SkyDekker

So you cannot simply verbalize your point? All you have really done so far is imply people are stupid for not understanding the point which you have not stated.

Because the level of anger you are displaying is usually driven by fear

That is what a capitalist is supposed to do. Are politicians not allowed to make money? Why are you so jealous of politicians?

But I'm sure it would be inappropriate for the shooting team to post pictures of themselves swimming. shows too much skin. As much as you are joking with this, I think it is important to keep in mind that the Olympic brand is one of the most fiercely protected brands out there.

So how does that compare with number of requests for user data under the Bush Administration? Do you have any break out of what percentage came from what level of government agency? The artcile (and you) seen to confuse and/or intermingle user data requests and content removal requests. I stil don't understand what your point is. Is there really no way you can verbalize what your actual point is?

But the stats aren't even provided for the Bush years. The increase mentioned in the head line is a time frame against time frame comparison, during which time Obama was both in office. For all we know the total number of requests is down comparing Obama to Bush. The article really doesn't say anything. What is your point? Can you verbalize it beyond cryptic one liners and smiley faces?

No more laws!!! They are useless. Laws are only broken by lawbreakers!!!!!!

I'm happen to tax that CEO. No problem. I'm also happy to label ACS as a charity-based business too. Go ahead and tax them. Real charity is personal and direct, anything else can, and will, be twisted into profit making eventually - no matter how good the original intentions. not that I have a problem with profits.....but let's call it what it is - I don't see why not, it's not despicable to make profits, nor is there anything wrong with doing that openly, especially for a good cause. Profits aren't evil, but misdirection is. Wouldn't it be more honest to start an organization with the goal to advance a cure and state up front that x% will be taken for our troubles? Rather than pretend otherwise and then sneak away high salaries and trips and perks from the funds? I agree with you.

The CEO of the American Cancer Society made $2.2 million. Would like to hear how you would label that a charity and not a business. Should the American Cancer Society also be taxed as a business and should just deduct charitable contributions?

Yes you did always strike me as a bit of a follower

Great. So when is the drug deal over? We have done our business, product and money has exchanged hands. Dealer walks to his car, is about to get in and buyer comes running out of the alley yelling you son of a bitch, I am going to kill you, while brandishing a steak knife. See, the buyer thinks he has been shortchanged and thinks he got less than they had agreed to. Drug deal still taking place, or can the dealer shoot the guy and claim SYG? What about the next day?

This is usually the argument that gets me labelled as anti gun. However, I simply do not agree with your logic or how it is used to support your position. The easier you make something to do, the more it will happen. However, doesn't matter how hard you make something, somebody will eventually do it. That, however does not mean one should not try to make unwanted behaviour harder to achieve. Those determined to kill will always be able to kill. However, IMHO, there is no debate that a gun as a tool makes killing easier than other easily available, affordable and portable tools. There are most certainly crimes of opportunity and crimes of passion. Crimes which are not necessarily pre-meditated, but facilitated by the ease by which they can be committed. Guns play a role in that process, since they are a very effective affordable, available, and portable tool. Obviously, they are a great tool for self-defence for the same reason. Simply stated, not every murderer would have been a murderer without the fire arm as a tool.

I think Adam Vaughan is an idiot.

It is the most, or at least one of the most, common fantasies held by women. I would still not wish it upon any woman. I don't believe that. Confusing "rape" with a fantasy to consentually having someone in sync enough with her to be direct and aggressive and confident in the act is just wrong. Changing the wording has some impact: So a third of women admit to having a fantasy of being raped. There are likely more who are (admittedly) simply not willing to admit to it. Anyways, this is completely off topic so I'll leave it at that.

It is the most, or at least one of the most, common fantasies held by women. I would still not wish it upon any woman.

Well said.

Really! Scaffolding like a gun requires a force to perform an action that could be lethal. Further scenario: They find a man in his car, with a gunshot wound to teh temple. He is dead. How should that be reported? So you think newspaper reporters are actively using the same language with guns as other objects that can deliver lethal consequences, because they are motivated to ban guns?

So let's take this to another scenario to see if this is worakable, ro if people are just bent out of shape due to it concerning guns: The following passage is fromt his enws article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/24/scaffold-accident.html Obviously scaffolding is just an object and does not collapse just by itself. How should this then be written properly?

never - individuals don't dispense justice only organized society has that duty. However, there are some situations, where I'd gladly go to jail. But I'm adult enough to admit that it is NOT 'justice' in those cases and I'd take my lumps - and would expect others too also. You can't give free passes to people just because you have a "that's exactly what I'd do in his situation" reaction. That's the reason our courts are losing their teeth today. +1

No, I think it makes it clear that this was a political piece, which is what rebutts the entire document.

I ahve three kids, ages 18, 8 and 6. I would not leave a 4 year old outside of earshot. Outside tending to horses while my 4 year old is unsupervised and out of earshot would simply not happen. I hate to admit I would likely have killed the guy as well though.

Why would you leave a 4 year old alone in a house?

Ok, so now you have agered that there are about 3 or 4 things wrong with his "speech", how much has to be wrong until the premise is false?

Since racial slurs are profanity and both profanity and distinction by race are specifically excluded, there really is no need to highlight racial slurs within in the same race. Unless off course you are specifically addressing that subgroup, or are trying to score political points. Both would go against what the writer says should happen. By the way, his use of the word holy goes against his own statements too. Lastly, are you really in favour of taking competitive sports out of schools? No more High School Football teams?

No. He used an example of something some friends might find acceptable between themselves. There are white people who call their white friends nigger. He already stated profanity would not be tolerated. He also stated that race would not play a role. Why then specifically address profanity within one subgroup? Thought there were not supposed to be any sub groups? It is a political propagande piece. Specifically what the writer says shoudl not be part of the education system. I have yet to see you address that.