Saturday, December 10, 2011

For the Poll

Yes, yes they did.

4 comments:

Harper said...

When we lived at Fort Hood the soldiers were warned about harming the cows that roam the training areas on the north side of post. The livestock are civilian owned and if harm comes to them, the Army has to pay some ridiculous amount that is determined by some formula that accounts for the loss of the cow and a certain number of future generations that would have been produced. 'Harm' was usually the result of live fire exercises or vehicle meets Bessie. I wonder if a livestock owner will be able to sue for damages if Bessie gets, um, 'used' by a lonely soldier. Can a cow consent?

CenTexTim said...

Harper, since you brought it up (so to speak)...

Check out this "donkey love" video of an Iraqi insurgent getting a piece of ass (sorry).

Watch it quick - Youtube has removed other versions of it.

BTW - when I was at Ft. Hood we sometimes wondered if the ranchers were putting the cattle at risk on purpose. Like Harper said, the govt. paid more than the going market rate (no surprise there).

Anonymous said...

So, a faggot can join the Army, earn a Butt Ranger tab AND claim Bossie as a dependent? Change we can believe in...

John Thomas said...

"Moo" means yes.