You lived in the slums back then?
it took me a long while to realize you were playing with us. I think Butt hasn't quite figured out your personality yet. He's smart though. He will
Why 12? Why not 9? Why not 16?
Religion is not immune from fact, unfortunately for the religious.
Osama from Londonistan is sticking his std-rotting nose into American business! The disgusting degenerate!
I suppose that depends on which country you are referring to.
Yes. California thinks people shouldn't be demonized because of their sexual identity. Or race. Or gender. Ain't it awful.
Well there are a few more requirements than just breathing; but there is no test for stupid and negligent.
They smell like cabbage...cabbage!
All of those are facts. So which part is his opinion?
I am so very sorry to hear this George.
Bingo, Yvonne. I mean..just like Bill Cosby, R Kelly, Donald Trump, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen....most of these cases are men who had to have multiple women come forward before anyone believed them and still people don't believe women like when it comes to Donald Trump. I think people are always looking for reasons to undermine women. #METoo has taken us a big step forward but women still aren't believed.
I'll try harder when i find out wherr she lives and play our song on a boombox but she doesn't see it as romantic
No, I also don?t see anything monsterous in there.
Exactly - SCOTUS precedent. You can't appeal to the Constitution itself, nor can you appeal the laws of those the people elected, but to the opinions of unelected judges.
"Who knows anymore. This is crazy!"
Free donut day at Dunkin
am I lying and making stuff up about Newton to start the conversation. No. Don't assert nonsense and then minor issues won't mean a thing.
No not all, a lot.
Read the phucking quote. Not a word in there about US -Canada surplus/deficit. Christ, can yiu even phucking read?
Wait, are you claiming your cite falsifies evolution? Really?
Grossly out of date.
What were days, before god created days?
Handful of salt or olives?
If it's not colluding, what do you call it? Actually, under the law, that would be conspiracy rather than collusion. There is actually a law against accepting election assistance from a foreign source (even if the foreign source is Canada rather than Russia). The Trump campaign didn't get anything useful, out of that meeting, by all accounts, despite the Russians saying that they had dirt on Hillary, but even just the attempt is illegal under the law. Maybe, there was no lawyer, connected with the Trump campaign, who was competent enough to know that that was illegal. As we know, Trump has trouble attracting competent lawyers because he has a well-earned reputation for stiffing them. But, not knowing the law won't fly if charges are brought against Trump Jr. Of course, Trump would probably pardon him. Then we'd have to see how that plays with the public (aside from Trump's base). You can laugh all you want about all of this. I don't care. Why the f**k should I?
As to the fate of TA: not your problem -- you just provided a lifeboat. As things stand, the only way any comments area is going to be worthwhile for serious people is to have it moderated. The TIMES understands that, which is why their comments sections -- which they provide on only some of their articles -- involve moderation by some 14 paid staffers on the "Community Desk," TA obviously couldn't undertake anything of that magnitude, and the entirely predictable duly transpired. Indeed, this is only site I know of on anything like this scale that operates with unpaid mods -- and I have no idea how you folks do it.
Fundies are important.
Wow, continuing with the fallacy after it's been explained numerous times.
Yes, thank you. That is my point. Apply that to religious faith.