

I discuss politics because I tend to be able to do so by pointing out the flaw in an argument I disagree with rather than the kindergarten approach of having no counter other than "your stupid". Obviously this is beyond your powers as you have aptly demonstrated.

At any rate, I would suggest learning how to form a more sound logical construct than botched equivalences with the subsequent reinforcement of "you're stupid".

Moral sanctimony combined with logical incompetence always runs for cover when its pointed out. Your words have demonstrated that with aplomb so you have a least accomplished something.

Lesson One - Drawing an equivalency between two totally unrelated matters proves a lack of forethought, not your point.

Lesson Two - Using the logically incorrect equivalency to rail about your moral superiority and intelligence over others proves both points to the contrary.

Next time I suggest you sit on the sidelines. Better to watch and learn at this time newbie.

Take care.