BOTH....just at different time periods in history.
LOL, you are still trying to claim its "nearly" the same thing when its no where near the same situation. Biden wasn't refused service. Biden was not kicked out of the place (as you falsely claimed). Biden wasn't at first being served and then later kicked out because the employees were unhappy with him being a customer. Again, what REALLY happened is Biden wanted a photo op as part of his CAMPAIGN TRAIL. No one in their right mind would want a photo op with a candidate they disagree with politically FFS. Conversely, if you own a business, if you SIMPLY have a paying customer it shouldn't matter what political opinion that customer has. There's a night and day difference here between those situations and your argument quite simply failed. Yes both sides are hypocrites. But no your argument failed in how you tried claiming one side is more hypocritical than the other. And the fact remains you mislead with the Biden case and you're simply refusing to accept you were wrong in your comparison.
you did have a great holiday
Well done. :)
I don't know who any of them are, actually. I don't watch the news or read Time Magazine. But what's your point? Why don't you answer the question: what is the difference, in your mind, between "being a prop" and "speaking out"?
You quote mined an unrelated paper talking about homopobia.
I don't care at all if you do, or do not realise it doesn't necessarily follow at all.
The EU humiliates itself daily. It doesn't need any help from the US.
I don't think the government is telling private entities what to think. They're just telling them they need to treat all customers equally.
Now that is a bold statement. That last one is a really funny one.
The Liberals have apointed a Frenchman and former head of C P P as head of the infrastructure bank. C P P was never used by governments before but now a Frenchman will be in charge of doling out English Canada's savings so another Frenchman can use the infrastructire bank to house immigrants
They have every right to have sex. I never said that. I am just saying that people understand how we reproduce, so if you have sex you are taking a knowingly risk. What I am saying is innocent humans shouldn?t be killed and must be respected, that includes innocent humans in their first stage of life.
funny, you resort to ad hominem attacks whenever I disagree.
Are you implying that they considered Adam a real person but the entire story of his life fictitious?
For all we know, the student is couch surfing and doesn't sleep well for any number of reasons.
Why would anyone respect you arse holes? You seem to think respect is given and not earned.
That pretty much tells me what I wanted to know.
Actually, I believe Chretien promised more spending during the first campaign. Remember the Red Book? It was only when they took office and discovered the disastrous state of the books under Mulroney (and were warned sternly by creditors) that they went on a balance the books kick. And it was actually quite painful, esp. for the poorer provinces as they cut transfer payments.
Think about having to actually do the 3 1/2 hour service for you bar mitzvah. But I did it..
Nope. Read some books on Buddhism and Hinduism. I am an atheist and see all religions as man made, but at least the Hindus and Buddhist have much less violent "holy books".
I'd hazard a guess and say that all humans are equally "hypocritical." Research into prison sentence lengths and their effects on crime indicate that the size of even a worldly threat that is demonstrably real doesn't really have that much of an effect on people's actions.
Someone who insists on scripture being literal in the same manner that fundamentalists do in order to dismiss the claims of believers who are not fundamentalist. i.e. a theist's claims have no veracity because they are not a "true" Christian. It's just another "Not a True Scotsman" fallacy.