Who would win in a race between Sonic The Hedgehog and The Flash? Not a foot race, but a political race for President of the United States. Sonic would be the Democrat, since he's blue, and Flash would be the Republican, since he's red. It would be the most important election of our lives(since the last one and until the next one), but it would also be the dirtiest campaign ever(also since the last one and until the next one).

Sonic's running mate would be Tails. Sonic would get most of the blue people's votes, because he would be the first blue president if he were to win. Of course, his critics would be quick to point out that he's only half blue. His belly, arms, and most of his face are beige. People would also accuse him of being Anti-American and possibly a Muslim, due to his past associations. It would also come into question whether or not Sonic is actually an American citizen, after accusations are made that he was created in Japan in the early 90s. If all that wasn't bad enough for him, his full name is Sonic Hussein The Hedgehog.

Flash's running mate would be Kid Flash. It would later be revealed that Flash actually wanted Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, but his campaign managers convinced him that he'd have a better shot at getting the conservative vote if he went with Kid Flash. Kid Flash is strong on foreign policy because he can see Russia from his house. Of course this choice would eventually cause controversy. Kid Flash would be accused of being an irresponsible parent when it's revealed that his teenage daughter's baby had been knocked up by another baby in the delivery room. People would also say that The Flash was too old to be President, as he was created in the 1940s and still didn't know how to use a computer.

I would personally vote for Independent candidate, Speedy Gonzales. Even though he's not tough on illegal immigration, I do agree with his policy of free tacos and burritos for everyone. That was kind of racist, but biological race was the only type of race that I hadn't mentioned yet. Now I've mentioned all three types of race. All racism is bad though, and if you've ever raced anyone or ran for anything then you're no better than the terrorists.

www.josephisgreat.blogspot.com

I'm watching Judge Alex. Some woman is suing a couple for slander because they told people that there was a warrant out for her arrest, even though there wasn't. Their reason for saying that there was a warrant was because they thought that the woman had stolen something from them.

Judge Alex's response was interesting. He said "You can't just go around telling people that there's a warrant for someone's arrest just because you think they stole something from you. That would be like if I thought you stole something from me, so I started telling people that there's a warrant for your arrest." That's the worst analogy that I've ever heard. You can't just repeat the exact same situation as the thing the analogy is about. That's not how analogies work. That would be like if I wanted to make an analogy, so I just repeated the exact same situation that the analogy was about.

Having a cat named Mr. Whiskers would be like if I had a cat and named it Mr. Whiskers. Watching a Harry Potter movie would be like watching a movie about Harry Potter. Riding a bike is just like riding a bike, you never forget. Don't be mean, that's mean. German shepherds are like Nazi sheep herders. I hope somebody finds some of this funny. If not, it would be like me writing something that no one thought was funny. Making an analogy is like making a point by comparing something to something else that the person you're trying to make the point to presumably already agrees with you on, so when you compare the two situations they could go back and apply the logic used in the second situation to the first and realize why they're wrong. As I was writing that last sentence, I realized that trying to explain what an analogy is is like trying to explain something that's difficult to put into words.

Apparently Judge Alex went off as I was writing this. Now some other judge show is on. Why would they show two judge shows back to back? That's like showing a show, and then following it with another show that's the exact same kind of show as the one everyone just saw.

http://www.josephisgreat.blogspot.com

Why do people have all these stupid "Keep The 10 Commandments In Our Courthouse" bumper stickers? The 10 Commandments are completely insane. If I thought for one second that our legal system was in any way influenced by those stupid commandments, I would leave this country tomorrow.

Has anyone actually read the 10 Commandments? One of them is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's donkey." Yet, I don't see any mention of rape or pedophilia. I'm not aware of any part of the Bible that condemns rape or pedophilia, but I'm certain that the 10 Commandments don't mention them. If these are supposed to be the 10 most important rules, it seems like rape and pedophilia should have made the list before not coveting thy neighbor's donkey. If these commandments are to be believed, then it would be better for you to fuck your neighbor's children then to wish you had their donkey. Is that really the sort of moral compass we want to direct us?

I would like to see someone go to confession one Sunday and tell your priest that your neighbor just got this new donkey, and you really wish you could have it. Tell them that you're constantly thinking to yourself, "Man, if only I could have that donkey. Think of all the plowing I could do with that.(?)"(I HAVE NO IDEA EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE NEED DONKEYS FOR) Tell your priest that you've just got to have that donkey. Go on and on about it for about an hour or so. After all, you've broken one of the 10 most important rules, so for sure your sin should be worth his time. You should come back to confession every week and say things like "I had another dream about that donkey" and "Sometimes I call the donkey late at night and hang up."

Why is it limited specifically to donkeys? Can you covet your neighbor's horse? Or what about their dog? Can you kill their dog? When it says "Thou shalt not kill" is it just talking about people, or does that include everything? If it includes everything, does that mean that I've broken a commandment if I step on a cockroach? Also, is it worse for me to covet my neighbor's donkey or to kill my neighbor's donkey? What happens if my neighbor isn't married, but he and his girlfriend are just living together? Can I covet my neighbor's girlfriend? What happens if they are married, but my neighbor's wife has her own donkey? Can I covet my neighbor's wife's donkey? And would it be okay for me to tell my neighbor that his wife has a nice ass as long as I was talking about the donkey?

If these commandments are so important, and they were written by an all knowing god, then why are they so vague and subjective? Also, in what way is having the 10 Commandments in our court houses not a violation of "separation of church and state"? Can somebody please tell me that? Because I'm confused.

I think that the 10 Commandments were a way of duping people into following made up rules by telling them that "God said so." I say we take the 10 Commandments out of our courthouses, and stick them back up Moses's ass, which is where he apparently got them from. I wish someone would put that on a bumper sticker.

The English language is stupid. There are too many pointless rules. Take the sentence "My brother and I went to the store.", for example. Why does it have to be said exactly like that. At first I always want to say "Me and my brother went to the store." Then I remember that stupid rule about always saying the other person's name first(which, by the way, makes absolutely no sense).

Now I have to figure out if I'm supposed to say "My brother and me" or "My brother and I." So now I have to do that stupid thing where I drop the first part and say to myself "Me went to the store." Then I know that sounds wrong, so I know it must be "My brother an I". Except that I had to pause for a second to think about the sentence before I said it. Not only is this a waste of time, but I would argue that you look stupider pausing to think about what you're going to say then you do just saying it incorrectly. It probably would have been easier to just go with your instincts and say "Me and my brother". Why do we have this stupid rule. Can somebody tell me. It seems completely unnecessary to me.

You know what else isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be? Question marks. I didn't even bother to use any question marks in the last two paragraphs, and I doubt anyone even noticed. I'll stop typing for a minute while everyone goes back and checks that I didn't use question marks in the last two paragraphs. See? Anyway, everyone always talks about how exclamation points are annoying and useless, but exclamation points are a hundred times more useful than question marks. Saying "I'm going to the store." is very different from saying "I'm going to the store!" In the latter you know that I'm excited about going to the store, but in the former all you know is that I'm going to the store. You have no idea how I feel about it.

Now if I say "Does anyone need anything from the store." it doesn't matter that I didn't use a question mark. You know why? Because that sentence couldn't possibly be mistaken for anything other than a question. The whole idea of question marks is to let people know that your sentence is a question. If they already know, then I don't see the problem. You don't have to tell them it's a question twice. That would be like having two Subways in White County(like we're going to next week for some reason. I think it's because of how smart we are).

Sometimes you need a question mark, like in the last paragraph when I said "You know why?". "You know why" on it's own is a statement, so you need the question mark to make it a question. But if someone writes "What's your favorite color." and you can't tell that it's a question, then you're the one who's dumb. The only rule when it comes to communication is that you make sure that the person you're talking to interpenetrates your message the way you intended them to. As long as you can do that, then mission accomplished. Leave all the pointless grammar rules to the people who are too dumb to realize that language constantly evolves and half the things we say today would have been considered "improper grammar" 100 years ago.

A 9 year old boy was brutally murdered when he was forced to imitate his favorite wrestler/video game character, Parachute McKenzy.

McKenzy, known to wrestling fans around the world for his unorthodox ring entrance in which he jumps off of a roof and parachutes to the ring, and his catch phrase, "Try this at home, Kids!", is a former WWE wrestler from the late 90s.

After retiring from wrestling, McKenzy had a brief career as a video game star. His first appearance would be as an exclusive bonus character in the Dreamcast version of Soul Calibur II, he would also later appear in the crossover fighting game "Capcom Vs. Parachute McKenzy: Another Age of Heroes". However, it wasn't until he starred in the critically acclaimed "SKY DIEver: Blood in the Clouds", a game where Parachute McKenzy teams up with rapper, 50 Cent, to fight Nazi Zombies from the future, that McKenzy's career as a video game character would really begin to take off.

Unfortunately, that success would be short lived. In 2005 McKenzy murdered his wife and son, leaving Bibles next to their bodies, and then hung himself using his own parachute. It was a tragic event that was immediately blamed on steroids.

This would be the last anyone would hear of Parachute McKenzy, until November of last year when THQ released the video game "Smackdown Vs. Raw 2009." The game, which features McKenzy as an unlockable character, was heavily criticized for it's T rating despite including such a controversial character.

"It should have been rated M," said one concerned mother with nothing better to do. "It doesn't say anywhere on the box that this wrestler is included in the game. This is an outrage! This game should be banned from stores, and THQ should be ashamed for marketing it to children!"

"Parachute McKenzy is huge star in both wrestling and video games," said a spokesman for THQ. "So it made perfect sense to include him in a video game about wrestling. We wanted him to be a surprise, so we made him a secret unlockable character in the Wii version of the game. To unlock him, all you have to do parachute off of your roof with two Wii controllers(one in each hand) while flapping your arms like a bird."

"They just don't care," says an expert who doesn't play video games but is still an expert on them somehow. "All these video game developers care about is making money. Kids play these games and then they go out and they kill eachother, they become obese, they cause global warming, they get pregnant, they do drugs, and they get molested by pedophiles. Meanwhile these game developers just sit back and make money off of it. It's outrageous! THQ had to know this would happen. If a kid plays a game that has a character with a parachute in it, of course they're going to try to parachute off of their own roof and kill themselves. Why wouldn't they?"

In response, THQ has done a recall on the game and has promised that all future copies of the game will come with a working parachute to ensure that kids don't kill themselves trying to make their own.