Jared from Subway got what he deserved (2 Viewers)

[comfortably numb]

15.6

the average age he likes?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

 

[Capella]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

I have none for him. Did she know? I haven't really followed extensively.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

I have none for him. Did she know? I haven't really followed extensively.

Meh, beats me. I'm not sure how a spouse wouldn't know. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[bakes]

What are the odds he gets killed in prison?

I'd put my money on suicide and rather soon.

He will still be eating some five dollar foot longs...

 

[Zow]

15.6 years doesn't seem like enough time

From a purely theory of punishment standpoint, these situations are truly fascinating. It's one of the few areas where most laws lump producers and consumers into the same basket while sentencing them (whereas, in contrast, most laws differentiate greatly in sentencing ranges between a person who sells or makes drugs and a person who merely uses drugs). The theory there is that CP (common acronym for child porn) is so uniquely awful that it's worth any deterrence, no matter how potentially "unfair" to the consumer, offenders can experience while considering making the stuff. I gotta admit when I have to view this evidence it's easily the most definitive proof that I have ever seen that God does not exist.

All that said, I'm still of the opinion that 15.6 is still overly harsh for simply possessing child porn.* I don't see a market causation argument since there is no "market" for this stuff, in a pure economic sense, as the pictures are usually shared in some peer to peer network. Arguably, the majority of the harm to the victim has already occurred and the odds of the victim coming to learn that the otherwise "normal" guy who has this disgusting fetish for this material that he leaves alone in the middle of the night in his home study viewed the material is pretty minimal (my understanding is that a lot of this stuff comes from overseas). Additionally, it seems counterintuitive to punish a cp consumer the same (or, in many case, worse) as somebody who actually committed these acts. Ignoring any 8th amendment arguments, it just seems like a bad idea from a policy standpoint because it creates no incentive for a person with these awful desires to view cp instead of seeking out his own victims and actually acting on his desires (the worse of the two evils).

*The most recently linked article alludes to Fogle also distributing cp. If that's the case then 15.6 seems right in the wheelhouse and, to me at least, appropriate since that furthers the harm to the victims. But my understanding is that he pled to possession only. Alas, this is why I always don't trust a media article on a court case but they so often get details wrong that, legally speaking, are hugely important.

 

[Zow]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

I have none for him. Did she know? I haven't really followed extensively.

Meh, beats me. I'm not sure how a spouse wouldn't know. Of course I could be wrong.

Do you know everything that is in your wife's internet cache or buried in files on her personal electronic devices?

 

[Zow]

What are the odds he gets killed in prison?

very low

 

[McGarnicle]

What are the odds he gets killed in prison?

very low

What are the odds they drill him a new size-38 poop chute?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

I have none for him. Did she know? I haven't really followed extensively.

Meh, beats me. I'm not sure how a spouse wouldn't know. Of course I could be wrong.

Do you know everything that is in your wife's internet cache or buried in files on her personal electronic devices?

Yes

 

[dickey moe]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

I tried to make essentially the same point earlier in this thread.

 

[General Malaise]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

I have none for him. Did she know? I haven't really followed extensively.

Meh, beats me. I'm not sure how a spouse wouldn't know. Of course I could be wrong.

Do you know everything that is in your wife's internet cache or buried in files on her personal electronic devices?

Uh, if i was talking to the mother of an teen adolescent over the phone for years trying to arrange for that teen to have sleepovers with her friends who come from broken homes and are vulnerable, I think my spouse might, just might, find something a tad askew.

 

[Godsbrother]

What are the odds he gets killed in prison?

very low

What are the odds they drill him a new size-38 poop chute?

I don't think I would be plowing Jared if I was a homosexual prison boss. There's got to be better man tail than that in jail...

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

I tried to make essentially the same point earlier in this thread.

Apparently it was mean.

 

[Meatwad Reloaded]

15.6 years doesn't seem like enough time

From a purely theory of punishment standpoint, these situations are truly fascinating. It's one of the few areas where most laws lump producers and consumers into the same basket while sentencing them (whereas, in contrast, most laws differentiate greatly in sentencing ranges between a person who sells or makes drugs and a person who merely uses drugs). The theory there is that CP (common acronym for child porn) is so uniquely awful that it's worth any deterrence, no matter how potentially "unfair" to the consumer, offenders can experience while considering making the stuff. I gotta admit when I have to view this evidence it's easily the most definitive proof that I have ever seen that God does not exist.

All that said, I'm still of the opinion that 15.6 is still overly harsh for simply possessing child porn.* I don't see a market causation argument since there is no "market" for this stuff, in a pure economic sense, as the pictures are usually shared in some peer to peer network. Arguably, the majority of the harm to the victim has already occurred and the odds of the victim coming to learn that the otherwise "normal" guy who has this disgusting fetish for this material that he leaves alone in the middle of the night in his home study viewed the material is pretty minimal (my understanding is that a lot of this stuff comes from overseas). Additionally, it seems counterintuitive to punish a cp consumer the same (or, in many case, worse) as somebody who actually committed these acts. Ignoring any 8th amendment arguments, it just seems like a bad idea from a policy standpoint because it creates no incentive for a person with these awful desires to view cp instead of seeking out his own victims and actually acting on his desires (the worse of the two evils).

*The most recently linked article alludes to Fogle also distributing cp. If that's the case then 15.6 seems right in the wheelhouse and, to me at least, appropriate since that furthers the harm to the victims. But my understanding is that he pled to possession only. Alas, this is why I always don't trust a media article on a court case but they so often get details wrong that, legally speaking, are hugely important.

Seriously dude...just shut the f up. Anyone who risks their life to simply 'consume', as you put it, needs to be kept far far away from the rest of us for a long period of time. 15 years is way too low.

What would you say if I murdered a person and sold the parts for other consumers to eat? Three to five years for that?

 

[Meatwad Reloaded]

What are the odds he gets killed in prison?

very low

What are the odds they drill him a new size-38 poop chute?

I don't think I would be plowing Jared if I was a homosexual prison boss. There's got to be better man tail than that in jail...

Its not about getting tail, it is about eating another person's soul.

 

[General Malaise]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

 

[McGarnicle]

What are the odds he gets killed in prison?

very low

What are the odds they drill him a new size-38 poop chute?

I don't think I would be plowing Jared if I was a homosexual prison boss. There's got to be better man tail than that in jail...

Its not about getting tail, it is about eating another person's soul.

Yeah, quite a dynamic there. Assuming the giver was straight coming into prison, one assumes he is achieving an erection from just the sheer power dynamic of dominating and degrading the taker. Jared could be screaming and crying, and the dude will just get off more. Sick stuff.

 

[McGarnicle]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

 

[Zow]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

I have none for him. Did she know? I haven't really followed extensively.

Meh, beats me. I'm not sure how a spouse wouldn't know. Of course I could be wrong.

Do you know everything that is in your wife's internet cache or buried in files on her personal electronic devices?

Uh, if i was talking to the mother of an teen adolescent over the phone for years trying to arrange for that teen to have sleepovers with her friends who come from broken homes and are vulnerable, I think my spouse might, just might, find something a tad askew.

Fair enough.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that more often than not in these cases the spouse either claims or really didn't appear to know. Obviously it's impossible to know that for certain.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Looks like her http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/wjbq.com/files/2015/07/Debbie-Downer.png?w=600&h=0&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89

 

[dickey moe]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

I tried to make essentially the same point earlier in this thread.

Apparently it was mean.

Sue everybody.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

I tried to make essentially the same point earlier in this thread.

Apparently it was mean.

Sue everybody.

Anyway I can sue you people?

 

[General Malaise]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

He said it to Jared not Mrs. Jared. Either way I don't have a lot of sympathy for either.

I have none for him. Did she know? I haven't really followed extensively.

Meh, beats me. I'm not sure how a spouse wouldn't know. Of course I could be wrong.

Do you know everything that is in your wife's internet cache or buried in files on her personal electronic devices?

Uh, if i was talking to the mother of an teen adolescent over the phone for years trying to arrange for that teen to have sleepovers with her friends who come from broken homes and are vulnerable, I think my spouse might, just might, find something a tad askew.

Fair enough.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that more often than not in these cases the spouse either claims or really didn't appear to know. Obviously it's impossible to know that for certain.

I know, I hear you. And I'm sure his kind of wealth bought him a lot of privacy and his marriage was probably one of convenience. The more I read about this monster, the more convinced I become that he was trending rapidly down Sandusky Highway.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

15.6 years doesn't seem like enough time

From a purely theory of punishment standpoint, these situations are truly fascinating. It's one of the few areas where most laws lump producers and consumers into the same basket while sentencing them (whereas, in contrast, most laws differentiate greatly in sentencing ranges between a person who sells or makes drugs and a person who merely uses drugs). The theory there is that CP (common acronym for child porn) is so uniquely awful that it's worth any deterrence, no matter how potentially "unfair" to the consumer, offenders can experience while considering making the stuff. I gotta admit when I have to view this evidence it's easily the most definitive proof that I have ever seen that God does not exist.

All that said, I'm still of the opinion that 15.6 is still overly harsh for simply possessing child porn.* I don't see a market causation argument since there is no "market" for this stuff, in a pure economic sense, as the pictures are usually shared in some peer to peer network. Arguably, the majority of the harm to the victim has already occurred and the odds of the victim coming to learn that the otherwise "normal" guy who has this disgusting fetish for this material that he leaves alone in the middle of the night in his home study viewed the material is pretty minimal (my understanding is that a lot of this stuff comes from overseas). Additionally, it seems counterintuitive to punish a cp consumer the same (or, in many case, worse) as somebody who actually committed these acts. Ignoring any 8th amendment arguments, it just seems like a bad idea from a policy standpoint because it creates no incentive for a person with these awful desires to view cp instead of seeking out his own victims and actually acting on his desires (the worse of the two evils).

*The most recently linked article alludes to Fogle also distributing cp. If that's the case then 15.6 seems right in the wheelhouse and, to me at least, appropriate since that furthers the harm to the victims. But my understanding is that he pled to possession only. Alas, this is why I always don't trust a media article on a court case but they so often get details wrong that, legally speaking, are hugely important.

Oh and that sleeping with 16 year old girls thing.

 

[McGarnicle]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Looks like her http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/wjbq.com/files/2015/07/Debbie-Downer.png?w=600&h=0&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89

You just won 7 million dollars! But you have to sleep with that! Wommmp Wommmmmmmmmmmmp

 

[bakes]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

They look like the couple who would invite people over for a "party" - then you get there, walk in, and they are drinking store brand soda and playing Jenga with a soft rock mix playing in the background.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

They look like the couple who would invite people over for a "party" - then you get there, walk in, and they are drinking store brand soda and playing Jenga with a soft rock mix playing in the background.

Or show you their home movies of their trip to Thailand.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

She was quite the catch when he weighed 5 bills.

 

[General Malaise]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

They look like the couple who would invite people over for a "party" - then you get there, walk in, and they are drinking store brand soda and playing Jenga with a soft rock mix playing in the background.

Or show you their home movies of their trip to Thailand.

 

[Henry Ford]

15.6 years doesn't seem like enough time

From a purely theory of punishment standpoint, these situations are truly fascinating. It's one of the few areas where most laws lump producers and consumers into the same basket while sentencing them (whereas, in contrast, most laws differentiate greatly in sentencing ranges between a person who sells or makes drugs and a person who merely uses drugs). The theory there is that CP (common acronym for child porn) is so uniquely awful that it's worth any deterrence, no matter how potentially "unfair" to the consumer, offenders can experience while considering making the stuff. I gotta admit when I have to view this evidence it's easily the most definitive proof that I have ever seen that God does not exist.

All that said, I'm still of the opinion that 15.6 is still overly harsh for simply possessing child porn.* I don't see a market causation argument since there is no "market" for this stuff, in a pure economic sense, as the pictures are usually shared in some peer to peer network. Arguably, the majority of the harm to the victim has already occurred and the odds of the victim coming to learn that the otherwise "normal" guy who has this disgusting fetish for this material that he leaves alone in the middle of the night in his home study viewed the material is pretty minimal (my understanding is that a lot of this stuff comes from overseas). Additionally, it seems counterintuitive to punish a cp consumer the same (or, in many case, worse) as somebody who actually committed these acts. Ignoring any 8th amendment arguments, it just seems like a bad idea from a policy standpoint because it creates no incentive for a person with these awful desires to view cp instead of seeking out his own victims and actually acting on his desires (the worse of the two evils).

*The most recently linked article alludes to Fogle also distributing cp. If that's the case then 15.6 seems right in the wheelhouse and, to me at least, appropriate since that furthers the harm to the victims. But my understanding is that he pled to possession only. Alas, this is why I always don't trust a media article on a court case but they so often get details wrong that, legally speaking, are hugely important.

Seriously dude...just shut the f up. Anyone who risks their life to simply 'consume', as you put it, needs to be kept far far away from the rest of us for a long period of time. 15 years is way too low.

What would you say if I murdered a person and sold the parts for other consumers to eat? Three to five years for that?

For the murder, or for the people who ate the dead person's body parts?

 

[Zow]

15.6 years doesn't seem like enough time

From a purely theory of punishment standpoint, these situations are truly fascinating. It's one of the few areas where most laws lump producers and consumers into the same basket while sentencing them (whereas, in contrast, most laws differentiate greatly in sentencing ranges between a person who sells or makes drugs and a person who merely uses drugs). The theory there is that CP (common acronym for child porn) is so uniquely awful that it's worth any deterrence, no matter how potentially "unfair" to the consumer, offenders can experience while considering making the stuff. I gotta admit when I have to view this evidence it's easily the most definitive proof that I have ever seen that God does not exist.

All that said, I'm still of the opinion that 15.6 is still overly harsh for simply possessing child porn.* I don't see a market causation argument since there is no "market" for this stuff, in a pure economic sense, as the pictures are usually shared in some peer to peer network. Arguably, the majority of the harm to the victim has already occurred and the odds of the victim coming to learn that the otherwise "normal" guy who has this disgusting fetish for this material that he leaves alone in the middle of the night in his home study viewed the material is pretty minimal (my understanding is that a lot of this stuff comes from overseas). Additionally, it seems counterintuitive to punish a cp consumer the same (or, in many case, worse) as somebody who actually committed these acts. Ignoring any 8th amendment arguments, it just seems like a bad idea from a policy standpoint because it creates no incentive for a person with these awful desires to view cp instead of seeking out his own victims and actually acting on his desires (the worse of the two evils).

*The most recently linked article alludes to Fogle also distributing cp. If that's the case then 15.6 seems right in the wheelhouse and, to me at least, appropriate since that furthers the harm to the victims. But my understanding is that he pled to possession only. Alas, this is why I always don't trust a media article on a court case but they so often get details wrong that, legally speaking, are hugely important.

Oh and that sleeping with 16 year old girls thing.

Again, to be annoyingly technical (and assuming my understanding of the charge and conviction is accurate), he slept with those girls in a state where it was legal to do so. He was convicted of the act of hopping on a plane to go do it.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Responding to Fogle's statement that his actions have devastated his wife, Judge Pratt interrupted him to say, "You gave your wife almost $7 million though. She'll be OK."

That's a ####ty response. Having your life ruined and having to talk about this to your young kids isn't worth that.

The wife can just "O' Brother Where Art Thou" and say that Jared got hit by a train, blooey! Nothin' left.

 

[McGarnicle]

15.6 years doesn't seem like enough time

From a purely theory of punishment standpoint, these situations are truly fascinating. It's one of the few areas where most laws lump producers and consumers into the same basket while sentencing them (whereas, in contrast, most laws differentiate greatly in sentencing ranges between a person who sells or makes drugs and a person who merely uses drugs). The theory there is that CP (common acronym for child porn) is so uniquely awful that it's worth any deterrence, no matter how potentially "unfair" to the consumer, offenders can experience while considering making the stuff. I gotta admit when I have to view this evidence it's easily the most definitive proof that I have ever seen that God does not exist. All that said, I'm still of the opinion that 15.6 is still overly harsh for simply possessing child porn.* I don't see a market causation argument since there is no "market" for this stuff, in a pure economic sense, as the pictures are usually shared in some peer to peer network. Arguably, the majority of the harm to the victim has already occurred and the odds of the victim coming to learn that the otherwise "normal" guy who has this disgusting fetish for this material that he leaves alone in the middle of the night in his home study viewed the material is pretty minimal (my understanding is that a lot of this stuff comes from overseas). Additionally, it seems counterintuitive to punish a cp consumer the same (or, in many case, worse) as somebody who actually committed these acts. Ignoring any 8th amendment arguments, it just seems like a bad idea from a policy standpoint because it creates no incentive for a person with these awful desires to view cp instead of seeking out his own victims and actually acting on his desires (the worse of the two evils).

*The most recently linked article alludes to Fogle also distributing cp. If that's the case then 15.6 seems right in the wheelhouse and, to me at least, appropriate since that furthers the harm to the victims. But my understanding is that he pled to possession only. Alas, this is why I always don't trust a media article on a court case but they so often get details wrong that, legally speaking, are hugely important.

Oh and that sleeping with 16 year old girls thing.

Again, to be annoyingly technical (and assuming my understanding of the charge and conviction is accurate), he slept with those girls in a state where it was legal to do so. He was convicted of the act of hopping on a plane to go do it.

Oh no way! And he's in prison for that? This is such a puritanical society. Your nuts drop around 11 or 12 and all you want to do is bang for the rest of your life. That's just human nature. It's the same for chicks. How is a teenage girl supposed to resist someone like Fogle? Guy was loaded. And girls love Subway.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

15.6 years doesn't seem like enough time

From a purely theory of punishment standpoint, these situations are truly fascinating. It's one of the few areas where most laws lump producers and consumers into the same basket while sentencing them (whereas, in contrast, most laws differentiate greatly in sentencing ranges between a person who sells or makes drugs and a person who merely uses drugs). The theory there is that CP (common acronym for child porn) is so uniquely awful that it's worth any deterrence, no matter how potentially "unfair" to the consumer, offenders can experience while considering making the stuff. I gotta admit when I have to view this evidence it's easily the most definitive proof that I have ever seen that God does not exist. All that said, I'm still of the opinion that 15.6 is still overly harsh for simply possessing child porn.* I don't see a market causation argument since there is no "market" for this stuff, in a pure economic sense, as the pictures are usually shared in some peer to peer network. Arguably, the majority of the harm to the victim has already occurred and the odds of the victim coming to learn that the otherwise "normal" guy who has this disgusting fetish for this material that he leaves alone in the middle of the night in his home study viewed the material is pretty minimal (my understanding is that a lot of this stuff comes from overseas). Additionally, it seems counterintuitive to punish a cp consumer the same (or, in many case, worse) as somebody who actually committed these acts. Ignoring any 8th amendment arguments, it just seems like a bad idea from a policy standpoint because it creates no incentive for a person with these awful desires to view cp instead of seeking out his own victims and actually acting on his desires (the worse of the two evils).

*The most recently linked article alludes to Fogle also distributing cp. If that's the case then 15.6 seems right in the wheelhouse and, to me at least, appropriate since that furthers the harm to the victims. But my understanding is that he pled to possession only. Alas, this is why I always don't trust a media article on a court case but they so often get details wrong that, legally speaking, are hugely important.

Oh and that sleeping with 16 year old girls thing.

Again, to be annoyingly technical (and assuming my understanding of the charge and conviction is accurate), he slept with those girls in a state where it was legal to do so. He was convicted of the act of hopping on a plane to go do it.

Oh no way! And he's in prison for that? This is such a puritanical society.Your nuts drop around 11 or 12 and all you want to do is bang for the rest of your life. That's just human nature. It's the same for chicks. How is a teenage girl supposed to resist someone like Fogle? Guy was loaded. And girls love Subway.

They like their men like they like their subs, small, bland, and with very little meat.

 

[James Daulton]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

I don't think she's pretty, but she looks pretty average in that pic. If she were in a Walmart she'd be in the top 20%.

 

[McGarnicle]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

I don't think she's pretty, but she looks pretty average in that pic. If she were in a Walmart she'd be in the top 20%.

She looks like Pat.

 

[culdeus]

Plus he only got skinny because he had aides...

Plausible

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

I don't think she's pretty, but she looks pretty average in that pic. If she were in a Walmart she'd be in the top 20%.

A dirty diaper someone leaves on a shelf in the pet supply aisle is in the top 20% at Walmart.

 

[McGarnicle]

Plus he only got skinny because he had aides...

Plausible

The aides went to the gym for him when he was too busy?

 

[McGarnicle]

FFA is killing it today. Can't remember laughing this hard.

 

[James Daulton]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

I don't think she's pretty, but she looks pretty average in that pic. If she were in a Walmart she'd be in the top 20%.

A dirty diaper someone leaves on a shelf in the pet supply aisle is in the top 20% at Walmart.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[Politician Spock]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

He used to call her his "sweet onion".

 

[Bucky86]

She'd probably give me $5 for my foot long.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

So....she's single now. And worth a boatload. I might have to drink enough booze to float the Wabash River to consummate our vows, but damn it, I'm up for the challenge.

Good Christ that's the homeliest woman I've seen in quite some time. The two of them look like an absolute blast to be stuck in a conversation with at a party.

I don't think she's pretty, but she looks pretty average in that pic. If she were in a Walmart she'd be in the top 20%.

The Queen of Frumpy

 

[Christo]

The Subway diet made him do it.

That’s the excuse a defense psychiatrist has trotted out to explain former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle’s sex crimes.

“Once he lost weight, it seemed as though in a short time he had hyper-sexuality,” forensic psychiatrist John Bradford testified for the defense at Fogle’s sentencing Thursday morning in Indianapolis. “There are brain disorders that can be associated with sexual drive.”

 

[AnonymousBob]

Subway gives you a hyperactive sex drive isn't the worst marketing idea.

 

[McGarnicle]

The Subway diet made him do it.

That’s the excuse a defense psychiatrist has trotted out to explain former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle’s sex crimes.

“Once he lost weight, it seemed as though in a short time he had hyper-sexuality,” forensic psychiatrist John Bradford testified for the defense at Fogle’s sentencing Thursday morning in Indianapolis. “There are brain disorders that can be associated with sexual drive.”

Woz are you taking notes?

 

[Politician Spock]

Subway gives you a hyperactive sex drive isn't the worst marketing idea.

Pretty soon it won't just be kids meals that come with toys.

 

[McGarnicle]

SILF