Blood coming out of her whatever
Comments
-
I'm amused by the Republicans pretending to be alarmed by this shit.RaceBannon said:The particular band of reprobates that post here and tweet elsewhere feigning horror at this shit is hilarious.
I knew hondofs would start the thread and boobs would be right there. I just had no idea anyone else would act like they care so soon -
CirrhosisDawg said:
Delridge wins again!RaceBannon said:The Twin Towers of Thud heard from
-
The whole things amusing. Can't say I'm crazy about it but it's cheap entertainment. Besides I need more liberal tears to lube my firearms.
-
I find the number of Beatle haters on HH ironic, given the emphasis our? culture places on winning; they were, after all, the winningest rock group of all time. That said @creepycoug this is neither the time, nor the place to debate to debate whether they "sucked" musically speaking or not; there's probably a local convenience store or the like where we could meet up to discuss further.creepycoug said:Fenderbender123 said:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-lennon-was-a-secret-republican-former-assistant-says/
It's just he-said, she-said shit. So take it for what it's worth. Sure, he was big on protesting war and stuff, but foreign affairs aren't the only political issue. The Beatles certainly weren't a fan of Britain's progressive tax rates. of course not. the liberal hyprocrisy: save the world with someone else's money.
Remember, I said I "think" he is "more conservative" than we're led to believe. Basically I'm saying I don't think he was this ultra-liberal guy on every single issue. Lennon was a self-loathing dirty hippy. Pressing here badly.
And I would recommend watching John Lennon at press conferences, on stage, and during interviews if you want don't believe that he was a charismatic badass. Recommend all you want. I've seen him plenty of times. He was neither clever nor insightful. I doubt he was even all that smart. The accident of history that was his fame is what has you duped here. Bad ass? He would have shit his pants before ever confronting anyone on his own. Come on man. He weighed 35 lbs. soaking wet. He was a pussy. Bad ass? He could have hit any ass in the free world and he chose a miserable, ugly, weirdo whore instead. The term "bad ass" is probably better used to describe Hillary Clinton than John fucking Lennon.
You've been smoking bad shit today.
I agree that Lennon's fame (and the others) was an accident of history- i.e., they were in the right place at the right time when their art from (rock music) was still in its infancy, and most of the good ideas had not yet been tried. None the less, he was creative as hell, and took advantage of the moment. Re: his charisma - I think he had quite a bit, although in a cheeky, provincial Brit sort of way. Those guys were funny as hell in A Hard Day's Night and they were in fact more popular than Jesus by 1966 when Lennon made said claim.
I don't think "pussy" is the right adjective for Lennon. Yeah, he was a wee little man, but he came from a working class background in a tough seaport town. And remember where they cut their teeth as a band in the clubs of the Reeperbahn of Hamburg. -
AgreeYellowSnow said:
I find the number of Beatle haters on HH ironic, given the emphasis our? culture places on winning; they were, after all, the winningest rock group of all time. That said @creepycoug this is neither the time, nor the place to debate to debate whether they "sucked" musically speaking or not; there's probably a local convenience store or the like where we could meet up to discuss further.creepycoug said:Fenderbender123 said:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-lennon-was-a-secret-republican-former-assistant-says/
It's just he-said, she-said shit. So take it for what it's worth. Sure, he was big on protesting war and stuff, but foreign affairs aren't the only political issue. The Beatles certainly weren't a fan of Britain's progressive tax rates. of course not. the liberal hyprocrisy: save the world with someone else's money.
Remember, I said I "think" he is "more conservative" than we're led to believe. Basically I'm saying I don't think he was this ultra-liberal guy on every single issue. Lennon was a self-loathing dirty hippy. Pressing here badly.
And I would recommend watching John Lennon at press conferences, on stage, and during interviews if you want don't believe that he was a charismatic badass. Recommend all you want. I've seen him plenty of times. He was neither clever nor insightful. I doubt he was even all that smart. The accident of history that was his fame is what has you duped here. Bad ass? He would have shit his pants before ever confronting anyone on his own. Come on man. He weighed 35 lbs. soaking wet. He was a pussy. Bad ass? He could have hit any ass in the free world and he chose a miserable, ugly, weirdo whore instead. The term "bad ass" is probably better used to describe Hillary Clinton than John fucking Lennon.
You've been smoking bad shit today.
I agree that Lennon's fame (and the others) was an accident of history- i.e., they were in the right place at the right time when their art from (rock music) was still in its infancy, and most of the good ideas had not yet been tried. None the less, he was creative as hell, and took advantage of the moment. Re: his charisma - I think he had quite a bit, although in a cheeky, provincial Brit sort of way. Those guys were funny as hell in A Hard Day's Night and they were in fact more popular than Jesus by 1966 when Lennon made said claim.
I don't think "pussy" is the right adjective for Lennon. Yeah, he was a wee little man, but he came from a working class background in a tough seaport town. And remember where they cut their teeth as a band in the clubs of the Reeperbahn of Hamburg. -
Lennon was 5'11", had a large enough frame to play guitar well, and was the largest of The Beatles. Not a huge guy, but certainly not a small guy either. He was known to pick fights when he was younger, and when he was with The Beatles, he beat the shit out of some guy for calling him a queer. I wouldn't have wanted to fuck with him...
Anyway, my point is...John Lennon could beat up anyone's (2) dad(s), but was likely no match for Superman or Goku, and that's why I like Donald Trump. -
He did play a sissy little Rickenbacker that had a 3/4 scale fret bored. Any of you guitar players here that may have picked up a Rick 325 will know what I'm talking about.
-
2001400ex said:
I'm just curious when you've seen her titties..... Need pic cause she always wears like suits and shit.PurpleThrobber said:Mika has a nice rack. Virtually certain the carpet doesn't match the drapes though. And batshit crazy is high on the must-fuck scale.
Not as nice as Lori's tittays on Shark Tank - but pretty solid.
#flagged.
-
AIDSTOTD!!!!!!!!
-
Army used to be good at football.YellowSnow said:
I find the number of Beatle haters on HH ironic, given the emphasis our? culture places on winning; they were, after all, the winningest rock group of all time. That said @creepycoug this is neither the time, nor the place to debate to debate whether they "sucked" musically speaking or not; there's probably a local convenience store or the like where we could meet up to discuss further.creepycoug said:Fenderbender123 said:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-lennon-was-a-secret-republican-former-assistant-says/
It's just he-said, she-said shit. So take it for what it's worth. Sure, he was big on protesting war and stuff, but foreign affairs aren't the only political issue. The Beatles certainly weren't a fan of Britain's progressive tax rates. of course not. the liberal hyprocrisy: save the world with someone else's money.
Remember, I said I "think" he is "more conservative" than we're led to believe. Basically I'm saying I don't think he was this ultra-liberal guy on every single issue. Lennon was a self-loathing dirty hippy. Pressing here badly.
And I would recommend watching John Lennon at press conferences, on stage, and during interviews if you want don't believe that he was a charismatic badass. Recommend all you want. I've seen him plenty of times. He was neither clever nor insightful. I doubt he was even all that smart. The accident of history that was his fame is what has you duped here. Bad ass? He would have shit his pants before ever confronting anyone on his own. Come on man. He weighed 35 lbs. soaking wet. He was a pussy. Bad ass? He could have hit any ass in the free world and he chose a miserable, ugly, weirdo whore instead. The term "bad ass" is probably better used to describe Hillary Clinton than John fucking Lennon.
You've been smoking bad shit today.
I agree that Lennon's fame (and the others) was an accident of history- i.e., they were in the right place at the right time when their art from (rock music) was still in its infancy, and most of the good ideas had not yet been tried. None the less, he was creative as hell, and took advantage of the moment. Re: his charisma - I think he had quite a bit, although in a cheeky, provincial Brit sort of way. Those guys were funny as hell in A Hard Day's Night and they were in fact more popular than Jesus by 1966 when Lennon made said claim.
I don't think "pussy" is the right adjective for Lennon. Yeah, he was a wee little man, but he came from a working class background in a tough seaport town. And remember where they cut their teeth as a band in the clubs of the Reeperbahn of Hamburg. -
Yep, no one is listening to the Beatles now, 3 generations later, so probably not very timeless. Certain artists just don't age very well.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Army used to be good at football.YellowSnow said:
I find the number of Beatle haters on HH ironic, given the emphasis our? culture places on winning; they were, after all, the winningest rock group of all time. That said @creepycoug this is neither the time, nor the place to debate to debate whether they "sucked" musically speaking or not; there's probably a local convenience store or the like where we could meet up to discuss further.creepycoug said:Fenderbender123 said:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-lennon-was-a-secret-republican-former-assistant-says/
It's just he-said, she-said shit. So take it for what it's worth. Sure, he was big on protesting war and stuff, but foreign affairs aren't the only political issue. The Beatles certainly weren't a fan of Britain's progressive tax rates. of course not. the liberal hyprocrisy: save the world with someone else's money.
Remember, I said I "think" he is "more conservative" than we're led to believe. Basically I'm saying I don't think he was this ultra-liberal guy on every single issue. Lennon was a self-loathing dirty hippy. Pressing here badly.
And I would recommend watching John Lennon at press conferences, on stage, and during interviews if you want don't believe that he was a charismatic badass. Recommend all you want. I've seen him plenty of times. He was neither clever nor insightful. I doubt he was even all that smart. The accident of history that was his fame is what has you duped here. Bad ass? He would have shit his pants before ever confronting anyone on his own. Come on man. He weighed 35 lbs. soaking wet. He was a pussy. Bad ass? He could have hit any ass in the free world and he chose a miserable, ugly, weirdo whore instead. The term "bad ass" is probably better used to describe Hillary Clinton than John fucking Lennon.
You've been smoking bad shit today.
I agree that Lennon's fame (and the others) was an accident of history- i.e., they were in the right place at the right time when their art from (rock music) was still in its infancy, and most of the good ideas had not yet been tried. None the less, he was creative as hell, and took advantage of the moment. Re: his charisma - I think he had quite a bit, although in a cheeky, provincial Brit sort of way. Those guys were funny as hell in A Hard Day's Night and they were in fact more popular than Jesus by 1966 when Lennon made said claim.
I don't think "pussy" is the right adjective for Lennon. Yeah, he was a wee little man, but he came from a working class background in a tough seaport town. And remember where they cut their teeth as a band in the clubs of the Reeperbahn of Hamburg.
-
More of a Nickelback guy myselfYellowSnow said:
I find the number of Beatle haters on HH ironic, given the emphasis our? culture places on winning; they were, after all, the winningest rock group of all time. That said @creepycoug this is neither the time, nor the place to debate to debate whether they "sucked" musically speaking or not; there's probably a local convenience store or the like where we could meet up to discuss further.creepycoug said:Fenderbender123 said:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-lennon-was-a-secret-republican-former-assistant-says/
It's just he-said, she-said shit. So take it for what it's worth. Sure, he was big on protesting war and stuff, but foreign affairs aren't the only political issue. The Beatles certainly weren't a fan of Britain's progressive tax rates. of course not. the liberal hyprocrisy: save the world with someone else's money.
Remember, I said I "think" he is "more conservative" than we're led to believe. Basically I'm saying I don't think he was this ultra-liberal guy on every single issue. Lennon was a self-loathing dirty hippy. Pressing here badly.
And I would recommend watching John Lennon at press conferences, on stage, and during interviews if you want don't believe that he was a charismatic badass. Recommend all you want. I've seen him plenty of times. He was neither clever nor insightful. I doubt he was even all that smart. The accident of history that was his fame is what has you duped here. Bad ass? He would have shit his pants before ever confronting anyone on his own. Come on man. He weighed 35 lbs. soaking wet. He was a pussy. Bad ass? He could have hit any ass in the free world and he chose a miserable, ugly, weirdo whore instead. The term "bad ass" is probably better used to describe Hillary Clinton than John fucking Lennon.
You've been smoking bad shit today.
I agree that Lennon's fame (and the others) was an accident of history- i.e., they were in the right place at the right time when their art from (rock music) was still in its infancy, and most of the good ideas had not yet been tried. None the less, he was creative as hell, and took advantage of the moment. Re: his charisma - I think he had quite a bit, although in a cheeky, provincial Brit sort of way. Those guys were funny as hell in A Hard Day's Night and they were in fact more popular than Jesus by 1966 when Lennon made said claim.
I don't think "pussy" is the right adjective for Lennon. Yeah, he was a wee little man, but he came from a working class background in a tough seaport town. And remember where they cut their teeth as a band in the clubs of the Reeperbahn of Hamburg. -
Check out the original/working lyrics for "Get Back", although I guess that is more Paul.
-
Would you all just shut up about this already?Fenderbender123 said:Lennon was 5'11", had a large enough frame to play guitar well, and was the largest of The Beatles. Not a huge guy, but certainly not a small guy either. He was known to pick fights when he was younger, and when he was with The Beatles, he beat the shit out of some guy for calling him a queer. I wouldn't have wanted to fuck with him...
Anyway, my point is...John Lennon could beat up anyone's (2) dad(s), but was likely no match for Superman or Goku, and that's why I like Donald Trump.
1. I could have kicked Lennon's ass even outside of the 7-11. At the 7-11, he's as good dead.
2. Anyone Lennon fucked up was simply a bigger pussy than he was. It happens. -
Do any of you even lift though?
-
Revolution is actually more of a conservative songFenderbender123 said:I've been a Beatles fanatic my whole life...and for years I've been saying Trump reminds me so much of John Lennon. Charismatic badass who loves attention, always has a chip on his shoulder, and isn't afraid of anything. Liberals hate that comparison, although I think John was actually much more conservative than we're led to believe.
-
Preferred alternative to this suck & fuck thread. -
I'd put the song more in the category of an "anti militant left wing" message than a conservative song, but good point. That said, Trump and John Lennon do not remind me of one another, at all, and that's not a slam on either, just a recognition of how different Lennon was from Trump, except for maybe a blue collar connection, lived by Lennon, appreciated by Trump, and extreme wealth and fame, enjoyed by both.DerekJohnson said:
Revolution is actually more of a conservative songFenderbender123 said:I've been a Beatles fanatic my whole life...and for years I've been saying Trump reminds me so much of John Lennon. Charismatic badass who loves attention, always has a chip on his shoulder, and isn't afraid of anything. Liberals hate that comparison, although I think John was actually much more conservative than we're led to believe.
-
And Imagine is communist as fuck.DerekJohnson said:
Revolution is actually more of a conservative songFenderbender123 said:I've been a Beatles fanatic my whole life...and for years I've been saying Trump reminds me so much of John Lennon. Charismatic badass who loves attention, always has a chip on his shoulder, and isn't afraid of anything. Liberals hate that comparison, although I think John was actually much more conservative than we're led to believe.
Abundance.
