KelliJ

Hmmm...at least I learned one thing today: Never take your dog to a DZ BBQ!

....doesn't like dogs? What do you think that says, if anything, about that person?

Everything you own is either new or destroyed. It also says akarunway is most likely a practical person who doesn't like a lot of frills and fluff...a no-nonsense type of person who values loyalty and ease of maintenance over flash.

"What kind of dog do you have?" Good question because... a) Easily verifiable. b) Quick to ask, quick to answer. c) A lot can be learned about a person by the type of dog they have. Face it, any question they can answer with a lie...they will.

While what he did is illegal.. and needs to be dealt with accordingly..... Has he campaigned on a platform of Family Values or Morality??? Family values and morality? I'm not sure. But, without even checking, I would be willing to bet you 10 gallons of Blue Bunny ice cream that he DID campaign on a platform of upholding and enforcing the laws of the state of New York.

I think the real sin is the fact that the Vatican feels it necessary to tell Catholics what is and isn't sin. Do they do that poor of a job instilling a sense of morality and ethics in their membership?

Fortunately it's only the fringe elements of the parties that are viciously partisan. The vast majority of each party respect each others views and welcome civilized discussion. (I think you would fall comfortably in the latter group)

Doesn't show any evidence at all that Diebold rigged the election. It only shows that some people are sore losers. Score:519-94

Welll not actally.. When the man who controls the company who owns the voting machines.. and he supports you and the rest of your buddies...that way you can make it LOOK like a majority voted for you. Not sure what company you are referring to, but if it is Diebold then I can assure you that is not the case. I know several people who work for Diebold and if there was any rigging of results, Bush would have been buried under a landslide. Not one of my friends there voted for Bush and a couple of them despise him so much they turn red at the mention of his name.

Well said.

Well, witches burn. So does wood. Wood floats. So does a duck. If the suspected witch weighs the same as a duck then she/he is a witch. (To prevent possible damage to the scale the balance beam must be locked in a neutral position throughout the test.) The result is just as reliable as the information gained from someone who will say anything to make the pain stop.

As evidenced by the small number of those tortured into confessing they were witches who actually were witches.

That point can be debated to no end. Are you dishonored living in a country that holds people in a position of royalty for no other reason than their family name? I would if I were you. Does that mean you are dishonored? That is for you to decide and nobody else, least of all me.

If that ever happens, and you had no reason to expect anything other than a parrot show, you should immediately leave and demand your money back. However, if you pay to go see Oprah or Rosie then you should expect a political speech mixed in with the show.

You confuse your own personal feelings about being dishonored with the fact that what the President decides to do does reflect on you as a citizen of his country. Spare me the petty bullshit. I specifically noted in my previous post that I know you disagree with him. What's the point of saying it again except to get that little dig in? See...I KNEW you'd get all pissy! I recognize the fact that what Bush does reflects upon me as a citizen. What YOU fail to acknowledge is that just because you or anyone else may look down upon us because of what he says or does, does not mean everyone or anyone is dishonored. That, my dear boy, is a matter of personal opinion.

You seem to confuse the President speaking for his country, the President vetoing legislation, and somebody assuming every citizen of the U.S. is dishonored by the Presidents actions. You are right, the President does represent his country. I never said he didn't. The President vetoed a bill he didn't agree with. I feel he should have signed it. Am I dishonored because of that? No, quite the contrary. I feel honored to live in a country where we can publicly disagree with our leader's actions. Can anyone...anyone at all...profess to know whether all Americans are dishonored? Not any more than any one person can profess to know that every American likes their eggs over easy. Now, before you have a tantrum and go off on a tangent, I will reinforce to you that I do not agree with Bush on this one. I am not dishonored by it and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that respect.

Yep, he should have signed it. I'll agree with you on that. But I do take issue with your statement that he brings dishonor to all Americans...unless, of course, you have been given some special power that lets you speak for all Americans.

I can agree with that. When a rider decide not to wear a helmet he automatically assumes a greater share of the responsibility for any head injury he may incur, but the idiot who hits him is still liable as before. Could be because helmets prevent a large number of injuries? Just could b worth investigating. The article you presented was an interesting read, but I did find one fault with it. The entire argument was made over the G-forces encountered by the brain during an accident. While all well and good, it is only half the story of what a helmet does. A helmets also, and maybe even more importantly, distributes a blow over a much larger area than the head would see without a helmet. This greatly reduces the stress on the skull and by that greatly reducing the chance of a fracture or localized closed-head injury. Another point I'd like to bring up is injury tolerance of the human body. Our bodies can tolerate massive injuries to the limbs and torso and still recover. Even repeated trauma is survivable. The brain is another story. It is not nearly as tolerant of injury and can, in fact, be destroyed by a microscopic injury such as a stroke or aneurism. That is why ANY helmet is better than none for protection against injury. But, as I said before, I don't always wear one and I don't fault anyone who chooses not to wear one. As far as the law is concerned I think the best compromise is to require a helmet for the first year a person has their motorcycle permit/license/endorsement. (And no passengers during that time either!) That is when the risk of an accident is highest.

The state government did change the date of the election. There is no law that requires them to get permission from the parties to do so. The only reason primaries are held on the date of the general election is for convenience and cost savings. The Dems had a choice, same as the Repubs. They could go ahead and hold their primary the same day as the election, as they have in the past, or they can schedule their own date. They were under no requirement by any law to hold their primary earlier than allowed by DNC rules. The state Dems decided to keep it on the date of the statewide elections. This violated rules that the DNC had laid down. To blame the Republicans for problems within the Democratic party is nonsense. It was no more the Republicans fault than it was yours or mine.

Since the primary is to pick a party nominee and not an elected official, I think the party has the right to set down rules as to the method of choosing that nominee. MI and FLA broke those rules and are suffering the consequences for that. The voters are not being denied any rights since they have not been denied the chance to vote in an election of a public official. That comes later and they can vote for whomever they wish, even if they choose a write-in candidate. So I say what is done is done. Rules were made, then broken, and penalties handed out. Professor, I may be wrong, but wasn't it the Dem party who decided that FLA delegates would not count? I can't see how the government there can tell the parties how they will choose a nominee.

Except gravity.

dude that logic is so flawed it ridiculous have you ever seen the results of SKIN versus Gravel form a low speed or, let alone a high speed slide. Trust me you helmet will safe you way better than a nake skull will from ANY off Yes, I know that from first hand experience. But I'm afraid you misread the part of my post you quoted. I was saying that when my head hits the asphalt (or gravel) there is little to no chance I will be endangering others. Up to that point the helmet is doing nothing but shielding me from bugs.

The water level may be the same, but it appears the fluid level in the bottle behind the experiment has dropped somewhat. I have a feeling that will lead to urination, which in turn will lead to rising sea levels!

Bull and double bull. Quality helmets have NO negative influence on peripheral vision. Period. Though a helmet does have a minimal effect on hearing while in a quiet room, once in the environment of riding a motorcycle, even at rest with the engine idling, there is virtually no negative effect. These myths have been perpetrated for as long as the debate of helmet vs. no helmet has raged. If there ever was any merit to the arguments at all it has long since vanished. If your helmet restricts your vision or hearing to the degree that you feel unsafe, then consider buying a QUALITY helmet. Reputable helmet manufacturers have been at work for decades to give the best vision and hearing possible while wearing their product. If you don't want to wear one and it is legal not to, then don't. I sometimes don't. But if it is NOT legal to go without a helmet and you want to change the laws, then give up on the baseless argument of lessened vision and hearing. Concentrate instead on how those laws needlessly impose upon personal freedom.

Before I write anything else let it be known that I ride when I have a bike. Currently I do not own one. When I ride I usually wear a helmet, but not always. Sometimes, especially when the weather is perfect, I will leave the lid at home and enjoy the wind blowing through my hair. If I crash, burn, and die then I will have done so on a beautiful day. I also will not have harmed any other person in doing so. If such an accident happens, by the time a helmet will have been of use I will have been beyond harming others. On the other hand, seatbelts do more than just protect the driver. They protect other persons in the vehicle from a loose body being flung around inside during a violent wreck. Even when the driver is alone seatbelts keep the driver in place and in a position to potentially keep or regain control of their vehicle. More than once I have hit potholes, etc. that would have thrown me against the roof had I not been wearing a seatbelt. So, yes, seatbelts protect more than just the driver from him or her self. They protect everyone else around them.