Two editorials in the Washington Post looking over who should be acclaimed the Worst US president. One says Bush could definitely win it, the other claims he's just the 5th worst. None of them mention Warren G. Harding who was the first president voted into office based simply on how he looked presidential.

5th place (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101475.html)
First place (Move over, Hoover) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101511.html)
Wikipedia on Warren G. Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding)

Most people who are the opponent of the current president well tend to say he is the worst ever, e.g., the republicans' view of Clinton, just because they have a collective memory span of about five minutes.

People say Bush is the worst ever because they perceive him to have "lost" the Iraq war, and they think the cost of the war was excessive.

In reality, we won the war rather quickly, but Bush did make the stupid decision to outstay his welcome and attempt to build democracy. Also, by historical comparison to other wars, the American casualties in Iraq were practically non-existent.

That mistake, which can easily be cleared up in 2009, doesn't grant him the title of worst president, not by a long shot.

He could become the worst President just because of global warming, however we'll have to wait a decade or two for that one (we hope).

I think this point is pretty accurate:
The problem for Bush is that certitude is only a virtue if the policy enacted is proven correct. Most Americans applaud Truman's dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they achieved the desired effect: Japan surrendered. Reagan's anti-communist zeal -- including increased defense budgets and Star Wars -- is only now perceived as positive because the Soviet Union started to unravel on his watch.

Nobody has accused Bush of flinching. After 9/11, he decided to circumvent the United Nations and declare war on Iraq. The principal pretext was that Baghdad supposedly was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. From the get-go, the Iraq war was a matter of choice. Call it Mr. Bush's War. Like a high-stakes poker player pushing in all his chips on one hand, he bet the credibility of the United States on the notion that Sunnis and Shiites wanted democracy, just like the Poles and the Czechs during the Cold War.
He just was wrong about too many things. Wrong about the WMDs, wrong about being viewed as liberators, wrong about what to do after "Mission Accomplished". And being steadfast isn't a great virtue when you're steadfastly wrong all the time.

The Wikipedia blurb for Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding) is pretty funny.

Edit: Bah! Somebody fixed it. Here's what it said a minute ago:

"Warren Gamaliel Harding (November 2, 1865 – August 2, 1923) was an American politician and the 29th President of the United States, from 1921 to 1923, when he became the sixth president to die in office. His political leanings were conservative, and his record in both offices was relatively undistinguished. This was because of his unfortunate tendency to drop his drawers at passerby, especially those of which who were female. Since he was about 8 and a half feet tall (the second tallest president in US history), his private parts dangled at about eye-level for most people of the era. After one man threw himself in front of a train while gouging his own eyes out with an icepick after being flashed by the president, Congress passed a bill ordering Harding to cease immediately. Instead of doing so, he purposely induced a heart attack and died. He was pretty creepy."

LOL! It didn't say that when I was looking at it!

He just was wrong about too many things. Wrong about the WMDs, wrong about being viewed as liberators, wrong about what to do after "Mission Accomplished". And being steadfast isn't a great virtue when you're steadfastly wrong all the time.That's all one thing -- Iraq. Iraq just isn't a big deal; it doesn't affect the SUV-driving, latte-sipping life of the average American one bit.

Global Warming?

Blamed on Bush?

You have got to be kidding right, that was a (sarcastic) joke, right?

Global Warming?
Blamed on Bush?
You have got to be kidding right, that was a (sarcastic) joke, right?Why not blame Bush? We all know he has ultimate authority to do anything he pleases, including going back in time and polluting the planet since the 1960s. You should watch more European news broadcasts.

That's all one thing -- Iraq. Iraq just isn't a big deal; it doesn't affect the SUV-driving, latte-sipping life of the average American one bit.
If the cost of the war was divided up evenly amongst the ~150 million US taxpayers, every one of us would owe over $2000. That's a lot of money when you consider what we bought with it: 3K dead Americans, 50K dead Iraqi civilians, and a country which will probably end up being a haven for terrorists for years to come. What a bargain. If the loss of life doesn't disturb the average American then perhaps the loss of the 700 lattes they could have bought with the money will.

People thought Reagan was a doddering fool when he was in office. I was a big watcher of Saturday night live back then, and most jokes were made on his apparent lack of mental acuity.

Of course, the Democrats would never reuse the same material again. . . oh wait.

Democrats are schizophrenic when it comes to Dubya.

Half the time, the Democrats think he's an drooling idiot, who has to be spoon-fed his lines, and gaffs horribly each time someone deviates from the carefully crafted script..

OR

The other half of the time, George W. Bush is a evil mastermind like the world has never seen, and controls everything, from North Korea missile tests, to Russian aid of Iran, to even controlling what that loud mouthed pipsqueak from Venezula says and does.

Neither one is true, but I have given up trying to convince anyone of that.

uch like an impressionistic Monet painting, viewing Presidental accomplishments and failures is best done at a certain distance that only time can give.

Given 20 years, we were able to see clearly Pres. Reagan's achievements. Likewise, given another 20 years, we might be more able to accurately assess whether or not President Bush did too much in Iraq and the Middle East.

Or whether he didn't do nearly enough.

I really feel that there's another incipient war in the offing, and that the 125 million Islamofacists in the world will not be swayed by any means, save death.

If the cost of the war was divided up evenly amongst the ~150 million US taxpayers, every one of us would owe over $2000. That's a lot of money when you consider what we bought with it: 3K dead Americans, 50K dead Iraqi civilians, and a country which will probably end up being a haven for terrorists for years to come. What a bargain. If the loss of life doesn't disturb the average American then perhaps the loss of the 700 lattes they could have bought with the money will.

2000 spread over 3 years, not bad. I have paid it gladly already.

3K dead, in war? I am not going to try and say this delicately, but for a war, a three year 'war', that is awfully low. The per capital murder rate in Washington DC is greater, than that.

4500 Americans die in drowning accidents each year.

And I don't really care how many Iraqis have died. I really don't. I have heard 200K, your modest estimation does not phase me either way. For a war, that is unheard of. Millions died during the same amount of time in Cambodia and Viet Nam under the Khmer Rouge regime, and that was a recent war. Millions have died in Rwanda, millions have died in Yugoslavia, millions have died in Sudan, and these are modern occurances. Call me desensitized if you want. But 50K dead in a country which has been taken over during a war, is a small figure.

50K+ Americans die each year just in traffic accidents, each year.

991K Americans die each year just of heart disease.

50K is small, for three years? In a war zone, gimme a break.

Global Warming?

Blamed on Bush?

You have got to be kidding right, that was a (sarcastic) joke, right?

The world is just waiting for Bush to take some lead on global warming. Every meeting on climate change is derailed, ignored, or hamstrung by the Bush administration. We're further back internationally on this issue than when Kyoto was being discussed. At the moment there is no hope of any global consensus at all and when negotiations start again it will be from square one. His administration has delayed any progress on the issue by a decade and in the meantime pollution has soared.

Think of how many deaths that could cause if global warming is a man-made phenomenom? It could be another climate disaster on his watch that he just hasn't reacted to.

The other half of the time, George W. Bush is a evil mastermind like the world has never seen, and controls everything, from North Korea missile tests, to Russian aid of Iran, to even controlling what that loud mouthed pipsqueak from Venezula says and does.
Naw, he's too dumb to pull that off. We're all figuring it is "The Penguin", aka Cheney, orchestrating things. Oh yeah, Rove too.

Most people who are the opponent of the current president well tend to say he is the worst ever, e.g., the republicans' view of Clinton, just because they have a collective memory span of about five minutes.

People say Bush is the worst ever because they perceive him to have "lost" the Iraq war, and they think the cost of the war was excessive.

In reality, we won the war rather quickly, but Bush did make the stupid decision to outstay his welcome and attempt to build democracy. Also, by historical comparison to other wars, the American casualties in Iraq were practically non-existent.

That mistake, which can easily be cleared up in 2009, doesn't grant him the title of worst president, not by a long shot.

Of course he did oversee the attempted eliminatation of virtually every constitutional protection in the first 10 Amendments in the interest of fighting "terror". We still don't know how that's going to turn out, either, since he stacked the Court with his lackeys.

The world is just waiting for Bush to take some lead on global warming. Every meeting on climate change is derailed, ignored, or hamstrung by the Bush administration. We're further back internationally on this issue than when Kyoto was being discussed. At the moment there is no hope of any global consensus at all and when negotiations start again it will be from square one. His administration has delayed any progress on the issue by a decade and in the meantime pollution has soared.

Think of how many deaths that could cause if global warming is a man-made phenomenom? It could be another climate disaster on his watch that he just hasn't reacted to.

The sole reason we didn't approve Kyoto, and still won't, is because it exempts India and China from meeting the standards it demands of the US because they are "developing countries".

Of course he did oversee the attempted eliminatation of virtually every constitutional protection in the first 10 Amendments in the interest of fighting "terror".Congress did it. He just signed off on it.

I'd say getting us involved in a war for phoney reasons, although I suppose you could argue is just one mistake, is a pretty danged sizeable mistake when you weigh the number of deaths and the incredible destruction it has caused. Not to mention the fact that this was done in our name and has completely screwed us up with the rest of the world and destabilized the Middle East much worse. Cripes! This is definitely a magnitude of screwed up that dwarfs a lot of past mistakes by other presidents. I mean, if Truman had dropped the bomb on the wrong country, that'd probably be about almost as bad as what the Bush administration has done.

Sometimes people use "Bush" as shorthand for "the Bush administration".
Just an observation. :P

Sometimes people use "Bush" as shorthand for "the Bush administration".
Just an observation. :P
Definitely.

The sole reason we didn't approve Kyoto, and still won't, is because it exempts India and China from meeting the standards it demands of the US because they are "developing countries".

The fact that you're still discussing the ten year old Kyoto treaty shows just how intransigent Bush has been. Ok lets get Kyoto out of our minds. Let's pretend it never happened and nobody needs to get excited and say how bad it was.

Whatever you might want in terms of global emissions control, or any sort of global climate control, Bush has done worse than nothing to make it happen for you.

Congress did it. He just signed off on it.

He started that ball rolling with his various presidential orders

I'd say getting us involved in a war for phoney reasons, although I suppose you could argue is just one mistake, is a pretty danged sizeable mistake when you weigh the number of deaths and the incredible destruction it has caused. Not to mention the fact that this was done in our name and has completely screwed us up with the rest of the world and destabilized the Middle East much worse. Cripes! This is definitely a magnitude of screwed up that dwarfs a lot of past mistakes by other presidents. I mean, if Truman had dropped the bomb on the wrong country, that'd probably be about almost as bad as what the Bush administration has done.

I don't think Bush has done anything even close in magnitude to the use of nuclear weapons..

So, no, if Truman had missed and accidently dropped bombs on Beijing and Macao, instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that would have been a mistake which would have, in no uncertain terms, been worse than anything Bush had done.

The fact that you're still discussing the ten year old Kyoto treaty shows just how intransigent Bush has been. Ok lets get Kyoto out of our minds. Let's pretend it never happened and nobody needs to get excited and say how bad it was.

Whatever you might want in terms of global emissions control, or any sort of global climate control, Bush has done worse than nothing to make it happen for you.

It was 28 degrees Farenheit last night, in Toledo.

**** emissions control.

It was 28 degrees Farenheit last night, in Toledo.Yep, let's base our emissions policy on one evening's temperature in an obscure American city. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif> You sound like Pat Robertson (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51379), except in the reverse.

Well, as far as the death toll in Iraq versus Hiroshima, it's probably similar. And that's just to date, who knows how many more will die to the instability we created by going there. This article says about 100,000 Iraqi's: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
It is believed that more than 140,000 people died by the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in factories within the city. The total number of people who have died due to the bomb is estimated to be 200,000.

The dropping of the bomb on japan controversy has a lot less to do with the numbers dead, (in the scope of ww2, it is unfortunately a small number; its that it was the deliberate, and purposeful annihilation of parts of a civilian population to achieve political ends.

Its very different from Iraq (which was a much, much worse decision, but also wasn't deliberate attempt to kill thousands of civilians; nor are many of them as a direct result of american weapons) its even different from the firebombings of dresden, tokyo, berlin etc; because all of those had at least somewhat military or production targets (how much is up to debate, but thats a seperate point)

That said i think it was the right decision (the dropping of the bomb) because I firmly believe the alternatives would have been much worse, for both sides.

You sound like Pat Robertson, except in the reverse.

Does that sound like the devil, or do you have to be at the wrong speed too?

Yep, let's base our emissions policy on one evening's temperature in an obscure American city. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif> You sound like Pat Robertson (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51379), except in the reverse.

Obscure?

**** you. I'd venture to guess that unless you live in LA, SD, or SF, Toledo is more widely known than whatever pissant Californian town you live in. And guess what, Cleveland, Cinci, and Columbus as just as well known at LA, SD, or SF, and Toledo's better known than any other Californian village.

Piece of **** elitist arrogant holier-than-thou Californians.

And it was 19 this morning. **** emissions control. I see a two-fold benefit to global warming now. My ass will be warm and your piece of **** state will be under four feet of water.

Well, as far as the death toll in Iraq versus Hiroshima, it's probably similar. And that's just to date, who knows how many more will die to the instability we created by going there. This article says about 100,000 Iraqi's: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Ok, why do you ****ing dumb**** self-haters insist on straddling the US with the death toll caused by Iraqi's?

We didn't kill anywhere near 100,000 Iraqi's. If those ****tards want to kill each other, so be it, don't blame it on us. We aren't targeting civilians for ****s and giggles.

You are the reason they know they can get away with terrorism. You insist on blaming the US because some ****ing mecca praying camel jockey got it in his head that anyone who doesn't believe in his version of what muhammed (that pedophile) said decided to go blow up some children.

I'd venture to guess that unless you live in LA, SD, or SF, Toledo is more widely known than whatever pissant Californian town you live in.
In fact, if it weren't for New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Columbus, Austin, Memphis, Baltimore, Fort Worth, Charlotte, El Paso, Milwaukee, Seattle, Boston, Denver, Louisville, Washington, Nashville, Las Vegas, Portland, Oklahoma, Tucson, Albuquerque, Long Beach, Atlanta, Fresno, Sacramento, New Orleans, Cleveland, Kansas, Mesa, Virginia Beach, Omaha, Oakland, Miami, Tulsa, Honolulu, Minneapolis, Colorado Springs, Arlington, Wichita, St. Louis, Raleigh, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Toledo would be the most widely known city in the entire country.

Face it, outside of Ohio, the only widely known thing about Toledo is that it's where Klinger from MASH was from. 'Nuff said. :)

Face it, outside of Ohio, the only widely known thing about Toledo is that it's where Klinger from MASH was from. 'Nuff said.

I didn't know that!

Unfortunately, my relatives live in/around Toledo. I think my one uncle who weighed like 300 pounds and was 5' tall lived there. He scared me. Probably lots of cousins I wouldn't recognize or have never met.

At any rate, I've probably been there once.

What? This thread isnt about ice skating violence? Bleh, I'm out.

I think my one uncle who weighed like 300 pounds and was 5' tall lived there. He scared me.
I bet little Pan learned to hide on the top shelf when Uncle was looking peckish.

In fact, if it weren't for New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Columbus, Austin, Memphis, Baltimore, Fort Worth, Charlotte, El Paso, Milwaukee, Seattle, Boston, Denver, Louisville, Washington, Nashville, Las Vegas, Portland, Oklahoma, Tucson, Albuquerque, Long Beach, Atlanta, Fresno, Sacramento, New Orleans, Cleveland, Kansas, Mesa, Virginia Beach, Omaha, Oakland, Miami, Tulsa, Honolulu, Minneapolis, Colorado Springs, Arlington, Wichita, St. Louis, Raleigh, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Toledo would be the most widely known city in the entire country.

Face it, outside of Ohio, the only widely known thing about Toledo is that it's where Klinger from MASH was from. 'Nuff said. :)

Actually, I suspect more people know Toledo than would know Fort Worth, Charlotte, El Paso, Louisville (which louisville?), Omaha, Albuquerque, Fresno, Sacramento (I bet half the nation doesn't know what the **** Sacramento is...which is sad, in and of itself, but changes nothing), Colorado Springs, Tulsa, Wichita, Raleigh, Arlington or Santa Ana.

And, hell Long Beach, Anaheim, Ft. Worth, Oakland, and Arlington aren't even real cities...just tumorous growths off real cities.

Oh, and for the record, Kansas is a state...not a city.

Toledo is also home to the Mudhens, indisputably the most famous minor league baseball team, hell the Mudhens are more famous than some major league teams...say, the Milkwaukee Brewers or the Houston Astros until they didn't suck this year. It was renowned as the glass capital of the world and is still renowned as the place where the famous Willys Jeep was made (and is still made today...in the form of the Jeep Wrangler. We also make the Jeep Liberty).

We have one of the top art musuems in the nation (which is also still free for the public to view, mind you) with a permanent collection which is considered excellent with orginal works by Gauguin, Rubens, El Greco, Van Geough, Keyser, David (the Oath of the Horatii, one of my favorite pieces), Boucher, Winslow Homer, Remington, and many others. It has an excellent ancient art collection as well (thought they don't show the mummies anymore =( Its not PC evidently).

Our Zoo was one of the best zoo's in the nation, on par with San Diego, Columbus, and the National Zoo, but evidently in the past few years there's been some financial scandals or some such. Though new Zoo levys have passed so hopefully we'll be fixing that issue.

Our symphony, while not of the national quality that our Museum is on, is still considered one of the top regional ochestras.

And, yes, we had Klinger...and Katie Holmes <sigh>

Oh, and for the record, Kansas is a state...not a city.I see geography isn't an educational priority in Toledo. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

minor league baseball?

you're stretching buddy!

And, hell Long Beach, Anaheim, Ft. Worth, Oakland, and Arlington aren't even real cities...just tumorous growths off real cities.
Aye, but they are tumorous growths that are more relevant to the country than Toledo -- even when you consider Toledo's minor league team and the free museum. Ohio is a state that you cross as quickly as possible when you're trying to get to someplace, well, significant.

Actually, I think California is a tumerous growth off Los Angelos.

Actually, I think California is a tumerous growth off Los Angelos.
Los Angeles is a tumorous growth in its own right so anything growing off of it is a tumorous growth on a tumorous growth. :)

I see geography isn't an educational priority in Toledo. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

No, Tudamorf.

Kansas City is a city. Its official name is the City of Kansas City. Both of their official names, actually, since their are two Kansas Cities. Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City Missouri.

Kansas is a state.

Perhaps you'd like another geography lesson?

minor league baseball?

you're stretching buddy!

Heh, the Mudhens are almost certainly better known than the Rattlesnakes, for instance ;)

Toledo can never have a major league team in any sport because it has Detroit an hour to the north, Cleveland two hours east, Chicago four hours west, Columbus two hours south east, and Cincinatti four hours south. Its surrounded by large metropolitan areas.

For its small size, Toledo is huge.

Aye, but they are tumorous growths that are more relevant to the country than Toledo -- even when you consider Toledo's minor league team and the free museum. Ohio is a state that you cross as quickly as possible when you're trying to get to someplace, well, significant.

Really?

That's why Ohio is seen as the belwether state for most elections...because its insignificant.

And its three and a half major metropolises are insignificant...we're a state less than half the size of Texas or California, and yet they are the only states in the Union that is on par in that regard.

We're called the heartland of America for a reason...and it isn't because of the shape of the state. Nationwide Insurance? Ohio. Owens-Illinois? Ohio. Owens-Libby-Ford? Ohio. MBNA? Ohio. The Gap and all of its stores (Abercrombie, Victoria's Secret, The Limited, Old Navy, The Gap)...Ohio. Jeep? Ohio. IMG? Ohio Sherwin-Williams? Ohio Proctor & Gamble? Ohio Dana? Ohio. Wendy's? Ohio (and by extension Tim Horton's now) Goodyear? Ohio The list could go on and on and on.

But, yes, California is so great...with their great claims to fame being Hollywood, Berkley, wildfires, earthquakes, mudslides, stupid people who build multi-million dollar homes right in the path of the previous five natural disasters, having 50 million people, and a propensity for enacting some of the stupidest laws ever devised which have ruined the good name of liberals everywhere else.

Oh...and who's going to Arizona on the 8th of January?

Aye, but they are tumorous growths that are more relevant to the country than Toledo -- even when you consider Toledo's minor league team and the free museum. Ohio is a state that you cross as quickly as possible when you're trying to get to someplace, well, significant.


Toledo's free museum boasts a finer permanent collection than any museum in California, with the possible exception of the Getty in LA, and that one is arguable

Toledo's free museum boasts a finer permanent collection than any museum in California, with the possible exception of the Getty in LA, and that one is arguable
Even if that were true, cumulatively, California's museums would trounce Ohio's.

Speaking of trouncing...

Oh...and who's going to Arizona on the 8th of January?
The Gators! Woohoo! There's a damn good chance I'll be there to see the game.

Even if that were true, cumulatively, California's museums would trounce Ohio's.


It is true...
and
No, cumulatively they would not, I'm afraid. Between Columbus, Cleveland, and Toledo, I'm not sure there's a state in the union that can match Ohio's art collective art collection. New York, I suppose, between the Guggenheim (sp? I can never spell that place) and the New York Metro Museum of Art.



Speaking of trouncing...


The Gators! Woohoo! There's a damn good chance I'll be there to see the game.

I hope you're wearing Red...because its going to be an ugly ugly game to be a Gator's fan. They really aren't even in the same league as the Buckeyes, imo. But then, I've not seen the Gators play much at all, so I could be wrong.

It will be nice, however, to watch the Midwest kick ass against a Florida and California team this year. I'm so sick of arrogent asshats from those states thinking their state is so much better than the Midwest states.

Geez, the dick measuring just never stops with you guys does it? :p

Buckeye dick is immeasurable.

I hope you're wearing Red...because its going to be an ugly ugly game to be a Gator's fan. They really aren't even in the same league as the Buckeyes, imo. But then, I've not seen the Gators play much at all, so I could be wrong.
I'm not much of a football person but I was in Gainesville when the Gators played the Crimson Tide a couple of months ago and figured it would be fun to go to the game. It was. The whole town turned into a giant party and the police seemed to give everyone a pass on the public intoxication laws. It's one of the few times when I can say that the town was crawling with nubile young women and mean it literally rather than figuratively. There was much rejoicing (although it was probably followed by a fair bit of puking).

I don't have any strong feelings one way or another about who wins in the Gators vs Buckeyes game (although I would enjoy teasing you if the Gators managed to pull off a win :tongue:).

If I have my way, when the Bucks win the National Championship, again, the entire site will be Red and Grey for a week =P

I don't think Raj will go for it though lol

If I have my way, when the Bucks win the National Championship, again, the entire site will be Red and Grey for a week =P
Care to make it interesting? If the Bucks lose, you replace your Buckeyes avatar with a Gators one for a month. If the Bucks win, I'll replace mine with a Buckeyes one. The odds are on your side.

I do not bet with the Buckeyes. To do so would be sacriligeous!

eh, I'm having a mind blank as to the old poster over in the EQ forums who always had a Notre Dame avatar...and then made the mistake of making a similar bet on the ND Michigan game one year...his posts were wolverine posts for a while, that year.

Gah, who was that? I almost want to say Trevize, but I don't think it was...it was another T, I thought?

C'mon you old timers, help an ol' senile hobbit out....

I will make the avatars if you guys bet on it.

I will make the avatars if you guys bet on it.
I truly shudder to think of what you'd set me up with when the Buckeyes win. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed the structural resemblance between the Buckeyes logo and Goatse man. :)

I will do a tubgirl one for ya, if you like.

?

C'mon you old timers, help an ol' senile hobbit out....

Ligge?

I don't think it was Ligge...Truj something? I know it was a T name!