Sleipnir

I don't see how it can be guarantee that their names would be their real birth names; Bob Smith, Jennifer McJenna, Fred Souplous, Henry McArmstrong, etc Does those 'unique visitors' include google, StiniSamclene and other scanners?

VVV Got this article from their group...rather interesting to watch the videos of counter-protester. http://www.sunnewsne...116-170014.html

Then the mod would move in to suspend him/her from the entire forums.

I rather he NOT try to protect it...

Yet this place drove him away? Does it appear when you're editing the post? He needs a haircut.

Yeah I'm getting nothing.

How is this a federal issue? lol

WASHINGTON- Hours before President Barack Obama was due to unveil proposals on Wednesday to prevent mass shootings like the one in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association released an advertisement that referred to his two school-aged daughters. “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a narrator says in the 35-second television and Internet spot. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.” Obama’s two children, who attend private school in Washington, D.C., receive Secret Service protection. The White House condemned the ad. “Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said. Former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking earlier on MSNBC’s Morning Joeprogram, said the ad was “disgusting on so many levels.” Gun control activists and gun rights advocates have said in recent days that they could find common ground, particularly over the issue of expanding background checks for potential gun owners. The NRA ad’s tone, however, and the personal nature of the attacks speaks to the cultural gulf that divides both sides. The clip, called “Stand and Fight,” promotes the leading gun lobby’s proposal to put armed guards in schools. The idea has been at the centre of the NRA’s response to the Dec. 14 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, in which 20 children and 6 adults were killed. The ad is airing on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network, but will likely receive a much larger viewership on news stations and through the Internet. The NRA, which says it has about 4 million members, also announced earlier this week that it would produce a nightly one-hour cable talk show hosted by gun advocate Cam Edwards on the Sportsman Channel. “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” Obama said in a recent interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.” In a survey released on Monday, the Pew Research Center found that people favor putting armed guards or police officers in more schools by a two-to-one margin, 64 per cent to 32 per cent.

Wrong thread.

I don't see how anyone can make such a blunder on a government website.

Lol as if Greg would give members the ability to ban each other from certain threads

You haven't the faintest clue how physcis work. Apparently you do have a problem with this. You sound paranoid.

I post the screen shot on the first page for anyone who missed the letter before it was removed.

A poll is out on how Canadian feels about Spence. http://www.globalnew...9231/story.html Her approval rating is 29%. The protest has done nothing but to raise awareness of the reserves mismanagement of federal funds.

Julian Fantino, still a member of the Conservative party.

I thought the federal government was supposed to be non-partisan when it comes to posting information on government (not party) website. http://www.acdi-cida...C-111213736-54K I figured attack ads were reserved for party website not government.... Thoughts? Edit: It was removed from the website, but screen shots do come in handy at times

I recalled reading in an article that people would say similar principle about flying large metallic object in the sky known as 'planes'. It cannot be done, planes cannot fly through the air because it would defy the whole physics thingy. There is a difference Manny, between explaining things in scientific or philosophical terms.

I think he means blocking a user's access to a particular forum from which he/she been causing trouble in for an extended period of time. The user would still have access to other forums, but not the one he/she wants. It would be something that could be used more often for minor infractions than a full blown suspension.

lol best one yet

The Liberals have a better chance of getting in coalition with the Conservatives than with the NDP'ers

Haha thanks