14 Responses to “Stimulus Package”

1. angryclown Says:
   July 9th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

   What’s that supposed to be, anyway? A guy hitting fungoes at a nudist colony?

2. nerdbert Says:
   July 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

   The dress should have been blue.

   Oh, wait, maybe that’s the change we’ve been waiting for!

3. Kermit Says:
   July 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

   Nothing says respect like going to the Vatican with your armpits exposed.
   What a friggin hick.

4. Badda Says:
   July 9th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

   But Kermit, she’s The One Who Won… or one of them, anyway.

5. swiftee Says:
   July 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

   “Nothing says respect like going to the Vatican with your armpits exposed.”

   She wanted to show off her new Brazillian wax job for his Holiness.

6. LearnedFoot Says:
   July 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm

   AC –

   No a fungo bat’s bigger than that thing.

   Oh wait.

   I mean a fungo bat’s smaller than that thing.

   (Sorry. Was looking at the wrong thing there.)

7. mom Says:
   July 11th, 2009 at 10:09 am

   Are any of you sure that that statue was actually in the Vatican? Your comments are way off base if Mrs Obama was standing in a museum.
   A class act

8. Johnny Roosh Says:
   July 11th, 2009 at 11:32 am

   Huh?

   Mom, did you stop taking your pills?

9. mom Says:
   July 12th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

   Mr. Roosh, Ad hominum arguments about whether I am on pills or not do not further your statement in any way.
   The photograph does not show Mrs Obama in the Vatican.

10. Johnny Roosh Says:
    July 12th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Mr. Roosh, Ad hominum arguments about whether I am on pills or not do not further your statement in any way.

    Don’t you mean Ad Mominum?

    May I direct you to the “Humor” tag on the post?

11. mom Says:
    July 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    Mr Roosh
    And here I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary? Guess I was wrong. now I will know that what is written in SITD is to be taken with a grain of salt.

12. Johnny Roosh Says:
    July 12th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    And here I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary?

    Who told you that?
    Sometimes. Sometimes not. Hence the label “Humor.”

    Let me help you out with an apt definition:

    an instance of being or attempting to be comical or amusing; something humorous: The humor in his joke eluded the audience.

    And please, call me Johnny.

13. Mitch Berg Says:
    July 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    I had always thought that Shot in the Dark was to be taken as serious commentary?

    Like the Cheshire Cat or Maureen Dowd, our commentary is to be taken as we intend it to be taken. Sometimes it’s serious, sometimes it’s humorous. For the latter, we sometimes add the big capitalized HUMOR tag. We provide this as a public service. You’re welcome.

    Guess I was wrong. now I will know that what is written in SITD is to be taken with a grain of salt.

    At times? Certainly. “All revealing the absolute indisputable truth and shredding liberal lies and no play makes Johnny and Mitch dull boys”.

14. mom Says:
    July 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Back to my original comment….The statue in the photograph was NOT in the Vatican and Mrs Obama was NOT in the Vatican exposing her armpits. She was appropriately dressed at both the museum and , later the Vatican. Funny, how things can be misrepresented isn’t

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.