Amazon Sells Out Predator Drone Toy After Mocking Reviews 147
parallel_prankster writes "Amazon users are addressing the drone controversy with sarcasm. Maisto International Inc.'s model Predator drones are selling out on Amazon.com Inc.'s website as parody reviews highlight how the toys can help children hone killing skills, mocking a controversial U.S. practice. The toy is a replica of the RQ-1 Predator, an unmanned aircraft that the U.S. Air Force has used in combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq and Yemen, according to the product description on Amazon. Only one of the $49.99 military-style toy jets is available for purchase on Amazon's site, which is brimming with assessments laced with dark humor. 'You can't spell slaughter without laughter,' one pithy joker wrote."
Awesome (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Now Johnnie and Susie have another toy to celebrate their gradual development in our new, post-Orwellian future!
I thought that having just this one was somehow, inadequate:
http://www.amazon.com/PLAYMOBIL&%23174;-36138-Playmobil-Security-Check/product-reviews/B0002CYTL2 [amazon.com]
Now? We need an EasyBake Backscatter nudity scanner, a "pat down" edition of "Operation" and a GI Joe Seal Team Six bin Laden's Lair play set.
Duty Now For The Future!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
a GI Joe Seal Team Six bin Laden's Lair play set
Actually, that would be cool...
Re: (Score:1)
Did they find dialysis equipment on the site in Abbatobad?
Otherwise, you know they shot-up a decoy, which would explain the burial-at-sea, without genetic testing, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Rationalization.
Billionaires in walled compounds keep their own machine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that having just this one was somehow, inadequate:
http://www.amazon.com/PLAYMOBIL&%23174;-36138-Playmobil-Security-Check/product-reviews/B0002CYTL2 [amazon.com]
Awesome, they are now unavailable. I should try listing mine for an absurd amount and see if I can find a sucker.
De-Evolution (Score:1)
All this secret agent man bullshit is giving me a swelling itching brain, and makes me want to clockout.
Re: (Score:2)
Twist away the gates of steel, Got an urge I wanna purge 'Cause I'm losing control...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
How does "mocking" violate your constitutional rights to own a Predator drone?
Re: (Score:1)
Different AC here, but I think they mean the President violating the constitution with extrajudicial murder, not that the mocking is a violation.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Different AC here, but I think they mean the President violating the constitution with extrajudicial murder, not that the mocking is a violation.
I assume so as well. It goes along well with the sentiments expressed in the top Amazon review (at the moment):
This goes well with the Maisto Extraordinary Rendition playset, by the way - which gives you all the tools you need to kidnap the family pet and take him for interrogation at a neighbor's house, where the rules of the Geneva Convention may not apply. Loads of fun!
I prefer to refer to this as "violating their rights" -- too many so-called "constitutionalists" forget that the writers of the Constitution they cherish were convinced that those rights were not rights granted by the Constitution, they were the rights of all men, everywhere, and the job of government was to protect those already existing natural rights, not to grant them through some legal fiction. If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.
What's interesting is that we do behave properly with regards to some rights, for example freedom of speech which is protected the same for citizens and not, unlike the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Those same constitutionalists would claim that Iranians have no right to weapons.
I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons
No, but every non-violent peace-abiding person does have a right to self-defense, and thus to self-defense tools (but obviously, not to WMD's).
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely.
We agree that there is a line, above which a weapon is not for civilians and below which it is a right. So now we only have to set that line.
I'm a legal firearms owner since the late 1970s (before that if you count the .22 that my dad gave me when I was 10). The only weapon that I own that is for defense is my Franchi Instinct (endorsed for home defense by Vice President Biden).
I'm glad that you don't assert that the right to defense protected by the Constitution has anything to do with protection from the government.
The only weapon that I own that is for defense is, well, pretty much everything I can lay hands on. If you get to the point where you need a firearm for defense, you've likely avoided using your brain and your body first.
When you get to the point where killing/maiming at a distance, or at least the threat of this, is absolutely necessary, you've got to the point where you need an offensive weapon, because anything else won't be effective enough against your attacker without preparation. At which point, yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons.
Leaving aside the issue of "god-given", surely everyone has a right to defend their own life. Whether they have a right to weapons is dependent on whether they need weapons to defend their life.
Being larger and stronger than average, if I attacked someone smaller I could be regarded as a lethal threat. In a one on one encounter, about 80% of the population would need a weapon to defend themselves from me. Since there is no way I can be required to become weaker (although that will eventually happen through age), then a weapons ban in practice means large people and trained fighters have the right to self defense and smaller weaker people do not. I do not find this to be equitable.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
But I assume that they would not need a 30-round clip.
Recently, I heard a caller on right-wing talk radio talking about the reason his wife needs a large-clip semi-automatic "assault-style" rifle for personal defense. "This way, she doesn't have to worry so much about aiming. See, she's not a very good shot, see."
I find it worrisome that someone would believe that the solution to being a poor shot is more firepower, when we're talking about a policy that affects, by necessity, densely populated parts of the country as well as rural America.
A woman who's a bad shot "protecting her family" with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round clip is by definition a social problem.
Re: (Score:2)
A woman who's a bad shot "protecting her family" with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round clip is by definition a social problem.
Agreed. Hopefully in such a case the intimidation factor would be enough to make discharging the rifle unnecessary. I'm not to keen on the idea of rifles being fired in urban areas, semi-auto or not. The idea that the solution to being a poor shot is more firepower indicates just as much a problem with your education system as it does with your firearms laws. To be fair, both sides of the US gun debate are riddled with stupidity. The ever popular use of "gun deaths" rather than murder and suicide rates by a
Re: (Score:2)
But I assume that they would not need a 30-round clip.
What does "need" have to do with this topic? Seriously. shall we put in place a government commission to determine what American citizens need and limit possession to that list? After all, no one *needs* fashionable clothing, or big screen TV's or video games.
Oh, you say, we only need a government defined list for dangerous things. No one needs dangerous things, of course. No wait, I just mean things that someone *could* use to harm another person. No one needs anything that could used to hurt other peop
Re: (Score:2)
Going off topic from the gun debateâ¦
Yes, we should.. at least if it's my tax money (through welfare) paying for it. If my tax money is paying for something for someone else, we definitely should be able to say whether it's something they ne
Re: (Score:2)
s/clip/magazine/
Precision when discussing controversial issues is a good thing. Doubly so when the controversial issue involves lethal weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
... our urban cities are increasingly destroyed by criminal elements.
The actual data disagrees with you here. Violent crime has been falling since the early 90s. Also, those extra 20 rounds would not even be particularly useful in the situation you laid out. No one is going to take out 20 guys with a pistol while being attacked. You could get a couple shots off, at which point they would run or you would be overwhelmed.
Re: (Score:2)
80% of fights are won by the person who strikes first.
80% of fights are won by the attacker if the attacker attacks from behind. No amount of weapons will save you from a brick to the back of the neck.
Take it from me, it has nothing to do with how big your big manly mussles are. The person who's willing to take it the all the way will win. Whoever is the most tapped in the head will win. Whoever is most men
Re: (Score:2)
Take it from me, it has nothing to do with how big your big manly mussles are.
Yet boxing is divided by weight divisions. Sure the little guy can win if he's good but that's not the way to bet. I based the 80% guess on the adult population and me being the attacker (a hypothetical situation I assure you). Given half women, most of whom have no significant martial arts training and a portion of old people I think I placed myself about middle of the range for adult males, based on above average size but lack of fighting skill. I'm not going to attack large numbers of individuals for the
Re: (Score:2)
Take it from me, it has nothing to do with how big your big manly mussles are.
Yet boxing is divided by weight divisions.
Boxing has pretty strict rules. The sort of street fighting involving a brick to the back of your neck, in GP's charming phrase, does not. He's absolutely right, that whoever strikes first and is most mental will win.
If you're prepared to react to someone spilling your drink in a pub by smashing a glass and stabbing them in the face with it (like Begbie in Trainspotting) you are going to win most fights, simply because there won't be much actual fighting involved from your victim. So size is pretty irrel
Re: (Score:2)
He's absolutely right, that whoever strikes first and is most mental will win. ... So size is pretty irrelevant.
That's an interesting theory not borne out in reality. Sure, if you can land a surprise devastating blow first you have a good chance of winning, but a strong guy has a far greater chance of his blow being devastating and a greater chance of withstanding a blow from a weaker opponent. Are your military special forces the smallest guys in the military? About average? My informal observation is that they tend to be on the larger side. Why? Couldn't the military just find some skinny women, older people or chi
Re: (Score:2)
She would do you in with antifreeze in lime jello, or ground glass in your oatmeal. Your argument is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantic man is pedantic. (I was joking)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you are just fat, fattsos are rarely lethal threats. Most women with proper self defense classes (a couple jiujitsu grapples, a couple of kravmaga choke punches) can take you down without the need of piercing the massive lard body attached to your torax with a bullet.
My personal ability is not provable here and doesn't change the argument. I'm not a skilled fighter but the strength disparity would give me an advantage over most people. My wife's female jiujitsu trainer could certainly throw me yet she teaches for women faced with a large male opponents to run if possible for the specific reason that it is harder to land a disabling blow. The reality is that it takes quite a bit of training for a smaller person to overcome a much stronger one, but many attackers are not
Re: (Score:3)
If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.
The US Constitution is a government, of, by, and for the citizens of the United States. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. It was not the global police force, and not even the police force of everyone living in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.
The US Constitution is a government, of, by, and for the citizens of the United States. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. It was not the global police force, and not even the police force of everyone living in the US.
The US Constitution is not a government. It is a document of agreement about what is just and right. If you treat one person differently than another, you're talking contract, by-law or policy, and not constitution.
Unless, of course, you're saying that because someone is born somewhere other than inside the borders you defend, they are not human, and thus what is just and right for you is not the same as what is just and right for them -- and this is exactly the type of fascism that the US constitution wa
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you're saying that because someone is born somewhere other than inside the borders you defend, they are not human
That must be exactly what I was saying. Who could think otherwise?
*plonk*
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
"How does "mocking" violate your constitutional rights to own a Predator drone?"
I don't know about rights, but I don't understand how someone could see the drone killings as "controversial" at all. According to treaty and international law, it's murder. Plain and simple. No room for much in the way of real controversy.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
"Murder, absolutely. No less or more than Hiroshima or Dresden."
I disagree completely. There might be moral arguments made to that effect, but I was referring to legality.
Hiroshima and Dresden were both acts of war, and neither were violations of then-current international law for war. (One might argue about who started the war but that's another matter.) Neither of those were considered "illegal", as acts of war, until after the 1949 Geneva Convention.
Drone killing, on the other hand, is killing, yet it is not a legal act of war or, legally, "justifiable self-defense" by our own law. It is an act specifically prohibited by treaty, and both U.S. and international law. Therefore it is legally murder.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all I'm qualified to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to say Hiroshima/Nagasaki were covered by the "laws or conventions" of any society, since they were such singular events.
As I said, my argument is purely a moral one, not a legal one, though I imagine the manual you cite would make for interesting reading.
It's alw
Re: (Score:2)
Really? [atomicheritage.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's all certainly true.
I'm not sure we can deny the immorality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki based on the notion that we didn't really know how bad it was going to be, though. I'm pretty sure we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Got it.
I was responding to the folks that were fist-bumping the fact that the Predator models sold out on Amazon, despite being (quite rightly) mocked.
Thanks /. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thanks /. (Score:5, Interesting)
but it's not a jet.. it's a propeller plane. the fucking toy even has the propeller. so wtf, why does this article exist and what the fuck is it doing here?
Stand by ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Iranian Air Force is not best Air Force, you know.
they need... (Score:5, Insightful)
...supreme court dolls.
You pull a string, and they say things like:
"The supreme court can modify the constitution because the supreme court says so"
"interstate, intrastate, meh. Get me a bagel."
"public use means where people can see it."
"ex post facto, ex post schmacto. It's simply retroactive."
"It's not additional punishment if we say it isn't."
"Double jeopardy? No, no, just go after them in civil court." ...and so on.
Re:they need... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget the Congressional Inaction Figures.
Re:they need... (Score:5, Funny)
...they only work if you buy the lobbyist figure set.
Re:they need... (Score:4, Funny)
Larry the Lobbyist playset comes with Larry the Lobbyist action figure, a play mirror, 3 hooker action figures, sugar packets, and a briefcase filled with play money.
Mix and Match what Larry the Lobbyist says by affixing different logos to his briefcase!
When combined with the Politicial Inaction figures from the Congressional-Regressional playset, Endless combinations of interaction are possible!
*Congressional Inaction figures respond differently based on the amount of play money inside the briefcase, and also according to how many hooker action figures and how many sugar packets have been spilled on the play mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a libertarian/"constitutionalist" (quotes intentional) bobble head doll would be even more hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Your wish has come true:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ron-Paul-Revolution-Libertarian-Tea-Party-7-BobbleHead-Case-of-24-/271027788164 [ebay.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wish to subscribe to your bulletin. Who else would you want to decide what is or isn't allowed under the Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS decides what the government will treat as constitutional or not; their opinions do not change what is actually constitutional. Just like a bad call by the refs doesn't change the rules of a game, even if there's no appeal, a bad call by the Supremes doesn't change the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Right right, whatever, but when faced with a disagreement about what the Constitution means, then someone has to decide in order for us to take actions. What is meant by "is Constitutional" and "isn't Constitutional" is some kind of judgement which blesses or prevents an action. It is pretty much meaningless for you to say things like "what is actually constitutional" because of course there is no objective meaning to the document; it's meaning is a property of the brains which ponder it. So if two brains d
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not the point. You say something isn't Constitutional because of the way you think about it, someone else says it is because of the way they think about it. Everyone is entitled to the bigotry of their own prejudice but "what is Constitutional" is a political question, not one of your personal prejudice. So when we disagree someone has to decide. Are you just complaining that we haven't decided to do away with the Supreme Court and simply appoint you personally to make these decisions?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure do. hasn't got fuck all to do with supreme court justices. Read article five, chum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. It's a power they usurped for themselves. See Marbury vs. Madison.
I never said they had such a power legitimately. My position is 180 opposite. But they do act as if they have such a power, and have exercised it most thoroughly, many times.
Interstate commerce? Effectively "intrastate"
Shall not infringe? Except when we say it's ok.
Search, seizure, requires a warrant? Not so much.
ex post facto? aw, heck no, we'll just say "punishment isn't punishment" (a variety of the absurdity "it depends on wha
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ wasn't an American. Now, stop with the revisionist history bullshit, please.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
See - it works! I got my slashdotter doll to post an incomprehensible, opinionated gibberish post that's so fucking ignorant it makes normal slashdotters want to smash their faces into their desks! IT WORKS ETHEL!!
Simpsons did it (Score:2)
News for Nerds, recycled Fark stories
G.I. Joe (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wait until these people find out that G.I. Joe [wikipedia.org] has been turning children into war machines for half a century. He has a full complement of air, ground, and water assault vehicles. [wikipedia.org] He has even militarized outer space with his own space shuttle [figure-archive.net].
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'm puzzle at the sarcasm here. It's a war toy, somewhat more up to date than the war toys I played with as a kid, but cap-guns, soldier action figures, grenades, bazookas, model jet fighters, tanks, and battleships... I played with all of these. There's nothing new about this.
Re:G.I. Joe (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I'm puzzle at the sarcasm here. It's a war toy, somewhat more up to date than the war toys I played with as a kid, but cap-guns, soldier action figures, grenades, bazookas, model jet fighters, tanks, and battleships... I played with all of these. There's nothing new about this.
This is probably why most of the review-snark is focused on our wacky adventures in novel legal interpretation with a side of collateral damage, rather than the (not particularly exceptional, if comparatively cheap) capabilities of the drone itself.
The news isn't that weapons have marched on; but that we really haven't been covering ourselves with glory when it comes to using them.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a war toy, somewhat more up to date than the war toys I played with as a kid, but cap-guns, soldier action figures, grenades, bazookas, model jet fighters, tanks, and battleships... I played with all of these. There's nothing new about this.
There is something new here. All of the real life analogs of the toys you listed require the operators of those things to put themselves in harms way. We could have a separate discussion about if its a good idea to glorify war in the eyes of our children through play or not but there is something different about a drone.
Do we want to teach our children the good guys kill from far away and attack enemies who have no capability to do them any immediate harm?
Children are not going understand the other legal
Yes we do (Score:5, Funny)
Do we want to teach our children the good guys kill from far away
If we want to raise smart kids, yes. That makes a lot more sense than going where someone can hurt you.
and attack enemies who have no capability to do them any immediate harm? ... unless you get close, then the have guns, mines, explosives planted in roads, succeed bombers, etc.
Do you also teach your kids its safer to cross the highway by dodging cars rather than using the pedestrian overpass?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, flying planes into buildings.. Nope, the bad guys didn't have any capability for immediate harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When did G.I. Joe claim the right to kill american citizens without the constitutional right to due process?
Re:G.I. Joe (Score:5, Funny)
G.I. Joe never objected to any killing mission that I sent him on. Joe is a good soldier, who obeys orders, and is willing to kill ANYONE who gets in the way.
Let that be a warning, you commie pinko AC!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
G.I. Joe offers terrible training, suggesting that revealing, borderline homoerotic costumes make good battle armor, that hanging onto the sides of vehicles is a safe way to move around a combat zone, that the enemy is absolutely incompetent and can't shoot worth a damn, and it's OK if you can't shoot worth a damn either...and those are just the tip of the iceberg.
Dont know whether to laugh or cry (Score:5, Funny)
You've had a busy play day - You've wiretapped Mom's cell phone and e-mail without a warrant, you've indefinitely detained your little brother Timmy in the linen closet without trial, and you've confiscated all the Super-Soakers from the neighborhood children (after all, why does any kid - besides you, of course - even NEED a Super-Soaker for self-defense? A regular water pistol should be enough). What do you do for an encore?
That's where the US Air Force Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) RQ-1 Predator from Maisto comes in. Let's say that Dad has been labeled a terrorist in secret through your disposition matrix. Rather than just arrest him and go through the hassle of trying and convicting him in a court of law, and having to fool with all those terrorist-loving Constitutional protections, you can just use one of these flying death robots to assassinate him! Remember, due process and oversight are for sissies. Plus, you get the added bonus of taking out potential terrorists before they've even done anything - estimates have determined that you can kill up to 49 potential future terrorists of any age for every confirmed terrorist you kill, and with the innovative 'double-tap' option, you can even kill a few terrorist first responders, preventing them from committing terrorist acts like helping the wounded and rescuing survivors trapped in the rubble. Don't let Dad get away with anti-American activities! Show him who's boss, whether he's at a wedding, a funeral, or just having his morning coffee. Sow fear and carnage in your wake! Win a Nobel Peace Prize and be declared Time Magazine's Person of the Year - Twice!
This goes well with the Maisto Extraordinary Rendition playset, by the way - which gives you all the tools you need to kidnap the family pet and take him for interrogation at a neighbor's house, where the rules of the Geneva Convention may not apply. Loads of fun!
(Source: Amazon listing)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't matter if you had a supersoaker or an assault rifle against a government that has drones, an airforce, a huge army, tanks and bombs, not to mention biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. This isn't two armies with muskets and cannons like in the 18th century, the battle between the patriots (who don't seem to have risen up at all in the last 200 or so years in any case) and the US government will not go so well for the patriots.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that, though you raise valid points, the outcome would not be nearly as bleak as you expect.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that, though you raise valid points, the outcome would not be nearly as bleak as you expect.
As in any revolutionary/insurgent/freedom fighter type of scenario, it would depend primarily on how many people were on your side against the government. One guy with an assault rifle against the entire US army is only going to end one way. One million guys with petrol bombs, sticks and stones is something else.
Next toy to oversold (Score:2)
Oh the Possible Irony (Score:2)
It'd be a hoot if the toy were more expensive than the actual drones.
Brilliant (Score:2)
Some of the comments are the standard comment drivel you get anywhere, but many are really well written. I haven't had so much fun reading reviews since three wolf moon.
See all 216 customer reviews (newest first) (Score:2)
Fail wrong scale (Score:2)
good as the real thing (Score:2)
Proves that for the weapons fetishists, a toy is as good as the real thing. Better, in fact, because you don't have to actually put on a uniform and risk being caught in some third world country without your bag of cheetos and mom's meat loaf.
Man, they really showed those dirty fucking hippies what's what when they bought up all the $50 toy model drones, d'nt they? Red State Trike Force...ASSEMBLE!
You can have my 1:87 scale die-cast Predator drone with display stand when you wrest it from my cold dead han
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Proves that for the weapons fetishists
This is the most contrived attempt I've ever seen to artificially try work an off-topic ad hominem attack on gun owners into an unrelated discussion.
Incidentally, it is the same administration (the one you support) using drones like this to murder children [alternet.org] overseas, that are pushing for gun control.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I've done much better.
By the way, I'm a gun owner.
And you support the turds who believe that weapons ownership and brandishing same is a god-given right but don't want any nations but the US and Israel to ow
Here's a better one.. (Score:2)
http://www.nitroplanes.com/projet-drone-2500mm-kit.html [nitroplanes.com]
And it flies. Be afraid, be very afraid..
Taste and no taste (Score:2)
I visited the Yamato[0] Museum in Kure near Hiroshima a few years back. The gift shop had model kits on sale, including the Revell "Enola Gay" B-29. Given that the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima had been visible in Kure just down the coast, I thought it was in dubious taste. I still regret not buying the Mitsubishi Zero plushy toy though.
[0]The centrepiece of the museum is a 1:10 scale model of the battleship Yamato.
Re: (Score:2)
I visited the Yamato[0] Museum in Kure near Hiroshima a few years back. The gift shop had model kits on sale, including the Revell "Enola Gay" B-29. Given that the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima had been visible in Kure just down the coast, I thought it was in dubious taste.
I'm not sure I want to know what you consider actual bad taste then.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pedobear plushie toys I saw on sale in Akiba last year? The turd plushy http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee12/nojay_photo/Odds%20and%20Sods/poo.jpg [photobucket.com] advertising constipation medicine in a drugstore window in Onomichi?
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Pedobear a kids' cartoon character before 4chan made him the bear who likes no hair down there?
Re: (Score:2)
The Wave-motion Cannon was upstairs in an exhibit gallery showing models, artwork, animation cels etc. from the Space Battleship Yamato movies.
entertainment (Score:1)
well the poor kids probably think all the shit they see on tv re government and wars, iran, north korea etc is all part of a big tv show like ben 10 or spiderman
how are the barack obama dolls doing in slaes?
Awesome. (Score:1)
Anyone know where I can get an RQ-170 in hot pink?
http://rt.com/usa/news/iran-us-drone-obama-933/ [rt.com]
Get the tshirt! (Score:2)
If you can't have a model drone, you might as well get a "Droney - the friendly surveillance drone" tshirt!
http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=TMW-DRONEY&Category_Code=TMW [topatoco.com]
funky49
Full disclosure, I own this shirt and it is soft.