Firestarter

... Why not?

I think they're called teepees.

That made me laugh out loud. Thanks. I started smoking them first, actually, because a friend of mine said they'd be the easiest to start out with. I thought she was putting me on at first because even the "deluxe ultra lights" felt incredibly harsh. Now, many years later, they taste like air to me. Sounds great, but just how would that work? Also, question: this site lists ultra lights, lights, mediums, regulars, non-filters, menthols, and something called "periques" under the American Spirits category. Now I know I'll probably be getting regulars, but what's a "perique?" And do any of these varieties come in 100s? Those don't seem to be available from that site, and I like 100s.

... So was gay marriage.

Honestly, I really can't taste any tobacco whatsoever in a menthol cigarette, and it bugs me. I don't mind mint in small quantities but I don't want it to be filling my lungs all frickin' day. I like tobacco I can taste. Still am. Go ahead and start on 'em; I'm getting disenchanted. I liked them a lot at first but now they aren't really doing anything for me. I can go through five in fifteen minutes and I still feel vaguely dissatisfied.

Moving right along...

You've said that before, but I don't know what GPC is. I'll look for American Spirit. It comes in a non-menthol variety I presume?

Can we get this pinned or something? 'k. So I finally got my hands on another carton of Davidoffs, and they taste... well... blah. I can't tell the difference between them and the Marlboros now, honestly. I'm so disappointed - I remember when I first tasted them, and they were rich and smooth and chocolatey and stuff and I loved them. Now I almost prefer Marlboros; the Davidoffs taste a little weak in comparison. Almost too smooth. Anyway, I've got a very old pack of B&H in the drawer downstairs; I'm going to get those now and try them, see if varying the brand makes a difference.

Doesn't anyone around here smoke anything but those damn menthols? Less than 2 inches of tobacco? What do you care, you can't taste it anyway.

Because art isn't supposed to be slavishly accurate to the point of madness. Art is about taking an account of events or some perspective on reality and reflecting it back to the viewer in order to show the deeper (or at least different) aspects or truths underlying it. Showing chunks of skin and flesh flying off a scourge and spurts of blood gushing from a man's body isn't art. It's merely grotesque, perverse, and sickening crudity.

Haven't seen the movie, and I won't see the movie, but I nevertheless agree entirely with Banky. I won't subject myself to this kind of depraved, gory filth. If anyone's "personal relationship with Jesus" is strengthened by watching graphic depictions of his sadistic torture, perhaps he needs to re-evaluate his relationship. My wife is the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and the first time we went to his church to hear his Sunday sermon, I asked her why the cross at the front wasn't a crucifix (for you non-Christians, the difference is simply that a crucifix also portrays Jesus, usually hanging from the cross) as it is in Catholic churches. She said that Baptists don't use crucifixes because they think such symbols place too much emphasis on Jesus's torture and death, as opposed to his forgiveness and love - which was the whole point. Having read some reviews of this pornographic movie, and having seen far too many disgusting stills, I'm starting to appreciate that perspective. Plus, I loathe Mel Gibson and I find his martyr's complex ridiculous.

Yep.

I like you, if only for the Arnold Schwarzenegger avatar.

I think it was appropriate.

OMG REALLY?! Who were the first?! Please tell me all about them in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL

This is self-delusion above and beyond the call of duty. I recommend a decoration.

Five months of "dates" with one actual meeting? I guess that's about as "real" as it gets.

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, genius, with 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. Under the auspices of President Clinton, who signed it.

Either or, really. Ditto.

Most people with an IQ higher than ten degrees above room temperature would pretty much have to be.

is that the slutty Golden Girl? Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire, you illiterate twits. And a rather apt analogy.

That you and people like you are trying to lead the United States down the same yellow brick road, and I, for one, refuse to follow. And anyway, what does surgery have to do with it? (Since you brought it up.) Or hormone "therapy?" Or anyone's beliefs, come to that? Who in the blue hell cares whether you think you're a woman? Were you born with a dick? Do you have a Y chromosome? Fine, you're a goddamn man, and nothing's ever going to change that, and I don't give a flying fuck if you want to say you're a woman or a toaster oven, you're a man and a human being despite your almost inhuman stupidity and I'll see you in hell before I refer to you as "she" or "her." Jesus Christ this kind of monumentally surreal nonsense pisses me off, not just as a conservative but as a writer with great respect and affection, even love, for the English language. You're not only trying to turn society on its head, you're trying to make words themselves utterly devoid of meaning. A marriage is between a man and a woman. I could say the sky is green and redefine "green" to mean "blue," but that doesn't mean I'd be right except in my own special little world where I'd imagine reality conforms to my rules. And that's precisely what you blithering idiots are trying to do.

...of opposite genders. Anything beyond that has been practically nonexistent throughout all of recorded history. In the UK you don't even have to have surgery. You just get a guy in a white coat to say that you really, really, really, truly think you're a woman. And the government waves a magic wand and makes it so.

Or should we require that any woman past childbearing age dissolve her marriage forthwith? No. Because it's not about bearing children alone. It's about an institution which was founded on the notion of alliance, shared responsibility, and raising a family between a man and a woman. Marriages were originally economic and political in nature. They had anything to do with mutual love in the usual way of things until quite recently. And you really, really don't want to base it on that. If you do, there's absolutely nothing, nothing at all, standing between the courts deciding that polygamy and incest are also natural human rights. Bestiality you could still keep off the books, but that's about all. What are you going to do, tell three women who say that they sincerely love each other that they don't?

The former is a matter of record and so is the latter. These are facts, not spin, not allegations, not smears, and not distortions. He's said the first himself and his votes and ratings from liberal groups prove the second. Where precisely do you see a problem? In the inconsistency? Do you recall that we're discussing John Kerry? Now don't you feel silly?