GarthP2000

Speaking of green beer and Irish jokes: >> Mick Flaherty had been sucking them up at Mahoney's bar all day, when he >> finally staggered out into the light of day. As he stood on the sidewalk >> getting stabilized, an abulance roared by -- bells ringing, lights flashing, >> horn blaring. >> Sure, and Mick took out runnin' after it. A hundred yards, 200 yards, >> a quarter mile... an' then his legs and lungs gave out. >> As Mick sank into the gutter, he shook his fist at the rapidly >> disappearing vehicle and exclaimed, " Aw right then, yer can keep yer >> damn' ice cream!" Happy St. Patty's Day

"Who the hell dug this moat around my house?!?"

:o :o :o Man! That *is* dating yourself, dude! Talk about 'many, many moons ago'.

Really? How many people did that kill?

If you actually do find it, try putting it up on YouTube. ..... then again, maybe not.

Alabama, Hell, Yes, We Have Electricity. ... and only 2 books.

ChattyKathy, This particular situation has nothing to do with the love of the creator or lack of it. And contrary to Ducktape's presumptions, there is no 'animal rights' extremism' exhibited here; at worst there is some faulty judgement exhibited by keeping the dog. But nothing that can amount to the degrading of anyone's rights, human, property or otherwise. Just maintaining the moral right of the dog to live and not be abused like a piece of trash. And I think that our free society can allow that.

From what I understand, she isn't returning the dog because the dog because of the endangerment to his life and health. Now perhaps she should then turn the dog over to the animal control that is in another county or someone who she can trust who won't wind up returning the dog back to his abusive owner.

Not when that 'property', ie., in this case a living animal, is being abused to the point of suffering and death, O patriotic one. Hell, people have been intervening on behalf of suffering animals LONG before the Patriot Act was a gleam in John Achtuncroft's eye. So spare us the long, tired refrain of "The Commies are taking all of our rights away!!" ... It gets old after a while. Your rights are still intact.

Ductape, (my apologies for the earlier name calling) You aren't asking any honest questions here, pal. You come across an issue that you take to be an 'extreme liberal' one, and without any further thought, you attempt to rip it to shreds. To hell with the animals who are suffering at the hands of thoughtless twits. To hell with any attempt to limit animal cruelty just cuz the animals are the 'property' of the owners. And so to avoid some slippery slope of your own imagining, we gotta avoid taking the animals from their cruel owners, no matter how much they are being abused. And all your comparisons in your posts here don't even come near comparatively this incident in question. All she did was rescue the dog from starving to death and keeping the owner from abusing it further, and you get your panties in a wad and act like the animal rights extremists are blowing up the WTC. Yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, and all cloaked in the name of liberty and property. Crap like yours make me gag. I fully applaud what she did. 100%!

Trying to feed icky stuff to a cat to make him vomit. ..... GOOD LUCK!!

There is another option in what to feed your pets, so as to avoid what not to feed them. Pet food. I don't mean to sound trite (really, I don't ), but I pretty much keep my cat on the safe side by only feeding him cat food. I just focus on the brand that he takes to quicker than others. Works for me anyway.

Oh, he'll win the election all right. With the background that FreeAtLast gave us, he'll win. They always do. <_<

MarkO, I was at dinner with my mother discussing our family history, and she mentioned that her mom (my maternal grandmother) got married at age 13. 13, fer crying out loud. And back during those days people were getting married (and I'm talking strictly the heterosexual variety) at 14-16. And that is including the more-than-the-occasional situations where one of the partners was significantly older. So, you take this general knowledge about history, and compare it with what you just posted, and you'll see that the earlier starting age of beginning sexual activity isn't so specific to the homosexual 'aberration', as it were. But that in the official, society-approved, heterosexual world of marriage, the average marrying age has only moved ahead, relatively speaking. Just some info to keep in mind. :)

If this isn't solid proof that Catholics have better taste in entertainment than Calvinists, I don't know what does. Thanks for the laugh MarkO. Cynic, ..... do NOT quit your day job.

I just thought of something, MarkO. In this day and age of the 'Net, if someone wanted to make it 'official' in leaving the Catholic Church, couldn't the Church leadership give an online version where you can fill out a form, and send it in by secure server, and all that? Just a thought. ..... Carry on.

Yup! Orthodoxy! That *magic pill* that cures all ills! (from Wikipedia) -- Man, I tell ya! I thought I heard it all when I listen to people decry heresy and dissent, but this is the first time I heard it now being accused of being THE source and cause of all the child abuses and related crap that goes on. But get us all some orthodox priests with 'steel in their spine' (Father Rambo? ) to keep us all ((cough))like minded((cough)), ... and problem solved! But seriously MarkO, that one really made my day. Thanks for the belly laugh!

MarkO, Not to worry, as I'm not gonna go Jack Chick on you. (he's a real hoot. Landover Baptist oughtta hire him. ) The only thing I could initially think of upon reading your first post here was "So this explains the origin of endless paperwork, bureaucracy, and design by committee." :wacko: See, this is the first time I've ever heard of a church/denomination going to such extents for something like this. I even almost expected to see something like "and make sure that you submit said form in triplicate and on legal stationary." Hey! At least they don't expect you to fill it all out in Latin, ehhh? :o Sudo, Not to worry. The doctrine went through a recent upgrade. Limbo has now been absorbed into heaven. Apparently there was some recent expansion up there to allow for all the babies previously in limbo. New nurseries or somethin' like that. :P

You know, I find it rather at once fascinating, and yet sad in a way, that the theory of evolution seems to be treated as such a freekin' threat by many of those who strongly believe in God. Not all, to be sure, as there are many of those whose belief in God isn't threatened by, and who have no problem accepting the (still increasing) evidence supporting evolution. Yet (IMO) those who reject the concept, the theory of evolution, almost seem to do so out of fear, out of a "No! No! This just cannot BE!!" kind of reaction, as tho' if evolution were proved or shown to be true, their whole belief in God would fall to pieces, life would somehow lose its meaning, etc., etc. :ph34r: Myself, I look at that video, and I have that same awe and inspiration about the complexity of life that many believers get. The same point of view that life *means* something. And yet I have no urge to have some diety attached to that as something that has just *got* to be there, lest the complexity of life just cannot come to pass. If God is so true and real, then how could this fact be threatened by evolution in any way, size, shape, or form? ((Putting on the asbestos overcoat, and awaiting the maelstorm of angry responses, ... which basically would help to illustrate my point ))

Abigail, got a question for you. What does the Star of David mean anyway? And where did it come from? Thanks.

I take it that some folks here saw the "Snakes on the Plane" version of the mile high club? ;) wooo woooo ... that snake can really *bite*!

Well, at least the Bears didn't do some stupid video about the Superbowl Shuffle this year.

So the coach "gave God the glory". ..... And your point is? Greasytech makes a good and valid point. And such a valid point would then mean that the idea that God stepped in and 'assisted' the Colts in winning the game would be a rather cheap representation of Him, wouldn't you say? Ie., the Colts won that game all by themselves, due to their persistancy and hard work at winning the game, (well, that, and the continuous screwups by the Bears ) ... despite whatever social custom of religious praise to God that the coach gave. And that's all it really is anyway, ... a social custom. And nothing more than that.

THE COLTS WIN IT!!!!! THE COLTS WIN IT!!!!!

I feel bad for the fans who bet $$$$$ on Chicago!