Red Mosquito

theplatypus wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Holy shit!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/entertain ... index.html

That's unprecedented, isn't it? December 22. Damn

Can we make a list of non-rapey comedians?

Bi_3 wrote:Can we make a list of non-rapey comedians?

Bill hicks. He was too open about his pussy adoration to have any secrets about it.

dimejinky99 wrote:Does anyone remember Jim Jeffries sketch about being on tour supporting a big name comedian who effectively got mad rapey with girls while coked off his head?

It was Tim the tool man Taylor FYI but let’s see if that comes out.

But Tim was pretty damn open about his coke habit so that's not really a surprise, is it?

digster wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Jim Zeigler's horoscope for today just said "Go for it I dare you"

Shot and chaser.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alaba ... le/2640217

Asked whether or not the report would upend Moore’s campaign, Ziegler predicted that Alabama voters would be angrier at the Washington Post for “desperately trying to get something negative” than Moore for his dalliances with teenage girls decades ago.

“He’s clean as a hound’s tooth,” Ziegler claimed, before relying on Scripture to defend Moore.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ. “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

“There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here,” Ziegler concluded. “Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

Invoking Jesus Christ when you're trying to defend this. Wow. There's nothing the good book won't do for you if you interpret it just so!

Also: jesus, that poor cat.

oh Mr. CK ... so sad for everyone involved

Lessons of 2017: Keep it in your pants, kiddo!

bune wrote:

Also: jesus, that poor cat.

Sounds like a good gotcha but Gabriel is wrong. That's not what the immaculate conception is about. The assumption is that Joseph was boning Mary. It's that god enters baby Jesus through the holy spirit and the immaculate conception part is that he is conceived without the Original Sin of all men staining his soul.

And fuck 6 years of Catholic School for making me know that distinction.

Edited to add: My useless bit of pedantry is only there to inform, not in any way a defense of the massive stupidity of the original statement.

Citizen Dick wrote:

bune wrote:

Also: jesus, that poor cat.

Sounds like a good gotcha but Gabriel is wrong. That's not what the immaculate conception is about. The assumption is that Joseph was boning Mary. It's that god enters baby Jesus through the holy spirit and the immaculate conception part is that he is conceived without the Original Sin of all men staining his soul.

And fuck 6 years of Catholic School for making me know that distinction.

Edited to add: My useless bit of pedantry is only there to inform, not in any way a defense of the massive stupidity of the original statement.

This might be the most valuable post in this thread.

No where near as valuable as my gif at the top of this page.

Citizen Dick wrote:

bune wrote:

Also: jesus, that poor cat.

Sounds like a good gotcha but Gabriel is wrong. That's not what the immaculate conception is about. The assumption is that Joseph was boning Mary. It's that god enters baby Jesus through the holy spirit and the immaculate conception part is that he is conceived without the Original Sin of all men staining his soul.

And fuck 6 years of Catholic School for making me know that distinction.

Edited to add: My useless bit of pedantry is only there to inform, not in any way a defense of the massive stupidity of the original statement.

Joseph wasn't boning Mary - that's why he almost left her when he found out she was pregnant

Citizen Dick wrote:No where near as valuable as my gif at the top of this page.

That was blocked by phone, but yeah, great work there.

Joseph is the patron saint of cucks.

BurtReynolds wrote:Joseph is the patron saint of cucks.

A lot of this on Twitter today

Citizen Dick wrote:The assumption is that Joseph was boning Mary.

Why is she called the Virgin Mary then?

Who knew I'd be diving down this rabbit warren today.

Yeah, I've gotten muddled with pre-Jesus birth and post Jesus birth. Church scholar consensus seems to be pre-Jesus, all white panties. Post-Jesus, Joseph got to boning his (still) teenage wife.* There's apparently a bunch of canonic texts that acknowledge this, including the gospel of Matthew. (please don't make me start to quote scripture euphemisms for boning).

Immaculate conception comment still stands.

So I guess that makes me and Gabe both wrong. I think I leapt to my memory of my High School priest conceding to a classroom of teenage boys that, yes, Joseph was in fact a dirty dawg.

*Views on this depend on your sect as some do claim full life virginity, but it's not supported by their own religious texts.

Citizen Dick wrote:Who knew I'd be diving down this rabbit warren today.

Yeah, I've gotten muddled with pre-Jesus birth and post Jesus birth. Church scholar consensus seems to be pre-Jesus, all white panties. Post-Jesus, Joseph got to boning his (still) teenage wife.* There's apparently a bunch of canonic texts that acknowledge this, including the gospel of Matthew. (please don't make me start to quote scripture euphemisms for boning).

Immaculate conception comment still stands.

So I guess that makes me and Gabe both wrong. I think I leapt to my memory of my High School priest conceding to a classroom of teenage boys that, yes, Joseph was in fact a dirty dawg.

*Views on this depend on your sect as some do claim full life virginity, but it's not supported by their own religious texts.

She was never a virgin her whole life - Jesus had biological brothers

Rangi Guy wrote:

Citizen Dick wrote:Who knew I'd be diving down this rabbit warren today.

Yeah, I've gotten muddled with pre-Jesus birth and post Jesus birth. Church scholar consensus seems to be pre-Jesus, all white panties. Post-Jesus, Joseph got to boning his (still) teenage wife.* There's apparently a bunch of canonic texts that acknowledge this, including the gospel of Matthew. (please don't make me start to quote scripture euphemisms for boning).

Immaculate conception comment still stands.

So I guess that makes me and Gabe both wrong. I think I leapt to my memory of my High School priest conceding to a classroom of teenage boys that, yes, Joseph was in fact a dirty dawg.

*Views on this depend on your sect as some do claim full life virginity, but it's not supported by their own religious texts.

She was never a virgin her whole life - Jesus had biological brothers

Yeah, that's what I was taught as well, but apparently some orthodox sects claim she was her whole life. (shrugs #notmyreligion)

Citizen Dick wrote:

bune wrote:

Also: jesus, that poor cat.

Sounds like a good gotcha but Gabriel is wrong. That's not what the immaculate conception is about. The assumption is that Joseph was boning Mary. It's that god enters baby Jesus through the holy spirit and the immaculate conception part is that he is conceived without the Original Sin of all men staining his soul.

And fuck 6 years of Catholic School for making me know that distinction.

Edited to add: My useless bit of pedantry is only there to inform, not in any way a defense of the massive stupidity of the original statement.

Actually, no--the phrase "Immaculate Conception" refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus'. She was conceived without original sin but the old fashioned way.

That's the difference between getting 6 years of Catholic school and 18.

Huh. TIL.

So Citizen Dick is double-wrong