The thing that bothers me most about some atheists is not that they don't believe in God's existence; it's their double standard. Some atheists say they don't believe in God because God's existence cannot be empirically proven (interesting that they rely on science, which is limited to measuring the physical realm, to rule out something outside the physical realm), yet their own belief that God does not exist also cannot be empirically proven.
"There's a sucker born every minute..."
How would the overall result be beneficial? What's so wrong with having a free market?
Obscure because it isn't emphasized in your church?
"black Moors" lolol
I am aware of a man who has worked for NASA and the JPL... He is pretty positive that dating methods are off.
"Christ, did you even watch the movie Erin Brockovich?
Seems the world is in need of correct judgement that will satisfy everyone.
Most of disqus is arguing with nutcases
There should be an LGBTheQuickBrownFoxJumpsOverTheLazyDog Month .... that would cover everyone and then we could get back to just being Americans the rest of the year.
And if the innocent children had been snatched up just as the chaos of the flood ensued, who would tell anyone? Who would remember?
Meh, Impaling, headman's chopping block, drawn and quartered, whipped to death.
Do you think the workers at Harley Davidson that are losing their jobs grateful? How about the workers at Mid Continent Nail Corp.? How about cranberry growers in Wisconsin or orange growers in Florida? All hit by the tariffs.
(1) For the most part figuratively, although there are parts where that distinction is... not useful.
yesterday a simple question was posed to a left wing screwball. Do you think crossing the border undocumented into United States is illegal. Reply their humane beings. That's not the question are they illegal. Answere no they are human. It's sums in up in a nutshell this is what your dealing with.
Stalking from the comfort of home.
Many of the things you deem unworthy of criticism are very much worthy of it as far as others are concerned. Why? Because when you group them all together, they paint a more accurate picture of the politician in question. So while you may think that Justin's costumes and antics in India were a non-event, many Canadians were embarrassed by his lack of maturity and decorum. Ditto for many of the other things he's done since taking office. Likewise for Wynne. I think it's great that you recognize that her Hydro One decision was worthy of your criticism, but for countless other things she has inflicted upon the province, one might take your selective silence as tacit approval. Things like doubling Ontario's debt to make it the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower on the planet ? literally speaking. Things like rushing into renewable energy without a moment's thought about the financial burden she placed on rate payers. Things like $75 million wasted on her pet Ontario Pension Plan, which promptly got shelved when Justin took power in Ottawa. Things like the billion plus dollars wasted to cancel two generating plants, specifically to save two Liberal seats in an election. The list continues, on and on, while you toss in a token criticism every once in a while, trying to convince others that you're not completely biased in favour of Liberals. Meanwhile, the left eagerly joins the fray in decrying the horrors of Doug Ford based purely on innuendo and propaganda, not on his actions in an office he has yet to be elected to. Does that seem like a good methodology to you? To me, it sounds like petty vindictiveness by a bunch of soon-to-be sore losers.
You obviously don't know what legal precedent is.