Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12 ... 103  Next

Not New World Order, but still just as batty:


Crop Circles and the key to the world order

(On why the aliens chose circles as a commen theme):

   

England have beaten Pakistan and go 1-0 up in the Series.

Final score.

1st innings
Pakistan - 119
England 461-9 declared

2nd innings
Pakistan - 222

England win by an innings and 120 runs.

Harmison has 5-57 as England demolish Pakistanis.
-----------------


Monty and Harmy demolish Pakistan

Day Three (result): England (461-9 dec) beat Pakistan (119 & 222) by an innings and 120 runs

Monty Panesar (5-72) and Steve Harmison (5-57) bowled England to a crushing victory at Old Trafford as Pakistan were scuttled for 222 in their second innings.

No other England bowler took a wicket in the Test, with 'Monty' (8-93) and 'Harmy' (11-76) combined to claim 19 scalps. The only other wicket was a run out.
-------------------------------


Harmison gave England an early boost on the third morning when he was declared fit to bowl after an injury scare on Friday evening. The Durham fast bowler soon proved his value by having opener Kamran Akmal caught behind for four off a nasty rearing delivery.
----------------------


Imran Farhat and Younis Khan (pictured) then added 39 for the second wicket, taking the score to 60...
--------------


...before crowd favourite Panesar got in on the act, enticing Farhat to play a rash drive which was caught by Ian Bell at forward short leg.

After that Mohammad Yousuf (15*) and Khan (34*) saw Pakistan through to 101-2 at lunch, still 241 runs away from making England bat again.
---------------


England then struck with the very first ball after lunch when Mohammad Yousuf was neatly stumped by Geraint Jones, playing with a fractured finger, off Panesar.

It was a tight decision but the third umpire ruled in England's favour as Yousuf, who scored a double century at Lord's, departed for 15.
--------------


Delight then turned to delirium for England as Monty snared Inzamam-ul-Haq for just 13.

The third umpire was again called into action, this time confirming the Pakistan captain had edged the ball directly onto his boot and then up into the eager hands of Alastair Cook
----------------


Younis Khan tried to stabilise the Pakistan innings with a stylish half century, scored off 91 balls...
----------------


...before Panesar struck again, this time trapping Khan lbw for 62 after the batsman offered no stroke.

The Manchester rains came down soon after, forcing the players off with Pakistan 167-5, still 175 runs behind, with Panesar returning figures of 19.1-2-48-4
----------------


It was business as usual after the break with Panesar resuming where he left off, having Faisal Iqbal caught by Marcus Trescothick for 29 to complete his second five-wicket haul in Tests
----------------


Harmison then completed the rout, collecting the last three wickets as Shahid Afridi (17), Mohammad Sami (0) and Abdul Razzaq (13) all fell to his extra pace and bounce.

Harmison finished with 5-57, his second five-wicket haul of the match, becoming the first bowler to 10 wickets in a Test at Old Trafford since Jim Laker's amazing feats 50 years ago.

telegraph.co.uk

   

An amusing little Frog: French wine labels get funny
Matthew Campbell



WHAT do Arrogant Frog and Elephant on a Tightrope have in common? Faced with a slump in consumption and increasing competition from abroad (such as two British wines being voted the world's best), the French are suffering the indignity of having to pick funny names for their wine in order to sell it abroad.

At the top end of the market things are going well. The 2005 bordeaux vintage is fetching record prices in the futures market. Further down the scale, however, prospects are grim. Too much wine is being produced for too few buyers.

So great is the grape glut that the European Union wants to dig up some vineyards and convert part of the wine lake into industrial fuel. Rather than face that humiliation, producers are listening through gritted teeth to the marketing gurus. “Necessity is the mother of invention,” said one disgruntled wine-maker from Languedoc in southern France.

The movement is gathering steam. “Bread is branded,” said Pierre Courbon, international marketing director of a French company set up to sell a new brand called Chamarré, or “richly coloured”. “Why not wine?” Domestic resistance will be fierce, however, particularly to bottles such as Arrogant Frog. This is hardly the name most likely to appeal to domestic consumers.

“I was shocked,” said Heidi Vincent of Chateau Online, an internet wine seller.

The label shows an imperious looking frog in an overcoat. It is available in “ribet red” and “ribet white”. This sort of marketing is not the only thing calculated to set some French oenophiles ranting about the end of civilisation.

It might “leap out of the glass with panache and élan”, in the words of the advertisements, but it is also sealed with — quelle horreur — a screw cap “designed to preserve freshness and youthful appeal”.

Jean-Claude Mas, the creator, is said to be still getting on with his neighbours. The chances are that they, too, are trying to come up with a funny label.

An example of that is Le Freak. Its producers say they hit upon the name to reflect the unusual notion of mixing white and red grapes.

As for Elephant on a Tightrope, the producers say this is all about “balance”, a popular word among wine makers. Elephants are known for their balance and extraordinary sense of smell.

Indeed, animals seem to be more effective — particularly among younger consumers — at selling wine at this end of the market than the names of French regions.

The animal fad can be traced to Australia where Yellow Tail, featuring a wallaby on the label, has become the top-selling imported wine in America, selling more than 7.5m cases last year.


www.timesonline.co.uk . . .
******************************************************


British is Best: British wine, the 1998 Nyetimber Classic Cuvee, has been voted the world's best, at a time when French wines struggle.


'I say darling, have you tried this new French wine?
'What's it called?'
'Chateau Le Pen'
'No I haven't actually, but a very Gallic name, What's it like?'
'Well, it's difficult to describe really - but it does reflect modern France - an unmistakable blend of heady aromas including a distinct whiff of Chirac's crotch, more than a hint of Jospin's jockstrap and a murmour of the sole of Segoline's shoe. Fancy a glass?'
'Well, sounds original and nice of you to offer, but couldn't we just stick to Nyetimber?'

   

Civil liberties groups condemn the EUSSR as it says that children as young as 6 may be fingerprinted.

Millions of children to be fingerprinted

Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday July 30, 2006
The Observer



A portable fingerprint scanner on display. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty


The European Union has around 75 million children aged 0-15.


British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world.

The prospect has alarmed civil liberties groups who fear it represents a 'sea change' in the state's relationship with children and one that may lead to juveniles being erroneously accused of crimes. Under laws being drawn up behind closed doors by the European Commission's 'Article Six' committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union's 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009 at the latest.

The use of fingerprints and other biometric data is designed to prevent passport fraud and allow European member states to meet US entry visa requirements, but the decision to fingerprint children has disturbed human rights groups.

The civil liberties group Statewatch last night accused EU governments of taking decisions in which 'people and parliaments have no say'. It said the committee's decisions were simply based on 'technological possibilities - not on the moral and political questions of whether it is right or desirable.'

'This is a sea change,' said Ben Hayes, spokesman for Statewatch. 'We are going from fingerprinting criminals to universal fingerprinting without any real debate. In the long term everyone's fingerprints will be stored on a central database. You have to ask what will be the costs to a person's privacy.'

According to secret documents obtained by Statewatch, the committee will make it compulsory for all children from the age of 12 to be fingerprinted. However, several of the committee's member states are lobbying to bring the compulsory age limit down. Sweden tells the committee it 'could agree with a minimum age of six years for passports'.

The UK, meanwhile, observes that it has collected the fingerprints of five-year-old asylum seekers with no 'significant problems'. Since February the Home Office has been fingerprinting children as young as five at asylum centres in Croydon and Liverpool. It took the decision amid concerns children were being registered by several families in order to claim more benefits.

Refugee support groups, including the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, have described the action as 'intrusive'. The JCWI also expressed concerns that fingerprints kept on file could be held against children if they tried to return to the UK in later life.

Fingerprinting young children is considered difficult because their fingers have yet to fully develop. The European Commission notes: 'Scientific tests have confirmed that the paillary ridges on the fingers are not sufficiently developed to allow biometric capture and analysis until the age of six.'

A commission spokesman said initially only member states would have access to their citizens' fingerprint data. However, after the Madrid bombings the commission signalled its intention for all fingerprints to be stored on one database that could one day be accessed by each EU state. 'Whether access for third countries will be allowed has to be decided by the EC at a later stage,' the spokesman said. 'Nevertheless, full interoperability is ensured, should the EU decide to give access to third countries.'

Such a move opens up the possibility that the fingerprints of British children could one day be accessed by foreign intelligence services. 'Secure passports make a lot more sense than ID cards,' said Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty. 'But only as long as the information that is kept is no more than necessary and is not shared with other countries.'

guardian.co.uk

   

Blair is not Bush's poodle and often makes the decisions between the two men. In many cases, Blair is more like Bush's guide dog. It a brilliant two-way relationship -

From the UK Spectator -

Why Blair is standing by Bush now
Irwin Stelzer (a Yank)

Washington



Whether Tony Blair decides to oblige the braying Brownites and step down at the next party conference, or hang in there until the 2007 Labour party gathering, doesn’t much matter when it comes to appraising the much-mocked Blair–Bush relationship. In relatively short order, both men will have reached the end of their careers in electoral politics, bringing to a close an amazing relationship between your Prime Minister and my President. And one that is badly misunderstood.

Not by chance. Pundits and pols on your side of the ocean have a stake in proving that Tony Blair is George Bush’s poodle, and their counterparts on my side find it useful to depict Bush as so inarticulate and, er, dumb, that he needs Blair to flit over to America to explain US foreign policy. So it’s not-very-bright Bush and not-very-powerful Blair locked in an embrace of necessity.

Good fun, but wrong. I remember sitting with the PM on the lawn of a deserted No.10 on a beautiful summer Sunday afternoon, sipping a Diet Coke, the same drink I was offered years ago in the humbler setting of the office Blair occupied when still an obscure opposition politician, quizzing me on the effect on employment of his proposed minimum-wage law.

The afternoon’s topic: Britain’s place in the world. Blair may lurch from policy to policy when it comes to crime, education and other domestic issues, but when it comes to foreign policy he has a very definite view of where he wants to take Britain. Start with a view he shares with the President. The foreign-policy establishments of both countries are somewhere between useless and harmful to their nations’ interests.

Blair knows that the Foreign Office is irremediably pro-Arab and anti-Israel — ‘Remember where the oil is, old boy, remember the atrocities those Jews committed to drive us out of Palestine, and remember all the money the Saudis and others spend and invest in Britain.’ Bush knows that his State Department — especially in the days of Colin Powell and at least until he parachuted in Condoleezza Rice — prefers any deal to no deal when there is a crisis, is unnerved by any threat to the status quo, and found Saudi Arabia’s smooth Prince Bandar more congenial than the rougher-hewn Ariel Sharon.

So both men rely on their own judgments and instincts when it comes to carving out a role for their countries in an increasingly fractious world. The striped-pants brigade can tut-tut, but no matter.

Back to No.10 on that great English afternoon. No strawberries and cream, but unlimited Diet Cokes. As requested, I laid out the economic arguments for and against deeper involvement with the EU, and suggested that the economic data show that even the extreme case — withdrawal from the Union — would not hurt the UK economy and might even enable it to grow FASTER.

Blair’s reply reminded me of the time I argued to Margaret Thatcher that she was costing the Treasury a small — well, not so small — fortune by underpricing shares in British Gas. ‘This has nothing to do with economics,’ was the reply (I paraphrase). ‘This is about politics. We need to have more shareholders than union members, and I want the original purchasers [remember the ‘Sids’?] to do so well that they become shareholders in other companies.’

In a similar vein Blair argued that the EU is not about economics — something Gordon Brown doesn’t quite understand, was the unspoken subtext — but about the position of Britain in the world. Britain can be a world power only if it does two things — engage the EU so completely that it is accepted as a true European, and grapple itself to America with hoops of steel (that’s my theft of Shakespeare, not Blair’s).

The first task is made difficult by Britain’s failure to adopt the euro; the second by the not-so-latent anti-Americanism on the Left of the Labour party, and on the snob-Right of the Tory party. Blair has consistently sought to overcome those obstacles so that Britain might become the bridge between Europe and America; a role that Blair is certain is the only alternative to marginalisation. Andrew Rawnsley in last week’s Observer catalogued Britain’s assets: a permanent seat on the Security Council, an independent nuclear deterrent, the fifth largest economy in the world, a powerful financial centre in London, and seats on the IMF and the World Bank boards. Add easy access to the White House, and Britain becomes a world power, fighting above its weight, as the saying goes.

Blair has always believed that his differences with a very conservative President do not change the fact that he and Bush have world views as similar as those of Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. That team knew that the biggest threat to world peace and to the West was Soviet Russia, and they knew it had to be defeated rather than merely contained. The status quo, they agreed, was unacceptable, no matter what their foreign-policy officials advised. They were right.

Blair and Bush hold similar views. The Prime Minister played guide dog rather than poodle in 1999, when Bush’s principal foreign-policy concern was still how to share the water of the Rio Grande with his state’s Mexican neighbour. In his now famous Chicago speech the Prime Minister made the case for intervention in the affairs of sovereign states if they were behaving badly, and cited Iraq as one state warranting such attention. He went on to argue that spreading democracy is the surest way to create a civilised and peaceful world order. Bush later signed on to those propositions, adding the wrinkle of creating coalitions of the willing when the UN proved unable or unwilling to act.

Which brings us to the Middle East. The idea that Blair got nothing in return for his support of Bush’s Iraq policy may sell books by former ambassadors, but it has a serious defect: it can’t explain the appearance of the Middle East ‘road map to peace’. Any Washington insider will tell you that Bush quite sensibly wanted no part of any such intervention in the contorted politics of the Middle East. But Blair insisted, on two grounds: it was the right thing to do, always a compelling reason for him to take a position, and he needed a road map to appease those in his party who have persuaded themselves that terror attacks from New York to Bali to Madrid to the London Tube are somehow an outgrowth of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

Blair needed some tangible proof that his American comrade-in-arms truly shared his goal of making the two-state solution a reality. The all-powerful American President gave in to his supposed poodle, and modified American policy to suit the wishes and needs of the British Prime Minister. Score one for the value of the special relationship to the UK, and for the reciprocity and trust on which the Blair–Bush relationship is built. The PM has said more than once that he can trust ‘George’ to do exactly what he promises, and the President says he knows that when the chips are down he can count on Tony.

The healthy state of the Blair–Bush relationship is reflected in more than crisis management. The Bush team worried about the problems a British foreign minister faced when he depended for office on an electorate with a heavy Muslim component — something Secretary of State Rice noticed on her visit to Jack Straw’s constituency. Straw is now custodian at the House of Commons. Blair pleaded with Bush for help in taming the anti-Americans, and privately asked, ‘Please have him send me Condi Rice.’ Powell was too busy defending his home turf from a Rumsfeld invasion to spend much time abroad, and the neoconservative hard men who passed through London, strewing interviews and speeches in their path, did more harm than good. Bush eventually obliged, and Condi Rice proceeded to make Blair’s life easier at home and in Europe without giving an inch on the substance of American policy. Neither man acted solely to satisfy his partner, but each gave at least some weight to the needs of the other when retooling his foreign-policy apparatus.

Of course, a sort of special relationship prevailed when Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office. But it was of a different sort, more talking shop, except when Blair finally prevailed on the reluctant president to move against genocide in the Balkans. Blair enjoyed and still enjoys his talk-fests with Bill Clinton, and says he regards the former president as the most effective political operator he has ever seen. And Cherie Booth finds Hillary Rodham a more congenial dinner partner than she does Laura Bush — two Left-leaning lawyers naturally have more in common than one such professional and a librarian whose happiest hours are spent teaching children to want to learn to read, and supporting her husband.

But talk is talk, and action is action. ‘George is quick to get to the heart of a problem, make up his mind about what to do, and then do it,’ is how Blair summarises their frequent video conferences. For Bush’s part, he regards the Prime Minister as a stand-up guy whom he would want at his back in a bar-room brawl. Texas talk, and not to be taken literally, since it has been a long while since the President could be found in a bar-room, or a brawl therein.

But there is brawl now being fought in the Middle East. Both the President and the Prime Minister see the current hostilities as a battle in the ongoing war with Islamic jihadists, a war the West must win if it is to preserve its way of life. Neither man blames the Israelis for the death of civilians unfortunate enough to be acting as involuntary human shields for Hezbollah weapons caches, bomb-making factories and rocket-launchers. Blair has a harder political task than does Bush: some of his own ministers, joined by a William Hague who once knew better, are pressing him to support an immediate ceasefire, rather than stick with Bush in holding out for a more durable solution — never mind that the same made-in-Iran missiles that are killing Israelis in Haifa are killing British soldiers in Basra.

For more than one reason, the Prime Minister will side with the President. In part he will be holding to his position that ‘the price of influence is that we do not leave the US to face the tricky issues alone’. In part he will be reacting to his greatest fear: an America defeated in its efforts to spread democracy, and given a bloody nose in the process, will retreat, sulk in its tent, leaving the world leaderless and at the mercy of Islamic fanatics. ‘The thing I fear,’ he told some reporters, ‘is not American unilateralism; it is actually American isolationism... .’ And in part Blair will do what he does when he is at his best — do what he believes is right.

Tony Blair may be no Winston Churchill, just as George W. Bush is no Franklin D. Roosevelt. He may not even be a Margaret Thatcher, and Bush no Ronald Reagan. But the current occupants of the offices once held by those great statesmen are both convinced that they know what is right, and are prepared to suffer such slings and arrows as their opponents may aim at them in order to bring some semblance of order and decency to a world in which those commodities are not in oversupply. We asked no more of their distinguished predecessors.

Irwin Stelzer is director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute and a columnist for the Sunday Times.

spectator.co.uk

   

And Bush rides him like there's no tomorrow.

   

Razorlight, the guys from London, have released their second album "Razorlight". Their first album, "Up All Night", was released in June 2004.



The cover of the new Razorlight album, "Razorlight."


Johnny Borrell - vocals, guitar
Björn Ågren - guitar
Carl Dalemo - bass
Andy Burrows - drums


It's Borrell's bid for Bono-stature. Except it's actually good


Everyone loves a party. Perhaps your idea of a night on the tiles is to pack your cheeks with pills like a narcotics hamster and gurn your way into oblivion. Or, possibly, your perfect bash is just to kick back and discuss the finer points of Chilean interpretive cinema with a bottle of carbonated water - flavoured of course, it is a party, after all. Or maybe your ideal might lie somewhere between the two, with friends, fun and staying up into the wee small hours for the sole reason that you don't want the moment to end.

But no matter how we party, we all have to face The Morning After: the vacant memories and fuzzy flashbacks, the regrets, the hopes and the coy advances.

Diving into a darkened world of seedy districts, torn-up dancefloors and chance encounters, Razorlight's debut 'Up All Night' was a head-spinning tour of London's nightlife, where the next party was always just around the corner. Now, though, the alarm clock is ringing and it's time to face the consequences.

Ignoring the overflowing ashtrays and empty beer cans, comeback single 'In The Morning' wakes up the house as its twitching country-tonk demonstrates a total disregard for hangovers. "Last night was so much fun", snaps Johnny, before he quickly wipes the slate clean and declares: "In the morning you know you won't remember a thing". However, there's already something in his voice signalling that the singer knows it's never that simple.

With Andy Burrows' drums pounding through the album like voodoo maracas, the opener sets the tone for Razorlight to sound like the classic rock'n'roll band they always imagined in their heads: bigger, bolder, brighter. 'Who Needs Love?' cheekily borrows a bar-room piano from Bruce Springsteen, as Johnny tells us he's down with romance, but he's not kidding anyone - least of all himself. With a poetic simplicity he ruefully dismisses the virtues of having "the perfect girl or boy" one by one, but his list is so spot-on it could only have been penned by a true romantic.

'America' sees Razorlight both expanding their geography and swapping rock bravado for something deeper, as the song lights up like a vivid LA sunset. 'Razorlight' isn't a concept album, but as with its predecessor's nocturnal adventures, it proves too tempting not to draw your own narratives between the songs. So while 'America' is principally concerned with the US' cultural influence, there's a feeling Friends re-runs aren't its chief concern.



Something, or rather someone, escaped 'In The Morning''s memory eraser and is digging away inside. Fortunately, like a giddy friend, 'I Can't Stop This Feeling I've Got' just blurts it all out ("I can't stop this feeling I've got/I know where I've been and I know what I've lost"). Bewitchingly awakened by Carl Dalemo's perfectly understated bass, it's the track that delicately but defiantly tips its hat to early Elvis Costello, and it's one that encapsulates Razorlight's guiding spirit: you can plan your parties and pick the guestlist, but you can't control your heart.

So for every 'Pop Song 2006', with Bjorn Agren's euphoric but scratchy guitars soaring into a U2-esque air-punching high, there's a 'Los Angeles Waltz' that grows out of church-like organs, and evolves into soul-crushing rock'n'roll to rival The Animals' take on 'House Of The Rising Sun', seemingly inspired by the end of Razorlight's January 2005 US tour, when Johnny arrived in the city, isolated, unable to sing or talk. With his bandmates bursting towards the climax, Razorlight's frontman lays everything he's got on the line. There is no holding back, no mediation - just true, tender emotions.

Even a million miles away from Dalston, there's someone - not just the name-checked Kings Of Leon - he just can't shake and as the final, haunting lines "we own each other" are howled out against a lonely backdrop, the tinge of hope that underpins the album becomes acutely heartbreaking.

It's difficult to imagine anything rawer captured on record and, as the album's closer, it proves devastating. So, Razorlight's morning-after record is neither a tawdry comedown nor a party substitute. It's bigger than that. It's a soulful, romantic album about what happens when the lights come up at the end of the night and life smacks you in the face. It's a record that's understands, and is there for you through all the highs and the lows. It's also a record that sees Razorlight comfortably leap the "difficult second album" trap. Now that calls for a party.

Paul Stokes


www.nme.com

   

ROTFL Look at the guy second from the left. What happened to him?

   

He just found out their first gig is playing at the push and pull festivel in London.(masturbate a thon)

   

Agent Blue: Stoke-on-Trent punk rockers.

Matt Jones - Drums
Mark Taylor - Guitar & backing vocals
Josh Hill - Guitar
Nick Andrews - Vocals
Calum Murphy - Bass



Dom Gourlay

Remember Agent Blue? They emerged from Stoke-on-Trent at the arse end of 2003 and made definitively English punk rock records about sex and drugs and throwing stones and stuff - and then they just... disappeared.

As 2006 opens its eyes and learns the words "mummy" and "daddy" they're back snarling and growling with an album that was initially recorded in 2003, yet sounds like it could have been conceived at any point over the past thirty years. Re-e-e-spect.

Punk. It's a dirty word but someone's got to use it. It's all about a time and place, says granddad Jones and uncle Lydon. Fair play to 'em - they created it after all. And then Americans with Toni & Guy lacerated spikes and big shorts found it and diluted it down to a weakened cup of Robinsons barley water. So why has it taken five blokes from the truckstop of the A50 to inject some much needed passion and life into its cash orientated genre? And why has it taken so long for this record to emerge?

The latter is largely down to contractual issues between record labels. The former? Nothing more than the Brits reclaiming the torch and ultimately the crown, simple as that.

"I was too busy being bored," declares Nic Andrews before declaring "..you sold your soul to the new school devil" like Tommy Teaser in hell's playground. It's all mortar, cement and a halo of loud guitars from here on in. The raucous thrash of Cooper Temple Clause on amphetamine E that is 'Sex, Drugs And Rocks Through Your Window' you've all heard, likewise the skitpunk stutter of 'Something Else'.

Covering the cracks of Britpunk is what Agent Blue do best though, and if 'Monster Monster' doffs its baseball cap to the fraggle age of Ned's Atomic Dustbin and Mega City Four, then 'Crossbreed' sounds like the missing link between ska, punk and baggy that circumcises Definitely Maybe and Nevermind in their tracks. 'THC' and live favourite '341' meanwhile are no holds barred, go-for-the-throat punk rock. No messing around, no fretwanking or embarrassing political lyrical asides, just straight down the hatch. Not that Agent Blue can't measure up to the muso contingency either, as the closing six minute epic 'Gear' almost creates a new genre ("prog-punk") in the process.

If there's any criticism or drawback with A Stolen Honda Vision it's that the naysayers will say "it's past its sell by date", "from another time", whatever. But all good music is timeless, and in A Stolen Honda Vision, Agent Blue have shown that fashion is no substitute for passion and determination.


drownedinsound.com

   

OOOO Great style on the guy on the far right. Got the 40 year old office guy with tight pants going on. Rockin out the golf shirt and everything...Wait, hes a golfer isn't he. One of those guys who wear the fucked pants and the crazy ass hat. The two middle guys look high off their face. THe guy on the left.....He is the only slightly normal one.

   

No shit! They all look like crackheads. must be the good food and wine.

   

Must you keep posting pictures of these people? Nice hair on the guy on the right. Same with the guy in the middle. The guy in between those two has got the Emo look going with out the black hair. Is it just the picture, or is the guy second from the left have his eyes bugging out? Left guy looks normal, prolly could use a shower though

No.

   

I thought this was a thread about Elvis.

   

Jost is pretty good, as far as I can tell

   

Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12 ... 103  Next