PocketRocket

Just over a year ago my mom passed away. She was in pretty rough shape, and she knew she was on her way out. She was living in an old-age home. She had specified, in writing, "No rescucitation". During the last several weeks, we kapt a 24-hr vigil, my sister and I. My sister was with her when she passed, and sure enough, in came a bunch of yabos who wanted to start rescucitating her. My sister, being a nurse and well acquainted with both the procedures, and the legalities, not to mention being pretty formidable in both size and attitude, put a quick stop to it. But it was very upsetting to her, and to the rest of us when we found out. My mom's time had come. She knew it, as did we all. The effort to bring her back may have borne fruit, but for what??? A few more days gasping for breath, not recognizing her own children. No dignity. No pleasure. I'm glad my sister was there. I may not have been as strong. As for myself, if I ever get to the point where I'm a burden to others, not lucid, or bereft of personal dignity, take me out back and shoot me.

Here we go again. Isn't homophobia wonderful???

More likely a monitor lizard which was carried far from it's native climes by a pair of swallows using a line tethered between them. The real question is; African or European swallow???

You guys/gals are hilarious......I love it Paricularly Canuck E Stan's last post. It's been a few days since I've been here, and the last several posts in this thread made me laugh so hard I snorted coffee out my nose. Good job. We need more threads like this P.S......I want a "Kimmy Hat". P.P.S......Would you like some butter with that roll???

Well, God is a big, grown-up, and should be able to defend himself

Canuck E Stan: with all due respects, I cannot take the link you provided too seriously, for a few reasons. First, there are lots of somments like "One researcher said....", without naming the researcher. Second, there are also several references to "Studies show.....", without naming where the studies were done. Few of the references to effects of pot ever specified dosage, which gives the implication that ANY amount of use will cause the specified effects. Also, the results of test on mice gave no information of amounts of dosage given, nor the form it took. (Hell, you can poison a mouse with too much vitamin-C. In fact, you can kill a man by giving him too much oxygen. Why don't we ban that, too???) And finally, it's straight form the National Institute on Drug Abuse, hardly a disinterested party, and definitely an organization with an agenda. This particular page is more of a political speech than a serious report. I'm still dizzy from the spin

Okay. So let's have a look at where the money from a cigarette purchase goes. We know the government takes a fair chunk in taxes. How much??? Hard to say. I tried a search simply to find out how much money/pack is tax. This was the only site I could find with an exact dollar figure.... http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2260 ....unfortunately, it's quite old information. (If anyone has newer figures, feel free to correct this info) Nonetheless, tobacco prices, and presumably taxes as well, are considerably higher now than then. So, let's say (just for sake of argument) that on each pack of cigs, the tax is $3.75 (lower than the figure given above). That means a pack-a-day smoker would be paying $1,368.75 each year in taxes on his cigarettes alone. What is the government doing with this money??? Are they investing it in health care??? Health insurance??? Yeah, right. If they were to do so, then there would be no such ballyhoo over whether either smokers or tobacco companies should ante up these costs. Likewise, if the tax portion of cigarette costs were invested in medical/health insurance, then it would cover FAR more than the smokers themselves. The Canadian government, in taking tobacco taxes with one hand, while saying "Shame, shame" and wagging it's finger with the other, is kind of like a pimp giving a speech on the evils of prostitution. So, in the spirit of true fairness, if we are going to sue tobacco companies for health care costs, we should be doing the same with fast-food franchises, candy producers, bacon producers and makers of any high-fat foods, not to mention manufacturers of skateboards, snowboards, skis (both snow and water), and just about anything else which is a regular "cause" of higher health-care costs. What the hell, let's just sue big-business out of existence

I don't think the USA should be able to make any searches or seizures on Canadian soil. They are more than welcome to play nice, ie; request extradition. In the case of Emery, they did so (sort of), and got what they asked for. This, however, is too much. "The Law Of The Land" as it is written in the USA is not necessarily the law in other countries, and as true lovers of freedom, they should respect that fact.

Upon thinking this over more fully, there may be something to this Spaghetti God. Follow me on this.... Many philosophers have postulated that Man created God in his own image, rather than vice-versa. Ever notice how every ethnic group's God kinda looks like them??? Jesus is depicted as being white-skinned, even though he was born and raised in a tropical desert area where, logically, everyone would have darker flesh-tones. Mohammed is darker-skinned. Buddha unmistakably oriental. Thor was depicted as a Blond-haired warrior, much like any Viking, as were most of his Asgardian compatriots. Likewise Shiva and other Indian deities all had oriental characteristics. Etc etc etc. Now, if we create our gods by our thoughts, then perhaps the growing collective belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster will (has already???) bring him/her/it into being. Now this may seem far-fetched, but that's only because it is. I'll take my supreme being al-dente please

Where do I sign up??? Oh well.....I'm off to work. May your day be blessed with the touch of His noodly appendage. Ramen.

From the look of the party headquarters, I take it you're only planning on capturing 1 seat???

To quote Nelson from The Simpsons......(falsetto voice) "Hah hah". Thanks for the reply, GREG. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In your signature you make a pretty shocking statement ... "I hate Paul Martin." Now here you seem to be enjoying another poster's demise. You know ... there ARE medications for that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mmmmmmm.........medication

I'm not so sure. Regarding grammatical ticks and stuf like that, you have to keep in mind that with the millions of people that MIGHT take an interest in this board, many of them are bound to have similar bad grammatical habits. But if it was indeed the same character, then you're right, he had grown considerably. And, he'll probably find a way to come back again. Hmmm. Banning as a contribution to evolution. If with each ban he/she comes back better-behaved, and with better debating abilities, then we can add a chapter to Darwin I found him alternately funny and mildly annoying. But none of his posts ever really bothered me to any appreciable degree. But the ban was not my call to make, so, once again he's gone. At least for a while. PR. And always a pleasure to speak with you. BTW, what happened to "The Kimmy Party"???? Elections coming up. Better gear up the campaign

I see. Cumulative annoyance factor??? Heh heh. Well, thanks for the reply. It is informative, and exactly the sort of response I was seeking. Although, I will admit I was under the impression that the rules were a bit more cut-and-dry and required a single, definitive offense to be banned. I guess I was wrong in thinking that. It is, after all, a judgement call. Good answer. Now that I know a lot of little offenses can add up to one big one, I'll certainly tread softly. I guess if they're using some sort of IP proxy or something, it's good to give the benefit of the doubt. Better to do if you're not certain. I suppose if they come back well-behaved, you may not have to bother, but again, that's solely your own judgement call. To quote Nelson from The Simpsons......(falsetto voice) "Hah hah". Thanks for the reply, GREG. As I stated, it's exactly what I wanted to know, or at least sort of exactly Hopefully I won't make the same mistakes some of our previous members have.

Well, at this point it still seems to be speculation....... I noticed that none of the so-called "experts" were named, nor were any journals or publications cited as sources of this information. Noted also the name of the source site, "IsraCast.Com", hardly what we would consider an impartial source of news in the ME. I'll take this tidbit with a grain of salt.

Well, after watching the clip, I have to say nobody laid a lickin' on anybody. It was just two guys trying to talk over each other, but it was refreshing to see Bill actually get talked over for a change.

I would imagine if he was a previously banned member, and GREG had the means to definitely determine this, that he would have been booted much sooner, like when he first joined up. Others have done the same, and are still here. 1))) Conceded, as I may have missed some of the posts which were removed, though when I searched I found nothing untoward. 2))) I never claimed otherwise, and in the past never argued with one of his bans, and I am not doing so now. In fact, I have defended his right to ban in the past. 3))) I just want to beat it 'til it bleeds The phrase I've used in the past in these sorts of threads is "It's GREG's backyard, and GREG's ball, so he gets to make the rules". Never questioned this. As previously stated, in past bannings, there has been a clear-cut, easy to see reason. In this case it was not so clear-cut. I started this thread seeking information so as to avoid the possibility of mistakenly doing something similar in the future. It's not some sort of vendetta or anti-GREG rant, no matter how much others may read that into it.

From the same article.... Hmmmm. Who decides when they're ready???

Yeah right. How can you support the troops when you think the mission they're on is morally repugnant? As previously stated, the troops are not given a choice as to where and how they serve. But I support anyone who stands up and is willing to put his/her life on the line to protect his/her home, country, countrymen, etc. I have said before, and will say again, a man or woman becomes a hero at the moment that they conciously decide that "I will risk my life for my country/countrymen". Unfortunately, some risked, and some were killed. The difference of opinion lay in whether or not this war had anything to do with the defense of the USA in particular, or the free world in general. (My "hero" definition also includes firemen, policemen, etc. Any who go open-eyed into a high-risk job of protecting others) LIBERATING CHILDREN FROM TYRANNY IS CO$TING TOO MUCH!! Whose children??? Whose tyranny??? Why this particular tyrant, and no others who arguably pose bigger threats both to world peace, and to their own populace??? Sorry, but your glib, capital-letter response is just so much more baiting, trolling and misdirection. Besides, "liberating children" was not part of Bush's agenda, nor was bringing democracy to Iraq, until well into the war. Interesting how the reasons for this war have changed as time has passed. Again, with "eternity" a glib bit of misdirection, rather than response direct. I am learning your style, Mr BURNS. You have much knowledge and intelligence, and sometimes put forth brilliant posts. And a knack for writing off points you can't argue against by utilizing techniques picked out above. Unfortunately for you, glib sarcasm is something that is eventually seen through, and your didn't directly address the 200Billion$$$ figure, nor how much more that figure may become.

Seeing as I started this thread, I'll take it upon myself to respond to these....but please keep in mind I started this thread for information, not to point fingers at anybody. I looked into the Germany thread the same day the ban was imposed. If MIRROR wandered off-topic a bit, it didn't seem to be beyond any "wandering" done by various others on this board. I went beyond the Germany thread, and checked out ALL of MIRROR's posts for about the last 3 or 4 days prior to the ban. Still didn't find anything that I would have considered ban-worthy. This is what has me puzzled. Others that I have seen banned were booted for a definite reason. Some may have been provoked (one in particular comes to mind), but ultimately they put their own foot (feet) in it and spouted off in a clearly proscribed manner. In MIRROR's case, I could find nothing of the sort. I want to be crystal clear on the reason for this thread. Being that there was no cut-and-dry post in which MIRROR did anything obviously offensive or anything, I simply want to be fully aware of exactly what is and is not permissible here. I try to remain civil at all times, but like anyone else, I sometimes get caught up in a heated discussion. It's better to know EXACTLY what can get you booted. Knowing what got someone else booted can be valuable in an environment wherin the rules are subject to one man's personal interpretation and judgement. If the site administrator himself can't be sure, how can you??? Other than stating that obvious fact, this comment is not worthy of a reply as it is simply an implied slur against someone who cannot appear here to defend himself.

From President Bush's SOTU address in January 2003: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Trusting in the sanity of Bush is questionable at best, and as for HIS restraint, well, it seems that his restraint is based on what he can get away with politically. Luckily for him, the American public (or any public for that matter) seems to have a short memory.

I must admit, your knowledge of Iraq's conventional weapon inventory far surpasses my own. Well done. So, on the point of the US leading weapons supplies to Iraq, I will concede the point. If I decide to take the time to research further, and find you wrong, great. If not, then my concession stands, and that's fine too. Either way, good job on that point. But I also must address few other things. First, you still never showed any clear and imminent threat. "Potential", perhaps. "Imminent", no. Saddam was an ass, no doubt. He could have become a threat. But if we allow every "potential" threat to become a target, no matter how long-range that "potentail" may be, then it's simply giving free lisence to invade, at will, just about every country in the world, given the proper political spin. Second, none of the following things were ever said by me...... Your implication is that I have used all of the previous "arguments". Sorry to disappoint. But I won't be hooked through having words put in my mouth, nor by obfuscation. (I have said I support the troops, I have never said or implied that any troop is anything but heroic and courageous. But troops, after all, do not get to choose their wars.) As for this........ I used that line exactly once, and it was in direct reply to a comment by one of our esteemed American members who had made the extremely ignorant claim that the USA should simply come up here and take over Canada. I seem to recall him saying that it would take "about ten minutes" or something to that effect. That comment seemed to require a reply of this sort. Childish of me perhaps, but it seemed suitable at the time. So, your attempts at misdirection which make up a large bulk of your post aside, you've basically shown that most of the conventional weapons recently used by Iraq were not of American make. But there has still been nothing to show an imminent threat. And you still hang on to the justification of Saddam flouting the UN resolutions, while at the same time supporting the idea that the UN is irrelevant. Can't have it both ways. If the UN resolutions were valid, then so was their veto on the war. If the UN is irrelevant, then their resolutions are not a justification for the war. Therein lies the hypocrisy of which I spoke.

*Chuckle* Well put. Game, set, and match.

You keep saying that, but your repetition does not make it so. If it WERE so, then the wonderful American sattelite surveilance would have shown us exactly where it was all happening, just like it showed us the nukes Saddam already had. After all, he definitely had 'em, at least that's what Bush said repeatedly. Uh-huh. Well, maybe the sattelites aren't all they're cracked up to be, but that's a different story. Why don't we simply invade every country that would be "capable" of starting up a nuke program??? Hey, Canada has reactors. We could start processing useable fission material. And look how convenient we'd be to invade. No long trip across an ocean. Besides, being right next door, we're even MORE of a threat, because we'd only need short-range missiles. Hell, we could send the nukes across the Great Lakes in rowboats. Better get rid of all Canadian air AND watercraft. You say America was "defending" itself??? So show us all exactly how the USA was threatened. Not some "possible" distant threat, but immediate, imminent threat. How exactly was Iraq threatening the USA??? No missiles capable of travelling across the Atlantic. No navy. No air force to speak of. Certainly no planes capable of crossing the ocean. Show me the immediate threat. Or maybe you're thinking along the lines of that old football saw, "The best defense is a good offense". First, if you're going to bitch about countries that have provided arms to Saddam, then you should have a look at this link..... http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php .....because the USA led the way in providing arms to Iraq. Second, if you're going to use UN resolutions as a valid reason to invade, then you're as hypocritical as the cop who enforces the law by day, then drives dunk at night. IOW, either you acknowledge ALL the rules of the game, or you acknowledge NONE of the rules, and don't play the game. Bush, in using the resolutions as reason, while ignoring the security council's veto on invasion, showed stupendous hypocrisy, not to mention breaking the rules they agreed to play by in the UN. Third, the "diplospeak" for war, was spoken by the UN, not by the USA. Some good things have come about as the result of this war; Saddam gone, along with his sons. Democracy brought to Iraq (I won't say "imposed upon"). Hopefully the latter will last, and not be usurped by some future dictator. The records of several countries America has "helped" in the past is abysmal, Iraq included. But if Bush had bided his time, and kept pleading his case to the UN, eventually one of two things would have happened. Either the UN would have caved and agreed to go in along with the USA, or in time it would have been shown that Saddam did NOT have the massive buildup of WMD's (nukes included) which he was accused of having. You??? Deriding the logic of others??? Pot, meet kettle.

Good Morning, FleaBag: I love those! I can't seem to find one though... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Get a paip of those full-length underwear. Cut off the arms at the elbow, and the legs at the knee. Voila, the latest in 20's bathing attire For added fashion value, add horizontal stripes.