Who's Doing What?

It's not the person you should care about... It's their status. Sheesh. That explains Paris Hilton. As for Streisand I guess "Spooky Vision" is quite the status symbol. But up until South Park I dunno....

I'm not really to keen on the idea of cloned animals in our food supply, but I really don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed. However it would be nice if it were labelled and I could make the choice myself if I wanted to consume it.

I sincerly find that hard to believe. No seriously, Streisand is really nothing impressive.

Alas Shakey the difference is Stephen Taylor identifies himself. While you launch your attacks safely behind the anonymity of your computer screen. Please get stuff that is even somewhat humourous. What????? Well I thought it was funny, and hardly an attack. Me thinks you need to go out and have "relations" or something and relax a bit there RB. "Relations" Becareful, he just might like the idea of your "shakeyhands".

Boy with such reasoned and well-thought out responses I should just walk away... Somehow, I doubt you would do us all, that big of a favour.

I have been saying for years that another "All in the Family" is exactly what this world needs. Maybe it would get people to lighten up and take the pickle out of their arse. That show is one of the best ever. Lionel Jefferson was one of the best supporting roles I have ever seen. The best part was the way the show showed that racism is not exclusive to whites, and it makes anyone look like a fool.

It's funny because it takes the stereotypical seperation of the sexes in Islam and places it in a unexpected context. It's not intended to be offensive to women. Next up, I'll explain the whole "Knock-knock" joke thing. LMAO Classic!

really? What a limited imagination.....how about a nude arsonists? What about Sheep shaggers?

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStorie...showbyline=True

It's there. Read into it what you will. Not going to engage you again, so we'll play the same old game. I'll start ignoring you again. You'll get the last word again and feel like a big man. Same old when you start with the stalking tomorrow. Have a good night. If you have a point then make it. Or is this just another baseless round of bulls*** like when you outright called me a liar?

It all started with the attack on Marjorie Lebreton and only *Tory hacks* could have respect for her. then when Isaid she was the chair of the board of MADD the attacks on MADD started... Show me an "attack" on MADD. I think you are creating things in your mind. Some might go as far as to call it delusions.

I got it all along. You have already judged the show, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your opinion. Just when it looked like you understood, you opened your mouth again. Stignasty is not going to judge a show based on some 30 second soundbites. Unlike you, who has already blackballed the show as racist.

Take it up with Figleaf... You're the one who keeps bringing it up. What's that about?

Some people are in obvious need of a sense of humour.

What kind of drugs are you on Ricki? Sure they are having some fund raising issues but I don't think anyone here is going to say fighting drunk driving is a bad thing. Try to separate the two and you might catch half the point. It's not like they are fighting against unethical business practices. They fight drunk driving.

How did an attack on MADD lead to "we're not as bad as the Liberals." in your warped world view? I can see you are still having trouble keeping up with the rest of us.

No one has said MADD is a bad thing. Give it up.

hahaha "B-b-b-but we're not as bad as the Liberals." Why set your standards so low? Besides the Liberals were corrupt imo long before adscam.

As Senator Lebreton is the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of MADD I am guessing that there are many people who aren't especially partisan who respect her. Unless you consider people fighting against drunk driving are Tory hacks by definition. http://www.madd.ca/english/about/boardofdirectors.html MADD was recently implicated in a serious fundraising scandal. http://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&lr=&ie=I...D%20fundraising So, where was Lebreton when those decisions were made? Seems to be a rash of fundraising problems.

Look what he said about me: "Ya well I don't read the neo-nazi-ist crap spewed by MD" So even in the very same thread he's contradicting himself.

Only when I think the typos indicate an inability to write clearly or think coherently. So you think I have an inability to coherently think? Hell it was you who couldn't even keep up with the last sentence of my post you editted. But whatever.

As I said, I want to fix Canadas problems. That is by far our largest problem in Canada and our welfare state. The Frasier Institute says so. It's not something i drempt up. I have facts to back my opinions. Healthcare is broken for reasons that you have not bothered to research. I have. Oh well. Also, Ricki Bobbi is not presented facts. Few people here rarely if ever present facts and cites. I believe I am the one who has posted the most cites and facts and has done a most research into discussions. Ricki Bobbi will state a proven fact: the gov't should not compete with private enterprise within it's own country. (CBC). His responses: 'Well I think" "I feel" "My vision" "We should". The latter is not fact, rather personal opinion which is not even backed by fact. And because you don't personally agree with his facts, you then have to put a label on him as a racist, a hardliner, a partisan person. Look, Ricki Bobbi holds his opinions firmly because they are most likely backed by fact. Not opinion. The CBC thread is a good example. You can argue your viewpoints any way you like, the fact of the matter is, the gov't should not be funding companies that compete with private enterprise. One of the reasons is an abuse of power or using that power to promote agenda's. This is factual. This is why he holds firm on his stances. And your rebuttal? "I think the show might be funny. I like the CBC. Therefore, we should keep it and you don't have to watch it". The latter is a personal opinion that is beside the arguement at hand. You: "But can't you see Ricki? I really like the CBC" Ricki: "Your missing the bigger point of what i'm trying to tell you" You: "Yeah but then you don't need to watch the CBC" Ricki: "Your missing the point" Now which is being irrational and extrememe? You are letting your own opinion and emotion cloud the facts that lay behind his argument. When this happens, you have to put a label on someone. Just like the way you called me a nazi. I beat the drum of immigration for a reason, not for fun, but your emotions will always cloud the facts behind the reason I do it. I didn't say that. Check your facts. I didn't call you a Nazi. "neo-nazi-ist crap" is what I refered to your anti-immigrant rants as.

Have you forgotten what you want to say? Do you mean "beautiful" in the Banff Park sense of the word? And how do you have any idea what he/she is like personally? It comes though in the posts jbg. What are you supposed to think of someone who personally attacks any poster with a different point of view? It is obvious he is a bully. I'm only treating him the way I saw him treat others. It may not make me any better, but I'm not the one crying in PM's to make a deal to leave each other alone. I see you are another who thinks typos are the end of the world. Weel thias santance ias jist four yoo. Eye wiil eevin rite an xtra onne jist inkase yoo hadd funn withh tha frist onne.

It has to be a muslim form of prayer because? It's a Wayne form; I think the Muslims got it from him. Me thinks that one went juuuuuust a little over his head.