Category: Parody

Things to consider

I saw this on Facebook and decided it warranted passing along:

In Pharmacology, all drugs have two names, a trade name and generic name. For example, the trade name of Tylenol also has a generic name of Acetaminophen. Aleve is also called Naproxen. Amoxil is also call Amoxicillin and Advil is also called Ibuprofen.

The FDA has been looking for a generic name for Viagra. After careful consideration by a team of government experts, it recently announced that it has settled on the generic name of Mycoxafloppin. Also considered were Mycoxafailin, Mydixadrupin, Mydixarizin, Dixafix, and of course, Ibepokin.

Pfizer Corp. announced today that Viagra will soon be available in liquid form, and will be marketed by Pepsi Cola as a power beverage suitable for use as a mixer. It will now be possible for a man to literally pour himself a stiff one. Obviously we can no longer call this a soft drink, and it gives new meaning to the names of “cocktails”, “highballs” and just a good old-fashioned “stiff drink”. Pepsi will market the new concoction by the name of: MOUNT & DO.

Thought for the day: There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today than on Alzheimer’s research. This means that by 2040, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.

Why can’t I own a Canadian?

This question was posted by a man named “Jim” in 2002, in response to a radio personality who repeats Leviticus 18:22 as the reason homosexuality is amoral and apprehensible.  The following letter is the reply, with some funny lines in it.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

…this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Remember that just because someone wrote it in a book doesn’t make it true.

Why can’t I own a Canadian?

This question was posted by a man named “Jim” in 2002, in response to a radio personality who repeats Leviticus 18:22 as the reason homosexuality is amoral and apprehensible.  The following letter is the reply, with some funny lines in it.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

…this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Remember that just because someone wrote it in a book doesn’t make it true.

Why can’t I own a Canadian?

This question was posted by a man named “Jim” in 2002, in response to a radio personality who repeats Leviticus 18:22 as the reason homosexuality is amoral and apprehensible.  The following letter is the reply, with some funny lines in it.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

…this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Remember that just because someone wrote it in a book doesn’t make it true.

Stacey’s Law has got it going on…

If you’re not familiar with Godwin’s Law, look into it.

A new law has been conceived along the same lines, and goes something like this:

1. In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.

2. The person who makes this comparison will be considered to have lost the argument.

This law was written here, and should be used as appropriately in all online discussion forums.

Stacey’s Law has got it going on…

If you’re not familiar with Godwin’s Law, look into it.

A new law has been conceived along the same lines, and goes something like this:

1. In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.

2. The person who makes this comparison will be considered to have lost the argument.

This law was written here, and should be used as appropriately in all online discussion forums.