great another stupid kid in the politics forum, like we need more of them. thanks for discrediting yourself early so from now on, now i can consider all future posts of yours like those of Gladiator or Econamatrix.

i dont understand why you would bow to a monarch and not an elected official in an equally powerful position. what is the intent of the bow? is it a sign of respect? a sign that you are what their service? a sign of reverence? what purpose does a bow have that would make it appropriate for presidents to do towards monarchs but not for other leaders to do towards presidents?

im suspicious of any story that relies on calling a piece of text "the lost bible".

> sKoE )= wrote:

> Now THATS a dud gift...lol.

you sir are  all talk and no walk

> ☠ARFeh☠ wrote:

> Obama is the greatest troll evar.

interesting statement there

3. a vibrator

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> It's not physically addictive. People get addicted to porn, video games, sex, good food, good friends, nice cars, jewelry, money, music, and countless other things more harmfully than marijuana.

There only argument that's been given here justifying the outlaw of this plant is "well I feel that it's harmful." If that's your only standard, may God save us all. From you.

Disgusting.

we did not outlaw pot, we dont have to justify banning it. you have to justify legalizing it. thats the change you want, and you havent provided a valid reason why it should be legalized. you just argue it should of never been made illegal; but it was and you cant blame anyone on these forum, that it was, because they had no impact on it being banned.

"
You have no right to interfere in the actions of men whose actions have 0 impact on you."

people have impace on one another. there probably isnt a man in the country who wouldnt be able to have an impact on me in some way or shape.

"When in doubt, error on the side of personal freedom."

addictions whether physical or psychological, are governments and infringe on personal freedom.

so you're upset because the government is doing with car companies what it has been doing with banks for a long time?

i think you're failing to look at the big picture. the main argument against letting GM go bankrupt and sort out their finances in bankruptcy was that consumers wouldnt buy cars from a company that declared bankrupcty out of fear that they wouldnt be around later to service their cars. The democrats are removing this reason; looks like they're going to let GM go bankrupt; the democrats lost faith in GM and they're cutting them off while saving face.

> You_Fool wrote:

> well no, and neither are any of teh people posting here... in fact i don't see one intelligent word in the whole thread...

then why you singling them out?

"
But my point is that the consideration that the work is "low" is a result of archaic beliefs."

all our beleifs are archaic at least in origin.

if the reason why they called the police was purely because of race, then it was racist of them. if they did it because how they were talking or how they were dressed in regards to the setting they were in, it wouldnt be racist, if its partially about the race, then its partially racist of them...