willard

Key word here is "accused". Unless, of course, the word changes meaning depending on whether it is a democrat or republican who is accused.

Yes, leaving a dog a $12 million trust fund is a bit much, but this in no way compares to what Vick did. Did you even bother reading the entire article? I doubt it or you would have read Most likely what money is left from the dog's trust will also go to charity after he dies.

Cool! Next step: A rear-mounted Gnome Rotary with the tire wrapped around the jugs.

Congratulations!

Maybe your "bowhunter" friend should find a different hobby. He obviously isn't very good at bowhunting. I hunted with a bow for many years, taking many deer and a couple bear, as well as untold small game. Never lost one that I hit. Trying to justify the legality or illegality of an action based on the status of another activity does not make sense. It is legal to drive 65 mph on a crowded freeway, yet it is illegal to drive over 55 on a barren stretch of two lane highway (here in Ohio). Mike Vick broke the law. He must pay the price for breaking the law. The penalty he will pay goes far beyond anything the courts will impose. The Falcons are already trying to reclaim $22 million from his signing bonus, something that was conditional upon his abiding by the law and being a respectable representative of the organization. As far as calf roping, that competition is constantly under fire from all sides and most likely will not be around much longer. I, for one, will not miss it. But bullriding is a true man-beast sport. Once the rider is thrown he is fair game for the bull. It has been said that the safest place is on the bulls back.

***So you think he should be let off just because he IS black?? ***

Of course it's not his fault. He is just a product of his environment and has no choice in the matter. BULLSHIT! Your post is just another example of why people refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Why should they when they can place the blame elsewhere?

But...but...but the fact that nothing can be seen there is supreme evidence that FSM is actually there! He doesn't WANT to be seen, so we don't see him...only nothingness. What more proof could you want????

How else could it possibly be explained? www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294359,00.html

*** Just the facts, Ma'am. Blaming a teacher for zero tolerance policies is like blaming a corporal for the quagmire in Iraq. If you have information that shows this was because of a no tolerance policy please share such info with us. Could be the teacher was acting on his/her own.

Don't know much about the BBC, but I do love a good BBQ!

Whoa there, Chief! Fox News most certainly DOES have the right to financial support from advertisers. That is how they make a profit...by selling advertising time slots. Rubbish. Advertizers are not obliged to give their custom to Fox, any more than my university is obliged to hire me. If advertizers wish to deny their custom to Fox, that is their absolute right. Fox has a right to solicit business from advertizers, not to have business from advertizers. The part in bold is correct. Fox has no right to the business, just like I said in the first place. Of course nobody is obliged to financially support Fox News. That was never asserted, so why even mention it? I have the right to free speech, yet nobody is obligated to provide a venue for me to speak. I have the right to keep and bear arms, yet nobody is obligated to provide me with a weapon. You have the right to seek employment and exchange your teaching services for financial support, but there isn't a single university or college that is obligated to hire you. To say Fox News doesn't have the right to be financially supported by it's advertisers is ridiculous, to say the least. How do you suggest they stay in business? I already explained that. Fox has a right to solicit and accept business from advertizers, not to have business from advertizers. Care to elaborate on what you feel are the differences between the right to solicit and accept, and the right to have, business. The way I see it they are virtually one and the same. Maybe you meant "entitlement" instead of "right". Or, perhaps you meant that Fox is not guaranteed that they will receive financial support from potential advertisers.

Whoa there, Chief! Fox News most certainly DOES have the right to financial support from advertisers. That is how they make a profit...by selling advertising time slots. Rubbish. Advertizers are not obliged to give their custom to Fox, any more than my university is obliged to hire me. If advertizers wish to deny their custom to Fox, that is their absolute right. Fox has a right to solicit business from advertizers, not to have business from advertizers. The part in bold is correct. Fox has no right to the business, just like I said in the first place. Of course nobody is obliged to financially support Fox News. That was never asserted, so why even mention it? I have the right to free speech, yet nobody is obligated to provide a venue for me to speak. I have the right to keep and bear arms, yet nobody is obligated to provide me with a weapon. You have the right to seek employment and exchange your teaching services for financial support, but there isn't a single university or college that is obligated to hire you. To say Fox News doesn't have the right to be financially supported by it's advertisers is ridiculous, to say the least. How do you suggest they stay in business?

Whoa there, Chief! Fox News most certainly DOES have the right to financial support from advertisers. That is how they make a profit...by selling advertising time slots. They have that right the same as you have the right to sell your services to a college or university, or a magazine/newspaper to sell advertising space. The right to sell a product or service is the very foundation of capitalism. These advertisers also have the right to not buy said time slots from Fox.

Failing to have a Certificate of Airworthiness for Export is the fault of the FAA? How so? Seems the fault would lie with the exporter and importer. Whenever I shipped a truck overseas it was my responsibility to make sure all paperwork was in order, not the governments.

Interesting title for the thread. Since right now, according to the article, there are only accusations of such, aren't you rushing to judgement?

That is so funny! Maybe you haven't heard, but the Bill of Rights covers ALL points of view, including those that slam the BoR itself. Who says I don't? Just because I don't whine, moan, and complain in this forum doesn't mean I don't anywhere. Whining here about abuses of rights and mistreatment of children and puppies does about as much good as whining about politics in a skydiving forum ever would. I have no problem with opposing views, same as most who post here. But there are a couple folks who can't stand anyone having a different point of view.

Uh.. you still have not answered the question.. even if you did make a rather poor attempt to turn it around. Please give me your supposed name for your fellow right wingers who consistently make apologies for all this incompetence. You guys seem to have so many negative names for anyone opposing YOUR viewpoints... Why should I suggest a name when you have already made up your mind that you hate them regardless of what name is placed upon them?

Already gave you a name for those folks. In fact, I gave you two to pick from. Now your turn. What name do you give a Bush Basher who thinks everyone who disagrees with them in ant way is a scum-sucking lowlife not worthy of breathing the same air, and is so intolerant of opposing viewpoints they are blind to the benefits of a group of people having differing views? What of the folk who, on one hand, whine, moan, and complain about every percieved breach of civil liberty, real or imagined, yet, on the other hand, decry those who practice the basic liberty of expressing an opposing view?

Bush Hater. Or Liberal. Take your pick.

News flash: Every President attempts to censor or otherwise limit what statements from his administration are made public.

I'm your Huckelberry.

Where the hell did you get that idea??? You have a fine way of twisting what someone says. www.murrayscheese.com