TJB

Would a wedding gift of peanut butter be acceptable?

I seem to have that gift as well.

I follow boxing and haven't heard of him until now.

I'm quite sure the homeless man and his dog were quite happy. Go Blue did a great thing and it's sad the woman failed to see this.

KRM, has the M.S. attacked any other organs like bladder and bowels? If not, she's lucky. Getting on the right drugs will help slow the progression of the disease. Looking back, I suspect my wife had it for a long time and didn't know it. My heart goes out to you and your family.

For everything that was said in this thread, this cuts the topic to the core.

With all due respect, you're the one doing damage control. I pointed the latent racism that already existed in the topic.

O.K., let's say for a minute that you think I'm race baiting. I could very easily say that about some of the people who have tried to paint Mandela in a less than favorable light. In post #2 by Glassdogs he says the following: "For some strange reason people are mourning the death of this evil man, and pretending that he's some sort of "honorable" celebrity. Make no mistake, had he had the resources, Nelson Mandela would have made Hitler look like a boy scout. He was one of the most evil men of the 20th century. Particularly interesting is the "necklacing " technique of putting a old tire

It's exactly right. Sometimes the truth hurts.

I'm angered over the double standard applied to Mandela and the use of violence. MLK and Gandhi are to be admired for their use of nonviolence; I don't think I could have done it. I remember when Sharon Angle spoke of 2nd amendment remedies; I've provided the link below. While Angle's comments weren't embraced, they certainly weren't discouraged. This is sad. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/sharron-angle-addresses-s_n_709518.html

You're right and Mandela changed but he had every right to use violence to fight back against apartheid. Our own nation was built on a violent revolution; you can't praise our founding fathers for treason and terrorism and denigrate Mandels for the same thing.

My heart goes out to you and your wife.

I never called you a racist, I said a statement was racist, there is a difference.

If it was acceptable for white men to take up arms to gain their inalienable and natural right of freedom then it has to be acceptable for other groups as well. You know I have a valid point and you can't handle the truth.

You can't deem it acceptable for one group or person to use violence to gain the basic human right of freedom and then label the other group or person a terrorist. If it was acceptable for whites to engage in violence to gain freedom, then it should be acceptable for other races or ethnic groups to do the same. I think racism applies here and your statement about the race card being pulled at the drop of a hat, is inherently racist.

I'm sorry you disagree with me but the the colonists won their independence from Great Britain by violence and it's celebrated. Blacks in South Africa were treated as chattel and attempted to win their freedom, using violence; yet, Mandela is being demonized. So using violence was acceptable for white men winning freedom from Great Britain but unacceptable for Blacks who were treated like animals. Demonizing Mandela as a terrorist is a double standard and I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. I think it's a racist double standard and you don't like hearing the truth. That's your problem.

Did blacks in South Africa have any choice other than violence to stop the way they were treated? We applaud the American Revolution but those men were traitors and murderers. Was it acceptable because they were white? They were terrorists as well. Seems to be a racist double standard here.

Mandela had every right to want revenge and the right to win freedom and not be treated as property, unless you can find a way to justify apartheid.

That would make too much sense.

Unless they're a long term sub, how many subs work 30 hours a week?

Welcome to the Taliban States of America where religious fundamentalists get to make medical decisions.

Isn't believing that imaginary beings talk to you a form of schizophrenia?

The motive of my posts is for corporations to not impose their religious beliefs on others. If the company has insurance coverage, birth control should be included. When buying insurance in a large group, people pay for services they do not necessarily use. I don't need boner pills, yet. However, I'm sure my premiums pay for those who use them or contraception or heart medication as well. By virtue of participating in a large group insurance plan we pay for things we don't need. Corporations who provide insurance shouldn't get to decide what insurance covers on the basis of religion. You have

I don't beleive in bullsh*t wrapped up in religion. I have nothing against god, other than believing one does not exist. However, I think religion and god are two separate matters.