zoocrew

Notice who is attacking someone with taunts and who is not retaliating. The issue is the topic. Personal taunts are not.

First, I've never seen a nation of people so giddy when some bad economic news comes along. Second, the discussion doesn't and shouldn't be political at all. The discussion of the economic reality is not political. Only the extreme partisans see this as anything political. Thirdly, it is the austerity cuts that caused the consumer confidence to drop. Let's say it all together: the austerity cuts are what people are reacting to. The economic numbers up to the cuts were good and the news was generally positive. Remember the consumer confidence was up drastically in February. So this drop

2004? Oh, my gods! How long has this internet link been active?

Again. everyone is missing the Elephant in the room. This is a generally accepted practice in these sort of facilities. My link

Dr. Kervorkian will one day be considered a hero in the United States.

And the American Indians never should have helped the illegally immigrating colonists, either.

I think you mean you could not care less. Count the ammo. I will engage in my evening prayers. I prefer prayers to ammo.

That would have meant that is what the family WANTED to happen. DNR.

Policy is policy. The family would have had to sign a waiver acknowledging they agreed with the policy before an admission would have been allowed.

Again, there is a problem with the style simply because of where it began? Didn't The Blues begin as slaves in America lamenting in song their desire to break away and be criminals by escaping?

Most were born in America as their parents came illegally. A few did come illegally as infants. They couldn't even cipher their right from their left, yet are labeled as criminals for something they had no control.

And there is a problem with that?

What nice gestures have I done lately? Many. My husband has done several and so have I. However, we don't believe in broadcasting them. Alms before men, and all. Now, that is not to say we won't broadcast what others have done. For example, a co-worker of mine just sponsored a local youth group so they could play their sporting event in the regional levels. He paid a good bit of money for this wonderful group of lads to participate, including warm up and game uniforms, entry fees, food, snacks, and travel expenses. He did it all without ever asking for any acknowledgement from the

And there is a problem with that? Didn't the crucifix begin as a symbol of Roman death penalty of criminals?

All these new car purchases. I suppose the American economy is doing nicely for some on this internet link.

Normally I simply chose not to engage unless there is an actual topic and with someone who wishes to have a discussion. In this case, I'll respond because I need to clarify, while keeping my standards high. When I do respond, it is with credentialed sources and research, not emotions nor unsubstantiated opinion. Anything less is simply an indulgence in the lower stanines of the proletariat's cognitive ability, an endeavor that is not worth the effort.

Seriously?

Engage if you wish but it is futile. He is making the same arguments as was heard in the American South in the 1960s that said anyone may marry whomever they want as long as they are of the same race. The argument is the same and the outcome will be also. Loving v VA. My link

Congrats to everyone who has taken a good step in their personal heath and the health of everyone around them!

This is what happens when the American legislature makes feel good laws that appeal the "feel good" populace. Zero Tolerance is exactly that: zero tolerance. Perhaps the legislatures in the various provinces need to reconsider the laws they wrote to garner votes in the past.

It is what happens to all bureaucratic systems.

Just ignore the guy., His arguments are entirely bigoted and he has no idea about the history nor the legal arguments were ruled as racist and bigoted many years ago. Jut ignore him and let history judge his arguments for what they are.

First off, I said your argument was bigoted. I didn't say you were. Second, the American Supreme Court has not ruled on this yet. Again, this shows your complete lack of historical understanding of the topic. Thirdly, I do believe you're a bigot. And a homophobic. So report me. History will prove me right.

Just ignore him. He is not versed on history or the legal arguments in America to understand the topic. History will judge him for the bigotry. He has no idea that his arguments were ruled invalid a long time ago. Just ignore him.

Same was said of interracial marriage with the same reasons. No difference between the two issues. You're right that out is impossible to have a meaningful conversation. 50 years from now history will judge this issue and its opposition.