A favorite:

I don’t know why they would, either. It seems odd to me. Not “having satellite radio but not using it” odd, but odd...

Well, yes, if it were in earnest I would agree. ;-) I was going to say “I have satellite subscriptions because I can afford them,but I don’t have time to use them” but that seemed like tipping my hand too much.

Maybe you have time for that but my time so valuable that in the time that I take out my headphones (which cost more than your education, by the way) and switch to the radio (I have satellite subscriptions but I don’t have time to use them) I’ve already NOT earned more money than you make in a day.

No doubt, but upholding the uniform application of law doesn’t seem like an example of it.

It does when that’s the guy’s defense.

It wasn’t that they were mean. A problem was, rather, that the Commission failed to apply their reasoning consistently, violating the basic concept of uniform application of law. The also said that his religious assertions were “rhetorical” rather than genuine, and essentially lumped him in with a monolithic…

I don’t think the “artist” question has anything to do with it. The questions should be, “does this convey a message?” and “should a person be required to design, create and ‘release’ a message to which they have objections of conscience?” The answer is complex, imho, but in the end I would agree with the SCOTUS…

And the best thing is that you’re always surrounded by enemies, so you never run out of ink!

Does no one use a feather quill dipped in the blood of their enemies anymore?

I’ll do you one better: When?

“...move to a location where the sounds are not present.”

Your first line is, word-for-word, exactly what went through my head when I read that part.

Well, he’s having a gay old time.

I see surfaces not covered in whale penis leather. Why the actual hell do you think I would tolerate that?

I generally refer to myself in the fourth person. One enjoys this.

No, Schwan’s is not a drug front. They’re owned by Madrigal Electromotive, a reputable company that would not risk its ability to conduct business by allowing its subsidiaries to engage in risky sidelines.

So an irrelevant person “refuses to back down” from a moronic statement. Who the hell cares?

Language is made of words, among other things.

Soylent Green is people.