Figleaf

Actually, the sound like they'd do fine on the battlefield, just nowhere else.

A little after-dinner troll?

I have no idea why the damn quotes won't work properly there. I've tried everything to get them to straighten out, to no avail.

[see post #85.]

[see post #84.]

It's astounding how George Bush has brought America from the condition of wealth and pre-eminence that Clinton had acheived down to now the point that pesky third world countries simply thumb their nose at them. I've said it before and I'll say it again ... George W. Bush is The Worst President In All Of American History.

So, tell us... how many British went in and how many came back out? You make it sound like an atrocity.

You haven't shown how it would be beneficial Come on, Martin, I've read your posts. You're obviously smart enough to understand the concept of a hypothetical question. If it can be shown conclusively that the cost of your tax break is less than the gains (new tax money), then sure, it would be a good idea. Okay, thanks. (I was trying to determine whether your position was ideological, or if it was based on evaluation of facts as they may be. Congrats, you passed my self-serving and arrogant little 'test' . )

However, that address redirects to www.palestinefacts.org, which appears on cursory examination to express views that Hamas would never consider uttering. Further to this matter, Rue, a little research indicates that both palestinefacts.com and palestinefacts.org are registered to an outfit called Zionist Organization of America (www.zoa.org), who don't sound at all like they are Hamas. So, Rue, I'm curious how you would come to suggest that www.palestinefacts.com is a Hamas website. Care to enlighten us? (Briefly please.)

I don't see why it's "ridiculous". Just to be clear, do you mean 'no' as in you see no reason not to encourage marriages if the legislators determine it would be beneficial? That is, you would agree with tax advantages to encourage marriage if marriage is economically beneficial to society at large? Or do you mean that even if marriage is economically beneficial to society at large you would not want tax advantages used to encourage it? If you mean this, please explain why.

Think much? Should this matter be investigated? Yes, [in one way or another] =13 [65%] No = 7 [35%] ... Should Stockwell Day stay as minister responsible for the RCMP? Yes, at the pleasure of the PM = 7 [35%] No, he must step aside = 13 [65%]

And have you noticed how big SpikeSA always brings yappy little M.Chester with him? http://forum.bcdb.com/forum/_C17/_F15/Big_...artoon._P60767/

If these victims had firearms of their own, they might have been able to defend themselves. As it was, they were sheep for the slaughter.

Well, I guess I was wrong about Stock resigning today. But surely by the end of the week there will be some action on this significant matter wherein, the evidence appears that someone breached the Criminal Code. Surely no-one who takes law and order as seriously as the Conservative Party would allow this kind of stinky situation to fester!

Just so I understand here, Rue ... are you saying that Hamas did NOT emerge from the Islamic Association? Also, you said: However, that address redirects to www.palestinefacts.org, which appears on cursory examination to express views that Hamas would never consider uttering.

Children have obvious/proven benefits to the economy. I have yet to see any proof that an official union between two childless people is of more benefit to the economy than me and my roommate. Unfortunately, you have not answered my question. IF legislators determine that encouraging marriages is also economically beneficial, is there any reason not to do so?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Have you noticed that any thread that descends into pointless chaos usually has his fingerprints all over it?

Well, Leafless, in the same vein, I'll tell you -- Gabba gabba hey hey, gabba gabba hey. Ookie ookie ookie ookie lalalalala. Hey nonny no, hey nonny no. Boney was a warrior, wayayah. Pfffft, futz blablablablah. And furthermore doo wop doo wop doo doo diddy. Yawn.

Sigh. Look, just more of the same CPC crap. CPC supporters seem to see the world in total polarity. The can't understand that everyone who mentions a criticism of the tory government is not a "Liberal supporter". Most are actually regular citizens who are simply making an observation about their government. To then be answered as if we are not concerned citizens but instead we're Ignatieff's exec aide is (a] not the proper sort of response and (b] a bit insulting. The Tories need to get their heads out of the ass of Ottawa and recognize that there's a whole, real country of people concerned with their governance.

No, you can trust smart television producers to take the opportunity to expose conspiracy theories ... Yes. Yes, that's exactly what to expect. Sort of my point, really.

What possible definition of 'valid' would lead you to utter such a whopper? When a citizen says 'I think the government cheated.' it is in no way a sensible counter to respond that a prior government also cheated. Whoopee if prior governments also cheated. It neither corrects nor addresses the point. Frankly it makes me highly skeptical of your credibility that you would allow such nonsense to appear under your nick.

Oh sure. And NATURALLY we can ALWAYS trust the Discovery Channel to expose Earth-shaking truths about the Secret Masters.

You have a funny way of expressing things, if that was your point. You didn't mention Scott, and you didn't mention a lack of content. Rather, you appeared to take issue with the specific content of the comment you quoted. Oh well.

:fake shame: Okay, I'm sowwy. I'll try... A lawyer, a priest, and a tory hack walk into a bar... Oh damn, I ruined it.

Oh! Deftly done.