Meso

Firstly, no need to show empathy, because in 3 out of the 4 cases I know the people who died were the drunk ones. And I'm not going to have sympathy for some idiot who puts others lives at risk because he is too stupid to control himself. Least he is off the road now, making the innocent people a bit safer. Probably one of the most disturbing thing I've read this week. Yeah because it makes total sense to wait til someone is dead before action is taken. If someone holds a gun to your head and taunts you threatening to kill you, should it only be a crime when he pulls the trigger? How does that even make any sense? Of course it does. Alcohol was directly responsible for the crashes I know of. Maybe we should start letting monkeys drive on the road now too. Apparently blatant threats to life on the road are okay. Maybe let 9 year olds drive too, oh hell - why even bother with the license. We can just wait til they crash and then think of the issue, because it is only wrong when it kills someone, not when it posses a threat. And all of the above are fucking idiots. And those are things that need to be made illegal too and by the previous post it seems as though it is. Because those things are legal doesn't mean one should make drunk driving legal, that's absurd. As stated above, that's a HUGE chunk of the figures and it's easily controllable. One just needs to use common sense. Quite frankly I hope that those who do drive drunk kill themselves in a crash. Any reduction in the number of selfish asses on the road is a good thing. The less of them on the road, the safer I can feel, as someone who doesn't drive like an idiot. How one can be so apathetic to the facts and the act is just beyond my comprehension.

I think it mostly comes down to knowing your child. Social networks have a stigma to them, but fact is that if you want to keep your child from the 'dangers of the net', you need to take away their cell-phones, ban them from internet cafes and discuss whether or not every one of their friends have constant access to a PC. Remember that google is probably more dangerous than facebook. I can assure you the things going on through cell-phones with kids seems to be far worse than whatever can happen on facebook. Remember pictures are easily shared via MMS through phones where there is no easy way to share 'dodgy' images on facebook. I think one should just give them rules, like no adding people who they haven't already met and no adults unless they're family. It's easy to monitor a profiles friends list. My niece and nephew have facebook accounts (10 and 13) and I have them added, I just make sure that I block them from all my status updates and only make my photo uploads visible to them. And adults who have kids added should think about that too, if they're going to be making obscene statuses, they should block the status from the kids. But again, I don't see it as any worse than the outside world. If your kid is standing in line at a take-outs place there is probably the same risk at overhearing something inappropriate. I think it depends a lot on the child and the relationship between the parent and child and how well they know them. I know that as an extremely socially awkward and shy kid, I would have probably been able to have far more friends if I had access to a social networking platform where I could actually talk to people easier. In the end, as I see it, it is both understandable for some parents to let their kids have them and for others not to.

Yup. I don't know anyone personally who has been killed by a gun - but I know several who have died from drunk driving related accidents, whether it was their fault or someone else's. And it's all well and good to say that "they will pay for it when they crash", but the reality is it always seems to be some innocent person who pays for someone else's idiocy.

It's not trolling if you state something that holds truth and that is your opinion. It is trolling when you say something completely stupid that holds no relation to fact, just to provoke a negative response. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to try get someone banned for that kind of trolling. But it's weak to troll in discussion threads. Of course, I may be completely wrong and he may actually believe that the vast majority of Muslims blow themselves up, but hey - then there'd be bigger worries than me being wrong.

Nice trolling... It's ignorant to associate every Muslim, or even the majority of Muslims with militant violence. That's such a tiny fraction and to think otherwise is just false. With over 2 million Muslims in the U.S, I'd like to see the amount which 'blow themselves up'. And Christians aren't expecting that? Maybe you should read your bible some more. The bible uses the same incentives. And it was definitely a big thing in 'Sunday School' where they would reference how if you believe you will be given crowns of gold in heaven for your good acts on earth. Revelation 21 also talks about heaven being made of pearls and gold and other gems. It is clear that heaven works on the same rewards principle as Islam. Do good things, be rewarded with gold streets and beautiful cities of gems and be given riches. Now I can already picture that in true Christian nature some may try the "It's supposed to be metaphorical", but that argument can be used for any religion offering the same 'rewards' in heaven. The virgins could represent the untouched and pure nature of Allah. Both religions clearly offer the idea of incentives for getting into heaven. So the idea that Christians died solely to spread the message is no way supported by biblical promises.

Oh sweet Jesus... I've heard some terrible stories of bad pickup lines but that takes the cake. Looking at that pickup line worded differently. "Hey, excuse me - but can you please see if I perhaps pissed myself." I'm offended you hold it in contrast to my spamming line! :p

Not sure if he still does, but - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=320444;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC#325381 Shhhh

"Hey baby, mind if I fill your PM box with my spam" Sounds about right...

Sounds potentially metaphorical.

We can change that... You people know the rules, pics or it didn't happen.

Touche.

Haha, oh I'd be so there. Except it may be a bit awkward when Sangiro lurks said thread and sees me in the office the next day. With great power comes great restraint at exposing one's man-parts. And I don't think it could handle TWO well-hung tattooed punks

I have been doing it wrong, clearly! I thought it was a site to argue day in and day out about topics that will never get solved. Sup ladies

The following scam has been reported: Click here to read more about these kind of scams. Remember: DO NOT do business with anyone who offers to send you payment for a higher amount than your selling price with the understanding that you'll send back the balance. Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a "client" or another "customer". Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be from Nigeria or West Africa If you agree to accept a check payment, then do not send anything, gear or "change" before the check cleared. And be careful, if you manage to clear a fraudulent check then you may be liable for the damages if the bank finds out later. Make sure your bank authenticates the check. If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.This username has been disabled.

Bumping due to recent activity from this user. If you received a message from him, note that he is a scammer. Ignore his e-mails and do not send any items.

I swear I've come across greeting cards that suggest otherwise

By understand, you mean seeks to think exactly the same way as you. I've lived long enough, both as a Christian and an Atheist to have spent many years trying to 'understand'. That sounds like a way of just keeping people from scrutinizing something. Maybe politicians should try use that line "If you don't agree with my plan then you must not understand it, stop mocking it and spend more time examining why I`m right" Why would not having an opinion be a requirement for a moderator? Moderating a forum means you take unbiased action when reprimanding or issuing punishment. It does not have anything to do with taking a neutral stance on issues discussed. I will express my opinions, but you won't see me dishing out personal attacks of breaking site rules.

No but you see, there's obviously a reason for that! It's just that you can't comprehend the almighty and powerful workings of God. He is obviously doing it to prove a point that is more important or has his reason. And who are you to try suggest otherwise! And if that fails, you can always blame Satan. I mean come'on, duh!

I was impressed by the beginning of Jon Huntsman's campaign. His initial statements as to the type of campaign he'd desire to run was a breath of fresh air in politics. Whether he will continue to follow through with them is another question, but definitely has the right mind set. And while I may not agree with all of his ideals, if someone from the Republicans had to win, I definitely think he would be the right guy. Problem is that he is close to being a moderate so it may put off some of the Republicans. But if they're willing to sacrifice some social issues for more conservative fiscal beliefs and what appears to be a man with the right mind set - then hopefully if the Dems loose, it will be to him. Though time will tell if he stays true to his opening words.

If America was going to vote on a Mormon Republican, I'd much rather see it be Jon Huntsman than Romney.

Considering I haven't read any news articles on the matter and that idea was based solely off what I have heard from American friends, most of which are Republicans, I'm afraid your assumption is wrong. It's not about Democrats or Republicans when it comes to religion, it's about the religious history of American presidents and the general religious masses in the U.S. I can assure you there is a large amount of Christian voters who'd be willing to support a candidate based solely on religion. To quote a study on NPR "White evangelical Christians, about 34 percent of them, say they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate." And I'm pretty sure that most white evangelical Christians most typically sit on the right. I don't need the media to tell me what to think, I just have to look at typical voting patterns, common thought processes and the mind set of voters in most cases to establish that religion can definitely affect the votes you receive.

The following scam has been reported: Click here to read more about these kind of scams. Remember: DO NOT do business with anyone who offers to send you payment for a higher amount than your selling price with the understanding that you'll send back the balance. Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a "client" or another "customer". Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be from Nigeria or West Africa If you agree to accept a check payment, then do not send anything, gear or "change" before the check cleared. And be careful, if you manage to clear a fraudulent check then you may be liable for the damages if the bank finds out later. Make sure your bank authenticates the check. If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.This username has been disabled.

Looking at it from what the most unbiased point I can. Obama has failed in many regards and hasn't lived up to the claims that got him elected (as if there's ever been any difference in politicians). But at the same time, the Republican party is extremely weak. Probably the best candidate is a Mormon, so highly unlikely he'd get mass support. If the Republicans are wanting to get anything out of the Democrats weak position, they will need to come up with much better candidates. People tend to chose the lesser of two evils, and that is what will likely save the Democrats if it continues as is.

The following scam has been reported: Click here to read more about these kind of scams. Remember: DO NOT do business with anyone who offers to send you payment for a higher amount than your selling price with the understanding that you'll send back the balance. Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a "client" or another "customer". Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be from Nigeria or West Africa If you agree to accept a check payment, then do not send anything, gear or "change" before the check cleared. And be careful, if you manage to clear a fraudulent check then you may be liable for the damages if the bank finds out later. Make sure your bank authenticates the check. If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.This username has been disabled.

The following scam has been reported: Click here to read more about these kind of scams. Remember: DO NOT do business with anyone who offers to send you payment for a higher amount than your selling price with the understanding that you'll send back the balance. Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a "client" or another "customer". Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be from Nigeria or West Africa If you agree to accept a check payment, then do not send anything, gear or "change" before the check cleared. And be careful, if you manage to clear a fraudulent check then you may be liable for the damages if the bank finds out later. Make sure your bank authenticates the check. If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.This username has been disabled.