May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« What Qualifies as a Mental Problem? | Main | Homo Erectus »

Comments

2BIG4U

Extagen for men increase blood flow and erection … Men from around the world are making dreams come true with Extagen. Personally, I have used it and gained just a bit over 3″ in my penis. I do not sell this stuff, I buy from:
https://www.extagenformen.com
Good luck!!

Joseph

hilarious,penis rules....lol

Frank Goodman, Sr.

You stole my words 'cognitive dissonance'. I used those words before you were born, so they belong to me. How dare you intrude on my most private thoughts by stealing words right out of my mind.

I did not major in economics because I assumed that there was no way to make money on it. If there were, the professors at my college would be rich. They knew more about economics than they needed to know, given their inept approach to money and influence. I did get A's in my economics courses, and C's and B's in my major. But I made much more money from my major than I could have by being an expert in economics, or drawing comic strips. Too many people know everything about economics, so the information is not for sale except by professors who can require a new text each semester.

I chose to make my living serving sick people, but to use economics to become rich. The choice was a good one, though it did not make me rich in material goods and comforts. I am as comfortable as most people and much more comfortable than many more. Now I know why I read your strip. I digg economics. Apparently you do too, because you must be at least as comfortable as I am, except that you still choose to work for a living. I am retired.

I now give you license to use any word or combination of words I have a prior interest in, except my name.

Speaking of 'out of my mind', have you ever taken a trip outside your mind? I have and even wrote a poem about it. I can't find it on my hard disk or the soft disk in my skull. If you ask me, I will find it an send it to you.

Paul C

No gays in Iran?

The country used to be called Persia and ran an empire that got grom China to the borders of Europe. They fought a sucession of wars with the Greeks, who were the last barrier preventing Persia from expanding into the European continent (the Greeks were the only people with anything like a standing army that could match Persia - after Greece, there was a continent full of anarchic Celts and Germans, with the pre-Roman Etruscans a few hundred years away from being Italian world contenders.

What added an extra dimension of horror to being a prisoner of war of the Persians was that the experience would have been akin to being a pretty boy in an American prison - you'd be the one forced to bend over to pick up the soap in the showers. Continually. Unremittingly.

It could be argued that the Greeks were so into this as well that they made it compulsory in their Army, but that's another story... but somehow you can't imagine Greeks and Persians cheerily linking arms after a battle, for a few choruses of "Glad to be Gay" and "YMCA"... the gay sex would have been a little more involuntary than that, for the prisoners!

This essential gayness of the Persian male has come down the centuries - when poet Omar Khayyam wrote about "a jug of wine, a loaf of bread and Thou", he didn't have a girlie in mind.

The Persians also evolved the proverb "a woman for duty, a melon for pleasure, and a boy for ecstacy". And this was several hundred years AFTER Islam took over the religious monopoly in those parts!

So the poovery must still be rampant there - it's been a Persian cultural institution for thousands of years and changing the name of the countery to Iran isn't going to hide that, is it?

As Basil Fawlty said about Greeks and gayness "They invented it, you stupid bint!" The same could be said of the Persians/Iranians...

izzy

ok

I want to hear comments on these two articles please .. it falls into the penis category ...

A Surprising Antidepressant
https://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1695

It Doesn't Hurt...It Acutally Helps!
https://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1695

izzy

I just saw am interview on John Stweart's show of the Bolivian pres Mr. Morales.

I want him to be our next president. Is that possible?

https://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2G3oepr_IzgKRWwNKDZ2_01-wmw

Tom Welsh

"Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn’t have gay people. There is zero chance he believes that".

When did you acquire telepathic powers, Scott? You may think it's unlikely he believes that, but it isn't impossible. Maybe he still believes - as almost everyone in the "West" did until quite recently, including plenty of gay people - that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic attribute. Otherwise how could it be a sin, which many Christians still believe today?

"Ahmadinejad didn’t respond directly to questions about wanting Israel wiped off the map".

Israel was created by shoving Palestinians off their land, and replacing them with Jews most of whom came from other continents. So why, in principle, could that process not be reversed? Are Jews more important than Arabs?

"Ahmadinejad lives in a country whose government was once overthrown by the U.S., so I can understand him being genuinely skeptical".

I can understand anyone (Colin Powell, for instance) being genuinely sceptical of what the current administration says. If your country's government had been violently overthrown by the USA, you wouldn't be "sceptical". You'd be fighting mad. Ask how you'd feel if the US government was violently overthrown by some other country on the far side of the world.

naz

"In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia, plus Iran’s support for Hezbollah give Israel a legitimate reason to attack Iran in self defense"

Attack in self-defense? Oh, is that what you Yanks do across the globe? Like in the film "Minority Report"?

I wonder if the logic works both ways. Can you justify a pre-emptive strike on America as a /proven/ war-mongerer armed with nuclear weapons?

[Yes, if America is threatening your country. But it wouldn't be a wise military choice. -- Scott]

jerry w.

Did you call this blog "Penis Jokes" because you think that Ahmadinejad is a dick?

Or maybe that he's a dickhead?

I'm just asking.......

https://boskolives.wordpress.com/

jaques

Some people ask why would nukes make sense for Iran? Have you noticed the Ahmadinejad invokes the arrival of the messianic 12th Imam at pretty much before every official speech including Columbia and UN...its like he's saying grace. Oh and all you guys know that messianic zealots make perfectly informed decisions...just ask Rev. Jim Jones! Darn it, Jim Jones should've been allowed to develop Nuclear Weapons...that'll be cooler than the Kool-Aid!

I'm wondering if scott adams was involved with 9/11...or perhaps he just discovered the joy of Ahmadinjad...hey i'm just asking questions here...don't accuse me of slander...it's satire...no you are all mentally retarded...no it is all of you who probably organized 9/11...hey who wants a hobbit!

Lickspittle

The only scenario I worry about (when I have nothing better to do) is American interests nuking Iran and false-flagging Israel. What may happen is when the masses start smelling blood the ruling elite will turn desperate and covert forms of anti-semitism will gradually begin to seep into fashion, starting with Fox news. A false-flag nuking would kill two birds with one stone: turn American anger away from home and provide a pretext for American occupation of Iran in the form of international aid. Jews have been the scapegoats for the ruling elite since time began and I don't think alot has changed.

Remember folks, you heard it here first: if you are an anti-semite, not only are you a reactionary dolt but you are also 12 steps behind the game.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Never forget.

josh

to: not josh
(Posted by: not josh | September 26, 2007 at 07:43 AM)

Scott Adams has repeatedly left suggestive comments over the past several months implying that he does not believe it to be a fact of history that millions of innocent Jewish civilians were massacred by the Nazis in an organized criminal scheme aimed at the Jewish people's physical genocide. I asked Mr. Adams yesterday to simply lay out unambiguously and directly his opinions on the matter once and for all, as his previous comments have been, I believe, deliberately indirect and I for one am unclear what he really believes.

You wrote back to me:
"This is a question to which Mr Adams simply cannot answer. As far as the US law is concerned (if I am correct), there is only one possible answer. If he answers with "No", he is automatically an outlaw. No more blog, no more Dilbert..."


Your statement is completely FALSE. You, Sir, have a lack of knowledge of the US and its most basic laws. The First Amendment to the US Constitution grants complete freedom of speech. No law may be passed forbidding any speech of any subject. For just one example of this, The American Nazi Party is a 100% legal entity and holds marches and demonstrations regularly loudly proclaiming they like do not believe the holocaust occurred. Not only are the American Nazis not arrested but the Nazis in fact receive court ordered police escorts to protect them from counter-demonstrators and ensure that even the Nazi Party, as hated as they are, get a chance to express their freedom of speech.

No, fact is that anyone can completely legally claim that Jews made up the holocaust or any other claim in the US. Maybe in Germany or Canada where they have different laws and do not have the American constitution it is illegal, but as long as Scott does not go to those countries and repeat this publicly he again cannot be charged even in Germany or Canada.

And, there will not even be major financial penalties for Scott to reveal his true feelings for once and for all. Look at Mel Gibson for example. Mel's father Hutton has repeatedly given televised interviews stating he definitely does not believe the Nazi's tried to genocide Jews and it is all a big Jewish conspiracy. Do you see Hutton Gibson getting arrested? No. And Mel has never contradicted a word his father said. Mel did not suffer in any way for this but to the contrary has made at last count according to wikipedia almost 750 million dollars from Passion of the Christ, which makes it the highest grossing film ever made, and he continues to direct new films to this day. So one can conclude from this that hating Jews and saying publicly and repeatedly that Jews are in a conspiracy to rule the world, did not get genocide by the Nazis etc., never stopped Gibson or his family from becoming billionaires now, did it?

So what it really comes down to is Scott is a chicken, a coward, who enjoys taking pot shots at a minority group he dislikes and thereby hurting the feelings of people who used to be lifelong fans of his work, but Scott does not have the courage or the integrity to honestly and clearly state his beliefs without cloaking them in ambiguity and satire.

James

This post is to long to be a penis joke! Hahahaha!

berberech0

Dear Scott:

Why do you call the Iraki ressistance "insurgence"? Would you call the French ressistance of the second world war insurgence? Would you call yourself "an insurgent" if Irakians invaded your country? I understand you dont like them. Like me, they've also killed personel of my country. But the fact is that we invaded them and every national of any country has the right to defend himself of any agression. Or that's what I hope (to have the guts) to do if anybody had the silly idea of invade my country

Mark Hessel

Pierre already makes my point. The Saudi
goverment is a royal family. Any support by
that family should be investigated and
dealt with in the same manner as Iran.

mtj

Can someone explain to me why the word "fuck" is used for emphasis on bad. I think it is a good thing.

Matt

It's worth pointing out when mentioning Ahamadinajad getting "scarf", that his wife is super-model hot...

Had to mention it.

pierre

>[Doesn't it matter whether the government of Saudi Arabia sponsors them? -- Scott]

ah, c'mon mate, were the 9/11 hijackers not mostly saudis too ? I'm sensing a pattern.
The saudi regime is one of the harsher on the planet, and their wahabbite version of islam ain't exactly soft. Despite their appalling track records on human rights, the saudis are the best pals of your president, and the west is arming them to the teeth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Sorry but they are the ones with the will and the cash to fund terror, just ask Osama.

Mark Hessel

Scott,

Since the Saudis are estimated to make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, that's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Saudi Arabia. It's a separate question as to whether an attack on Saudia Arabia is in America's best interest.

But we never officially see that proposed.

https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1304579011.html?dids=1304579011:1304579011&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+15%2C+2007&author=Ned+Parker&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=THE+CONFLICT+IN+IRAQ%3A+SAUDI+ROLE+IN+INSURGENCY%3B+Iraq+insurgency+said+to+include+many+Saudis%3B+They+outnumber+other+foreigners%2C+and+half+join+as+suicide+bombers%2C+a+senior+U.S.+officer+says.


[Doesn't it matter whether the government of Saudi Arabia sponsors them? -- Scott]

Scott Alan Miller

Scott, given the small size -geographically - of Palestine it is my opinion that should Iran decide that it wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" that it may well pursue non-nuclear WoMD options. For example, the American "Mother of All Bombs" or the new Russian "Father of All Bombs" which are conventional weapons capable of delivering nuclear level destruction without delivering the same level of global "whiplash."

If Iran felt confident that they had or could have conventional weapons of this nature they might very well begin a "nuclear enrichment" program with the purpose of creating a raging debate and global outrage at their intents to "go nuclear." They can play it up until the planet reaches a climax just prior to someone deciding to bomb them to prevent the continuation of the program. Or perhaps even allowing that to happen as long as their is proof that they weren't actually building weapons.

Then the Iranians can come off as the good guys proving that the US, once again, was making things up and that Iran isn't as bad as it seems. And yet they are still holding the weapons that they need.

I just don't see nuclear weapons making sense for Iran. They are costly to make, difficult to hide, hard to maintain and massively unsafe. Iran's wars are local and they deployment system can handle massive conventional weapons that will be just as effective for them. Personally I believe Iran's nuclear programs are a red herring.

anonymous coward

i wonder why do you usa-ians keep calling your conglomerate of states 'america' i must've slept thru class when america was a continent

Andy Geers

Not at all relevant, but I thought you would enjoy this dentist's name: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7014585.stm

techdude

There seems to be much confusion about the issue of Hezbollah. To the US and to Israel, it is a terrorist organization, and from that point of view, all justifications flow.

But the history of Hezbollah was not just a militant group that sparked out of nowhere. Hezbollah was a popular resistance movement that was born out of the 1982 Israel invasion of Lebanon.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon because of an attempt on the life of its ambassador in London. Israel decided that it was time to punish the PLO who had observed a cease-fire for many months (a year perhaps? I do not remember). The ambassador was merely an excuse, because the PLO had not been involved in this (eventually the world would know many years later that Israel knew all along that it was a smaller group, an enemy of the PLO, Abu Nidal).

Anyways, beyond the official invasion reasons there were some machinations behind the scenes (The book "Israel " by some military experts in Israel tracks some of the behind the scenes reasons and how Sharon manipulated the Knesset into war). At the time, the hard-liners wanted to expand Israel to the "Greater Israel" and they considered the south of Lebanon (anything below the Litany river) to belong to them.

And here is where the problem starts: although Israel agreed to withdraw from the North and Beirut under international pressure. They kept the southern 40-50 kilometers (ie, anything below the Litany river) as a buffer zone.

In this buffer zone, they counted on the help of a rogue Lebanese general (forget his name) that ran some kind of southern army and was in charge of repressing the population and smoking any opposition of the invasion out.

It is in this scenario that a popular movement emerged: a movement of the people to expel the Israeli Army and get rid of the torture camps (the famous torture camp was eventually turned into a museum after the Israelis left in 2000, and was one of the first targets destroyed in the summer of 2006, so there is no museum left).

Hezbollah was this resistance movements, and for 18 years they made the life of the invading army miserable. First with very primitive mechanisms, later with more advanced ones.

And this is what Ahmadinejad made a reference to in one of the interviews that he did (Charlie Rose perhaps?) that Hezbollah has not acted beyond its borders.

The one exception was the 2006 hostage taking situation. That one is a complicated situation as there were a number of factors at play, and its not clear if there was one single reason for it, some reasons included:

1. The exchange of the captives for captives that Israel still keeps in his prisons from the 1982-2000 occupation.

2. Some argue that the Shebba farms should be returned to their owners.

3. Some argue that it was a way of giving some relief to the Palestinians that were being pounded by F16s destroying key infrastructure in Gaza.

4. A response to the continued attacks on the southern border from Israel (you can read the UN reports, violations of the airspace and bombing from Israel of Lebanese territory were very common before the summer 2006 invasion).

5. A way of obtaining access to the mine land maps that Israel left behind when they withdrew in 2000 which are still a source of deaths among the southern Lebanese population.

Anyways, it is in Israel interest to have people forget the story of where Hezbollah comes from and what caused it to exist by labeling them as a terrorist organization, because the actual story does not look good for them.

There are a number of books that put things in context. "Israel's Lebanon War" from a couple of Haarez mililtary reporters is a good one; "Pity the Nation" puts things into a wider context, from 1977 to 1991 (the civil war); "The Battle of Beirut" talks about the specifics of what happened in the 1982 invasion; "The Fateful Triangle" is still one of the most comprehensive discussions of the Israel invasion in Lebanon and describes many of the collateral problems that emerged from it.

And although I have not finished reading it, the "Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" book so far has been fantastic.

m12

techdude

There seems to be much confusion about the issue of Hezbollah. To the US and to Israel, it is a terrorist organization, and from that point of view, all justifications flow.

But the history of Hezbollah was not just a militant group that sparked out of nowhere. Hezbollah was a popular resistance movement that was born out of the 1982 Israel invasion of Lebanon.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon because of an attempt on the life of its ambassador in London. Israel decided that it was time to punish the PLO who had observed a cease-fire for many months (a year perhaps? I do not remember). The ambassador was merely an excuse, because the PLO had not been involved in this (eventually the world would know many years later that Israel knew all along that it was a smaller group, an enemy of the PLO, Abu Nidal).

Anyways, beyond the official invasion reasons there were some machinations behind the scenes (The book "Israel " by some military experts in Israel tracks some of the behind the scenes reasons and how Sharon manipulated the Knesset into war). At the time, the hard-liners wanted to expand Israel to the "Greater Israel" and they considered the south of Lebanon (anything below the Litany river) to belong to them.

And here is where the problem starts: although Israel agreed to withdraw from the North and Beirut under international pressure. They kept the southern 40-50 kilometers (ie, anything below the Litany river) as a buffer zone.

In this buffer zone, they counted on the help of a rogue Lebanese general (forget his name) that ran some kind of southern army and was in charge of repressing the population and smoking any opposition of the invasion out.

It is in this scenario that a popular movement emerged: a movement of the people to expel the Israeli Army and get rid of the torture camps (the famous torture camp was eventually turned into a museum after the Israelis left in 2000, and was one of the first targets destroyed in the summer of 2006, so there is no museum left).

Hezbollah was this resistance movements, and for 18 years they made the life of the invading army miserable. First with very primitive mechanisms, later with more advanced ones.

And this is what Ahmadinejad made a reference to in one of the interviews that he did (Charlie Rose perhaps?) that Hezbollah has not acted beyond its borders.

The one exception was the 2006 hostage taking situation. That one is a complicated situation as there were a number of factors at play, and its not clear if there was one single reason for it, some reasons included:

1. The exchange of the captives for captives that Israel still keeps in his prisons from the 1982-2000 occupation.

2. Some argue that the Shebba farms should be returned to their owners.

3. Some argue that it was a way of giving some relief to the Palestinians that were being pounded by F16s destroying key infrastructure in Gaza.

4. A response to the continued attacks on the southern border from Israel (you can read the UN reports, violations of the airspace and bombing from Israel of Lebanese territory were very common before the summer 2006 invasion).

5. A way of obtaining access to the mine land maps that Israel left behind when they withdrew in 2000 which are still a source of deaths among the southern Lebanese population.

Anyways, it is in Israel interest to have people forget the story of where Hezbollah comes from and what caused it to exist by labeling them as a terrorist organization, because the actual story does not look good for them.

There are a number of books that put things in context. "Israel's Lebanon War" from a couple of Haarez mililtary reporters is a good one; "Pity the Nation" puts things into a wider context, from 1977 to 1991 (the civil war); "The Battle of Beirut" talks about the specifics of what happened in the 1982 invasion; "The Fateful Triangle" is still one of the most comprehensive discussions of the Israel invasion in Lebanon and describes many of the collateral problems that emerged from it.

And although I have not finished reading it, the "Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" book so far has been fantastic.

m12


[What about those missiles lobbed into Haifa? -- Scott]

Richard


1-Ahmadinajad did not deny there are gays/Homosexual in Iran.
If one read carefully text of his speach and not the media spoins he said:
There are no homosexuality in iran LIKE YOU HAVE IN YOUR COUNTRY .There are homsexuality .
2-Ambush by President of University was shamefull. Seems to me like a coward with no dignity invited someone but insulted him before even he spoke.
3- Ahmadinejad acted more rational than Lee Bolinger.
4- covering all university signs and icon with black on stage was not only disrespectfull of any university but insult to students. what a shame covering university sign while world were watching.
5- These isults will make him more poular in his country and in ME but reinforce double standards and arrogance of Americans.
6-There are plenty of Evidence US government support and orgonize insurgencies in Iran , it is hypoctatic for Bollinger to call Nejas supporter of terrorisem and not call US with same charge.
7- Calling Nejad a dictator is funny in comparison to Bush. Nejad has no military power to wage any war. In his own country he has no comand of Army or revolutionary guards and simply can not attack any other country unlike our leader.
8- Only retards and cowards are unable to see influence and domination of Zionist propoganda in actions of Bollinger.
- I dislike Nejad and what he stand for ,but he displayed integrity at the time of ambush. He did not look like or acted like a dictators .

The comments to this entry are closed.