daisycutter

???? i don't get that one

good stuff billy. Baaasil, Baaarry and Baaarbara also liked this

in for your chop eh Billy?

at least no-one will pull the wool over his eyes

maybe they hired a cop to get to the bottom of the Mifsud/Davey confusion?

PU I hope old dee?

hard to fault that old dee i seem to have hit that same low point usually i find something to enthuse about which keeps me positive to a point but the prospect of being back where we were (or probably worse than) when bailey arrived has brought the bile back into my mouth paris (or anywhere) this winter is looking good

So start a thread on legalisation/decriminalisation/regulation of illicit drugs on the General Board and all those interested can debate it This is a thread on Cousin's latest bust and last time I looked illicit drugs are illegal so Cousins faces the status quo not the what-if you propose As I said thread-hijacked

TD your views on drug legalisation are well known from previous threads Do you have to hijack every thread related to drugs into your personal crusade?

why not have anarchy then there'd be no criminals?

I'm sure he wouldn't have approved of the Dirlewanger Brigade then............

well its a change from advocating national service in the military

Given its BL, I would think anything over 30k

Well the thread is a train wreck now. Its too general Seems to now cover all drugs, all addiction and all levels of compassion I'm outta here

hardtack this debate/discussion is not about every "drug" on the planet and whether Robbie has a drink now and again its about Ben Cousins and his addiction to specifically drugs such as chrystal meth bringing up a tu quoque argument to counter Robbie's points just sidetracks the discussion and avoids addressing his points

C'mon hardtack, life is all about making choices and accepting responsibility for your actions (or at least it was) tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3]

what, you mean all the B$ ? B)

hahaha, McGuire = Underwood = Terrible, love it

anyone for a 'shrubbery'?

nor BOB sponsor! Disgraceful!

would these do? blue red shorts just buy some mfc emblems and get your wife to sew them on (misogynous comment)

you misread me i can see you on a bike (very good for your fitness) but i can't see you wearing lycra (at least in my mind) clearer?

hard to get a good red these days, plenty of fucshia lycra out there somehow it just doesn't fit my image of you I'd like to see red and white striped 'pyjama' blazers with straw boaters or blazer2

maybe a red and blue Lycra cycling uniform would be more in keeping with the times?

hahaha, very appropriate, Jack