Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for March 28, 2016

  1. 654px red eyed tree frog   litoria chloris edit1
    Superfrog  about 8 years ago

    It doesn’t get much better than this. Better being defined as, but not limited to,……..

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    chassimmons  about 8 years ago

    The table is the real zinger.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    strictures  about 8 years ago

    He’s not just marrying a lawyer, but also a blonde!

     •  Reply
  4. El kabong strikes  6
    moontime70  about 8 years ago

    Watch out for the loop hole! There’s bound to be one.

     •  Reply
  5. Profile 6
    dot-the-I  about 8 years ago

    That the EXIT door is so close at hand – nice touch.

     •  Reply
  6. Img 6025
    goblue86  about 8 years ago

    So much for being a virgin bride…she got to see his briefs before the ceremony.

     •  Reply
  7. Balloon32
    freewaydog  about 8 years ago

    “I sue”

     •  Reply
  8. Ugly poor
    Prey  about 8 years ago

    Lawyers shouldn´t be allowed to breed, or should that be no one is allowed to breed a lawyer.

     •  Reply
  9. 00712 whiteheron
    whiteheron  about 8 years ago

    Sure, make fun of the lawyers, until you need one. Then you’ll sing a different song. I am not a lawyer and how dare you even think such a dastardly thought?

     •  Reply
  10. Pic2 2
    Amra Leo  about 8 years ago

    Hey! Be excellent to each other. If you don’t think they’re funny, that’s fine. But you don’t have to disparage them…

     •  Reply
  11. Pirate63
    Linguist  about 8 years ago

    When I got married the first time, my ‘best man’ secretly put white tape on the soles of my shoes, so that when I knelt at the altar, they’d spell help – plainly visible to to majority of the congregation…

    Ironically, the ) part of the *p*had fallen off, so it read hell!A definite foreshadowing of my marital future.

     •  Reply
  12. Lonelemming
    Ernest Lemmingway  about 8 years ago

    You must be a “lawyer.”

    .Let’s hope they divorce before they breed, assuming they aren’t getting married because they’ve already bred.

     •  Reply
  13. 11 06 126
    Varnes  about 8 years ago

    First of all, Dogsniff is usually pretty darn funny, so say I!…..But Bruno, I usually admire your skill at commentary, but you really should have gone with a BOY named Sue on that one, you know, just for style points……..From one wise guy to another….

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    tbally57  about 8 years ago

    By the time the ink is dry on the nuptial agreement it will be time for Divorce Court where the litigants can square off to divide and conquer all that wedded bliss brought them

     •  Reply
  15. Foggie
    yimhere  about 8 years ago

    Surely sharks are involved somewhere in this discourse?

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    dflak  about 8 years ago

    “… Until appeal to a higher court do you part.”

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    Old Texan75  about 8 years ago

    During my Mother’s years long health problems and my dealing with doctors, I came to despise doctors like other people despise lawyers.

     •  Reply
  18. Pirate63
    Linguist  about 8 years ago

    @robert daigneault

    Sir or Madam:

    Your personal attacks on other contributors only reinforces the opinion, of many, that you mask your inability to express an intelligent comment, by degrading the wit of others.

    If you can’t play nice in the sandbox, then get out.

    No one is forcing you to be here

     •  Reply
  19. Img 20230721 103439220 hdr
    kaffekup   about 8 years ago

    Gotta go. Sue ya!

     •  Reply
  20. Dr suese 02
    Tarredandfeathered  about 8 years ago

    Instead of Bridesmaids and Groomsmen, they had a Jury.

     •  Reply
  21. Kzinti
    Chmeee  about 8 years ago

    Actually, I saw this happen at a Jewish wedding many years ago. There was a binding contract that was signed along with the wedding vows that made sure that the groom received nothing from the bride’s property if he divorced her. Knowing the guy, it was kinda prudent actually…

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Non Sequitur