Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, April 5, 2011
Drunk It's Okay—We Brought Our Inside Alcohol
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:22 AM
I always use my inside voice while I drink my inside alcohol.
4
Wow, 70! And he still laughs? That is way too old to have a sense of humor. And anything he would find funny has to be really lame, right?
God, fuckin' 70!
SEVENTY! What the fuck!
God, fuckin' 70!
SEVENTY! What the fuck!
5
Hey, I hope I'll still be laughing at jokes like this when I'm ninety*. The memory may be the first thing to go, but hopefully the sense of humor will be the last...the benefit there would be that people could keep me amused by telling me the same joke over and over again.
*Assuming I make it to ninety, although some days I feel like I've passed that.
*Assuming I make it to ninety, although some days I feel like I've passed that.
7
It does look like they would have had space for "NO ALCOHOL PURCHASED ELSEWHERE PERMITTED" or "ONLY ALCOHOL PURCHASED HERE PERMITTED".
@6: Because Bjork's great?
@6: Because Bjork's great?
9
Also: "But the church has introduced its own bill, that would make public entities, like cities, towns, and the state, open to similar law suits, saying that would only be fair."
While I heartily agree that a public entity should be liable if it is complicit in the ongoing sexual abuse of children, a) that would only be 'fair' if the Catholic Church starts electing its officials based on the votes of all citizens who are not felons and it adopts a legally-enforceable constitution governing its behavior (making it a public entity instead of a private one), and b) public entities are protected from these sorts of suits to prevent the waste of money defending cases where a public employee has done something wrong and the plaintiff decides to sue the public entity for which sie worked as well because it has a lot more money and 'should have known what was happening' (specifically, this opens public entities to a lawsuit for every time someone is a victim of a crime that the entity failed to prevent and over which the entity has jurisdiction; these would inevitably fail, but they would need to be defended, because people are greedy assholes who file frivolous lawsuits all the time) and because their money is public money that is, by statute, only to be spent in the public interest - there is a reasonable objection to mandated tax payments being spent on a settlement resulting from a crime with which almost all of the public had nothing to do. By all means, sue the guilty party and any officials that enabled hir behavior.
While I heartily agree that a public entity should be liable if it is complicit in the ongoing sexual abuse of children, a) that would only be 'fair' if the Catholic Church starts electing its officials based on the votes of all citizens who are not felons and it adopts a legally-enforceable constitution governing its behavior (making it a public entity instead of a private one), and b) public entities are protected from these sorts of suits to prevent the waste of money defending cases where a public employee has done something wrong and the plaintiff decides to sue the public entity for which sie worked as well because it has a lot more money and 'should have known what was happening' (specifically, this opens public entities to a lawsuit for every time someone is a victim of a crime that the entity failed to prevent and over which the entity has jurisdiction; these would inevitably fail, but they would need to be defended, because people are greedy assholes who file frivolous lawsuits all the time) and because their money is public money that is, by statute, only to be spent in the public interest - there is a reasonable objection to mandated tax payments being spent on a settlement resulting from a crime with which almost all of the public had nothing to do. By all means, sue the guilty party and any officials that enabled hir behavior.
10
Jeez, that's your idea of humor? The sign is obviously outside a bar or club of some sort. It's equivalent to a theater entrance sign that reads "No outside refreshments permitted."
11
Oh, my apologies. I guess what I meant to say is that this joke plays to the Jay Leno demographic.
12
The stupidest warning sign I've ever seen was posted in the 1990s outside one of the hospitals on First Hill: "ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES NOT PERMITTED."
13
Gee whiz, Demetria, Dan's just being silly. He knows perfectly well what the sign meant.
I laughed! And I'm, like, 40.
I laughed! And I'm, like, 40.
15
@10 I always bring my inside refreshments to theaters. It's their fault for charging 3-5 times what the refreshments they offer are worth.
16
@14 No, a rabbi, a priest, and a minister walked into the bar. The bartender said, "Is this a joke?"
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS