User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7622 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
My bad. Then yes we are in fact on the same page.
I agree, and arguably it's a solid evidence in favor of the idea that they need a man (or woman) to make history. The circumstances have been ideal for a Mandela-like leader to emerge, but none have so far.
The degree of difficulty is raised when the Israeli government adopts a policy of targeted assassination of moderate Palestinian leaders and funds more fundamentalist, violence-prone organizations like Hamas, precisely to prevent any such leader from emerging.
Ayup.
I thought we were discussing English common law and England. Yes, those rules were changed in the US, but in practice rather than in law. Even Plessy v. Ferguson is consistent with the common law rule -- common carriers were required to take black passengers and had to offer them equal service, even if separate.
Those signs you mention weren't statements of law, they were ignoring the law. Which is what much of Jim Crow consisted.
There's also the problem that "new" Palestinian leaders almost always seem to arise when established leaders are deemed too moderate/willing to compromise with the Israelis and teh new guys always seem to try to outflank the older leaders by being more aggressive/intransigent- for instance Hamas bled off support from Fatah by being even more anti-Israel
BBTF is indeed Jim's playground and he can enforce, or not enforce, the rules as capriciously and arbitrarily as he likes. Just as you're free to exploit your relationship with Jim to attempt to protect yourself from the consequences of your bad behavior. It's all part of the game, but that doesn't mean certain actions can't be... illuminating.
You slurred yourself. Your subsequent unwillingness to own what you say isn't really relevant. Jim may run cover for you here, but it won't change what you said.
It is in both Israel and Hamas's best interests to keep the Palestinian leadership as "radical" as possible.
I did no such thing. Nothing I've said in this thread or any other is even vaguely antisemitic, and your accusation was clearly slanderous. Pretty much everyone but Kehoskie agrees with that, I suspect.
Sending an email is "exploiting an relationship?" You're a funny little paranoid loon sometimes, Face.
That's a good layout of the logic and chronology of the civil rights movement, and I'm not disputing any of it. And of course without the existence of a sense of contradiction between American ideals and American practice, a tension that after World War II began to emerge almost exclusively in the North, the civil rights movement never would have been able to succeed. To that extent, there was a difference "in kind" between the North and the South.
My point was that in the day-to-day life of African Americans in the North, at least before the mid-1950's, that difference "in kind" wasn't always that easy to discern. Let's take 1950 as a starting point, and try to note some of those differences along with some of the similarities.
In the North, residential segregation was even more ironclad than in the South. Those thousands of "Sundown Towns" were but the most extreme example of a much broader practice, codified in restrictive racial clauses in every housing contract.**
One major difference between the South and the border states WRT to "the Negro" was that in the border states he was less likely to be lynched. But by 1950 lynching was a rare occurrence even in the worst parts of the South.
The right to vote was secure in the North, almost nonexistent in the Deep South, and divided along urban-rural lines in the Upper South (North Carolina and Virginia) and the border states. Before the 1965 voting rights law was passed, there were parts of eastern North Carolina and rural Virginia that were nearly as bad as Alabama or Mississippi when it came to enforcement of the right to vote for blacks.
Schools were legally segregated from Maryland and Delaware and all points south, and de facto segregated in nearly all of the North, with isolated exceptions here and there that mostly were in "transitional" neighborhoods.
Public accommodations (restaurants, hotels, etc.) were 100% segregated from Maryland / Delaware on down, and while they were integrated by law in much of the North, there were plenty of places where service was denied to blacks without any legal repercussions. This sort of illegal restrictiveness was also applied to Jews even in places like New York City before it was finally stopped for good during the late 40's and early 1950's.
Discriminatory hiring was nearly universal in the North outside of CIO-controlled union shops*** (the AFL was largely made up of white-only craft unions), and discriminatory promotions were simply taken as a given, with virtually no exceptions. You could tell how rare these exceptions were by the fact that EBONY magazine would run feature stories of the occasional black person who got promoted to some deputy assistant managerial post in this or that branch of a large chain operation, one token among hundreds or thousands of whites.
All-white police forces were the rule rather than the exception throughout both the North and the South, with but a few token black policemen assigned even to black neighborhoods like Harlem. The thought of assigning a black man to patrol a white neighborhood would have been considered unthinkable anywhere in the country up until very late in the game.
And in terms of government hiring in general, there was almost no difference at all between North and South. In both cases, blacks were hired almost exclusively in two limited areas: Janitorial positions; and as teachers and deputy administrators in all-black schools, controlled by their white bosses. In the North you'd get a scattering of black social workers who were restricted solely to black "clients", but other than that there was almost no discernible difference between North and South.
Put all the above together, and that's the point I was making. It doesn't contradict anything you wrote in #698, but rather it should be seen as more of a complement, a kind of addendum to the points about the civil rights movement that we totally agree on.
**Those clauses were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1948, but that ruling had little effect in practice. It was only after those government guns began to back up that ruling in the 1968 fair housing laws that we began to see a bit of a breakup of the formerly all-white neighborhood patterns in the North.
***Those HORRIBLE union shops that made nondiscriminatory hiring a part of their contract negotiations, thereby robbing the company owner of his bedrock "freedom of choice" to discriminate.
Hamas bled off support from Fatah because Fatah couldn't do anything to improve the lives of everyday Palestinians. Israel made sure they couldn't.
The popularity of Hamas has little to do with its stance towards Israel and much more to do with the various charity and social programs that it runs.
Like theft, for example?
As to the larger point, the left-wing BBTF cheering section does routinely engage in these round-robin (no pun intended) attack-rests where they debate which conservative or libertarian around here they hate more. (With certain libertarians getting the dreaded label of "reasonable.") Sam is an outlier only in that he never contributes anything substantive besides the attacks. I'm not sure what the specific personal attack on him was on the previous page, and whether it crossed some sort of TOS line, but the best strategy is simply never to take anything Sam says seriously, like all of his RL acquaintances don't.
One would necessarily argue that liberty is the highest happiness, or good, then work on ways to maximize that greatest good for the greatest number. Libertarians, then, shouldn't be arguing that their primary interest is in maximizing liberty (and I don't know that they do so argue).
I think it's silly when libertarians or their opponents pretend that the smallest degree of liberty trumps every other concern. Nobody is "only" a libertarian.
Part of the problem with having a discussion is a lack of agreement on terms; some people refer to "economic liberty" or "social liberty," concepts which libertarians tend to reject as overbroad. If you force me to put my political philosophy into a sound bite, it would be "leave each person alone to do what he or she chooses, so long as he or she is not violating the autonomy of another's body, mind, or property; hold people accountable for their actions that do violate the autonomy of others." That's what I want to maximize in a utilitarian sense, and the paradox is that we need a society that at times directly violates that principle in order to maximize its application.
While I could make a moral argument in favor of this approach, I don't see that as particularly useful, because many of us have a different moral code. Instead, I frame it as a pragmatic argument: people are going to disagree over what is right, so we can minimize conflict by allowing each individual to behave according to a personal moral code within his or her individual domain. Similarly, I would argue that some wealth redistribution is necessary in a pragmatic sense: a large underclass that is denied basic human rights creates a risk of rebellion and the destruction of society.
People don't try to overthrow the government because they aren't allowed to enter restaurants in a particular town. They do try to overthrow the government if they are starving.
I'm a victim too, wearing my denim shackles.
I'm opposed to laws that prohibit public nudity. In my utopian society, you can wear or not wear pants as you choose.
That's a pretty serious accusation. I'm interested in reading some citations supporting this if you can provide them.
You appear to think that the various elements of Jim Crow are somehow separable: can't go into the diner: tolerable; separate drinking fountains: not my problem; lynching: bad and needs to be stamped out.
Not allowing blacks into the restaurant and lynching are two sides of the same coin, part of the same culture, a product of the same attitudes. One brings the other in its wake. If you tolerate one you are implicitly tolerating the other.
Most libertarians opposed federal prosecutions on federalism grounds. The fact that they "opposed" the refusal by state authorities to prosecute private violence was meaningless.
Andy,
I think we agree very much. In fact I would argue that the more open southern oppression and fight againsgt it really helped surface all the northern oppression in everyone's minds and without that foil work against what was happening in the north would have been much harder and a longer fight. Through the fight against Jim Crow was the entire rotten ediface exposed to the the light.
(And it would obviously depend what they were being prosecuted for, as to whether it would fit within the bounds of federalism. But certainly prosecutions of state actors for violating the civil rights of individuals would have been justified.)
yes it's my understanding that the targeted assassinations are aimed at, well the more violent fellows, and in recent years have been aimed at Hamas and some other groups- but not Fatah
I wouldn't say routinely, but I would say that it happens too often.
Sometimes comments about Joe or Ray (generally those two, but sometimes other people), cross what I would consider to be a line. It's sort of tricky because they both post with their real name (or have done so in the past), so people generally refer to them as such (which makes the situation somewhat different).
When I've noted this in the past, I've tried to say something about it, but it really doesn't do that much. This is something that actually bothers me, because I'm not really sure what to do about it. Speaking up about it doesn't seem to do much. I don't think that asking Jim to police the site more heavily is really an option either. Not that I'm advocating it, but this is the advantage of threaded comments, where you can downrank bad comments and eventually hide them from view.
Is there an actual statute or some case law that demonstrates this position (prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act)? If this were the established law of the land, then why was Title XII even necessary? Are you suggesting that it changed nothing about the legal status of a shopkeeper's right to discriminate as it had existed over the prior 450 years or so?
Anyone within sight of me would be a victim if I wasn't wearing clothes.
I think we agree very much. In fact I would argue that the more open southern oppression and fight againsgt it really helped surface all the northern oppression in everyone's minds and without that foil work against what was happening in the north would have been much harder and a longer fight. Through the fight against Jim Crow was the entire rotten ediface exposed to the the light.
Totally agree. It wasn't for nothing that it was often said that Bull Connor and his Birmingham Police Department were the best friends that the civil rights movement ever had.
Like theft, for example?
Absolutely. The fact that theft is undesirable is not sufficient justification for banning it. The fact that a modern society cannot exist without a healthy respect for property rights, however, lends additional justification that passes the threshold.
Nude?
Fine.
But the first fat bastard that "Donald Ducks" in *my* utopian society gets the taser-and-billy-club treatment.
A decent society's got to draw the line somewhere, after all ...
Fatah is mostly spent as a political force. The targeting of Hamas is designed to weaken its legitimacy in favor of even more radical and violent groups.
I don't accept that at all. Kicking you out of my restaurant because I don't like the color of your skin doesn't violate your bodily autonomy, and lynching most certainly does. It is a substantial difference in kind, not merely degree.
Would it help if I phrased it as "Every man has a Property in his own Person"? (What I love about Sam's pretense at being an intellectual is that he shows no understanding of the fact that these ideas did not originate with me. It's one thing to attempt to mount a logical challenge to them; it's another to dismiss them with a handwave without grasping their pedigree, as though they sprung half-formed from Ron Paul's tongue.)
I've discovered that putting one rather prolific poster on ignore actually tremendously improve my experience with this site, though I still sometimes see this guy's nonsense because others see fit to copy and paste it- but that's ok- they generally do that to call out his BS which usually obviates my urge to do likewise.
But it does violate the contract you have with society and the person you are kicking out since he is part of society and helping to subsidize your establishment.
Again, this is a pretty strong accusation. When you go so far as to say "is designed to," there's a bit higher standard of proof. I'd like to see some evidence that this is indeed the motivation of the Israeli government before I'm going to accept this as true.
What about the person who wants access to my physical body? He's helping to subsidize my safety; why shouldn't he have access if he wants it? Why isn't that violating the contract? Your position allows any sort of violation of autonomy, since autonomy is "subsidized" by society.
Because we've all entered into a contract over that as well and some of the terms of the contract does allow access to your body at times.
I love the ignore feature.
You really have got to be kidding, seriously, you have got to be kidding.
A major failing of this sort of philosophy (in my mind) is the refusal to acknolwedge externalities. Pollution is the obvious one (factory owner pollutes and does not bear the cost of this pollution and so has no incentive to modify their behavior as economic theory dictates they should. I think there are also externalities around basic rights that go way past what your formulation acknowledges.
Having places of business being allowed to discriminate who they serve costs everyone in society, and the cost to the owner of the business is less than that born by society (similar to the pollution example). If a business discriminates against 10% of the population their opportunity cost is 10% of their business (minus those of the 90% offended + those of the 90% who prefer things that way). The cost to society in all its forms is much higher.
* Business are overall less efficient at delivering whatever the business does (the business in question is almost certainly the best choice of some of the discriminated against).
* Any business which needs a certain population density to be profitable such that the discrimnated against in total numbers don't meet that density then they will be shut out of that service. In other words if a town can only support one of business X and that business discrimnates then not only are the discrimnated against paying the penalty, but the area is deprived of any value generated. Basically it is better if resources (such as those offered by businesses) are well allocated, it leads to more productivity, more tax revenues and so on. By allowing resources to be poorly allocated all of society pays the price.
* By excluding the discrimnated from some public spaces it reinforces that it is OK to have discrimination - society is givng its OK to discrimnate. Behavior which encourages separation, encourages anything which can lead to stress in a society (which discrimnation clearly does) imposes a cost on that soceity, one not fully born by the businesses in question.
An example of this concept(not perfect, but I hope illustrative), to bring it around to baseball, is pre-integration baseball. Because of social externalities society as a whole was hurt far more in aggregate than baseball ownership could possibly have gained individually from banning blacks (assuming they gained anything at all). The quality of baseball was harmed, society was deprived of higher quality baseball, but baseball ownership did not bear the full cost of those decisions and because of the circumstances (and their actions) avoided much of it.
In a perfect world segregated baseball could never have lasted as long as it did, but the world is not perfect. Eventually baseball got there before they were forced to by the government, but I think that saysd more about the failure of government and society than it does the success of Libertarian philosophy. In any event I think the external cost of what happened is clear and hopefully illustrates the costs I am speaking of.
The genius of democracy is you can in fact overthrown your government over any darn thing you want, by voting. The barrier to revolution is lower than in other forms of government.
I resisted this for many years, but finally gave in. My results were the same (although to be fair, I do have two names in my list).
I'm curious as to who gets put on ignore the most, I assume Jim knows or has way of knowing- maybe he could start a thread showing who is on ignore at any given time and how many have them on ignore...
Though I suppose if he did, some might see it as a contest as to who can be the most offensive.
They're no longer allowed here, but I suppose that Kevin and Rob Base were on a lot of people's ignore lists...
OTOH the guy I have on ignore isn't remotely close to merit being banned, he's not verbally abusive or offensive, I just found his brand of stupidity to be really really grating to me after awhile.
Overplaying your hand again. We would all laugh if it were not so childish and pathetic.
No statutes, we're talking about a common law rule. That means there is no statute. The CRA did a couple of things: (1) As DMN noted above, it extended the common law rule to a variety of business that wouldn't have been covered by the c.l. rule (not all businesses were -- it mostly applied to common carriers and to innkeepers). (2) It eliminated the rule of Plessy that "separate but equal" satisfied the rule. In addition, it extended liability in some cases to private actors rather than state actors.
If you want a good book on the common law rule, I recommend Fairness And Justice by Haar and Fessler.
I think you are wrong. Non-violence is about achieving political aims through means other than violence. Just as there were blacks in the south that wanted to rise up and kill whitey, there are palistinians that want to kill jews full stop. These groups are not who I am talking about, obviously, and the fact you want to conflate them to make your argument easier does not make it so.
If the goal is peace in the middle east, then the best strategy is non-violence as a tool to enact political goals. Tehre are many reason for this. First of all for many things it is very effective, much moreso than violence. Second of all non-violence can really only be effectively utilized for moral objectives (for want of a better term), it flat does not work for genocide or other such things (for what I hope are obvious reasons).
So if you want to ascribe only immoral goals to palistinians then yeah I can see where you believe non-violence is not relevent to the discussion. That does not make it reality though.
Out of curiousity, what is your answer to the situation in the mideast? If non-violence is a non-starter and the palistinians in total are all about immoral goals (a very strong charge to ascribe that to everyone, or even a plurality) then what is the answer, unending violence? I content if that is the answer then you are asking the wrong question.
No. You do not. Ownership is an subject-object relationship. You are not an object to yourself. You are yourself. This is a flaw of your ontology.
No, David, it would not help to quote the Second Treatise because, *gasp*, Locke is also wrong. Descartes? Wrong! You are your body. You don't own your body. Any proposition depending on the notion of this duality distinction is incorrect from the start.
They are looking for autonomy, self-government, and protection of their property -- all good libertarian values. Right now Palestinian land is being taken, by force, by Israeli settlers. Palestinian olive groves are being cut down. Palestinian homes are being bulldozed. They want those things to stop.
How about not having to pass through an Israeli Army check point when going from one Palestinian village to another? Not having Israeli control your imports and exports?
Not having Israel unilaterally decide who can build what and where.
People whose ancestors lived in Israel 2000 years ago can freely immigrate, become citizens and vote, people whose ancestors lived in Israel 70 years ago cannot.
Jews in the West Bank and Gaza were Israeli citizens who could vote in Israel elections, non-Jews were not allowed to vote until the toothless and powerless Palestinian "Authority" was established.
The more extreme members of the settler movement have engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment against Palestinians since the 1970s (burning down Olive Groves was a fave trick)- then running and hiding behind the IDF.
I know none of this bothers you, just as you are seemingly unbothered by Jim Crow in this Country- and by that I mean that you claim that Jim Crow conditions were wrong while simultaneously opposing every single thing tat would or could have alleviated those conditions.
The Nazis in Germany can fairly be branded as people who simply wanted to kill Jews, if the average Germany had any legitimate (grounded in reality) grievances against Jews or Jewish organizations I've never heard of one. The Palestinians OTOH have seen massive Jewish immigration, Israeli control of most aspects of Palestinian life, relegation to second class citizenship status, or simply non-status- of course their should be blame all around- against their won leaders, against Egypt and Jordan and their other Arab "brothers," but to facilely claim that the Palestinians have no cause at all is just completely ludicrous and "unserious"
I gather he/she is speaking for he/she.
And I hate to tar one of my fellow travelers :-) with this brush but I suspect that in Auntie Bea you have picked up your very own personal troll.
Edit- actually AuntBea seems to be long term poster who recently changed his/her handle, but damned if I know who it is-
David at his best is a thought-provoking, well informed person whom I'm rarely on the same page with (when it comes to politics. We're pretty close when it comes to baseball).
He and Ray were on my read list on usenet (as was Tom Nawrocki, Ben Hitz, Szym, sAM, Chris Dial. Those are just the names I recognize -- and I'm certain I'm missing some obvious names. I know there are other rsb alum here and I probably had all of them in my read list -- it wasn't a small list)
Ray can be funny when he puts his mind to it, to me Dave's snark seems to misfire, but to each his own.
Ray is amusing over drinks. David always chickens out. I think he's a'feard of me.
I think you're reading not what I wrote, but your own characterization of what you think my position is. Externalities are accounted for by the "hold people accountable for the harm they do others" piece.
Having places of business being allowed to discriminate who they serve costs everyone in society, and the cost to the owner of the business is less than that born by society (similar to the pollution example).
You are shifting from "violates autonomy" to "cost." I acknowledge that there is a cost to society when some members are inconsiderate jerks, but the standard isn't "does something bad." The standard is "violates autonomy of body, mind, and private property" or "is necessary for society to function competitively in the global community."
Legalization of cocaine is almost certainly a net cost to society. Cocaine doesn't make us a more efficient economy, it doesn't improve individual health (generally speaking); it generally does not improve people other than creating temporary, artificial euphoria. Yet cocaine should be completely legal, because the government should not be imposing some standard of efficiency on its citizens. If you want to make the tradeoff of reduced productivity in exchange for euphoria, it is none of my business.
There's an enormous cost to society in the proliferation of anti-scientific nonsense. Yet government should not ban young-earth creationism or astrology.
The genius of democracy is you can in fact overthrow your government over any darn thing you want, by voting. The barrier to revolution is lower than in other forms of government.
Not really. You can, if you get enough people to agree with you, make small changes to the existing government. When I say overthrow the government, I mean end the current system of government and create a new one. That isn't part of the democracy, but the end of this democracy and the creation of another system.
Now, look up the thing about lamp posts and drunks, and think about why that applies to you and libertarians. Simply because you believe your view is based on axioms doesn't mean it is. That's the clown talk, bro. And time after time I've explained why your easy reversion and reliance on axiom as if it is your olly olly oxen free doesn't compute. You are wrong in taking your position as axiomatic. It isn't. There's evidence and reasoning to that evidence that demonstrates your standing on air.
I should say that if you don't think I'm funny, fine -- my wife and daughter would agree -- but some people seem to have this image of me as being always serious, and I'm not. I don't say things that I don't believe for shock value, but I'm always half tongue-in-cheek when I'm writing.
Actually, you keep scheduling your trips up here on Jewish holidays. Okay, yes, the fear too. (Plus, I'm not really a NYer, so I keep getting notified at the very last minute because the NY crowd here arranging the get togethers doesn't think of me until then.)
Within a democracy you can vote to end the current system of government and create a new one.
hell I'm afraid of you too.
Social and cultural institutions and the concepts they embody evolve over time. There was evolution to the get that point, and an evolution from that point to now. What we grant and utilize is up to us to decide. Nothing is set in a template that can't be changed.
Not entirely. Common law comes from case law, which is guided in part by statute. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's why I asked for particular statutes or cases that demonstrated a merchant's obligation to serve all customers.
"Common carriers" is a term of art, not a broad category that encompasses every business in the public space. Verizon is a common carrier. Amtrak is a common carrier. John's General Store is most certainly not a common carrier.
The CRA did a couple of things: (1) As DMN noted above, it extended the common law rule to a variety of business that wouldn't have been covered by the c.l. rule (not all businesses were -- it mostly applied to common carriers and to innkeepers)
This is exactly what I was saying: prior to the CRA, there was no common law rule that businesses in general were obligated to take all comers based on their presence in the public sphere. There were special sorts of businesses that had special obligations, but the general presumption was that private owners could accept and refuse service based on personal whim.
The tradition was "owner's discretion"; universal acceptance was the exception.
2) It eliminated the rule of Plessy that "separate but equal" satisfied the rule. In addition, it extended liability in some cases to private actors rather than state actors.
Wasn't the real issue with Plessy that "separate but equal" really was, in practice, for "separate and not-really-close-to-equal"?
If you want a good book on the common law rule, I recommend Fairness And Justice by Haar and Fessler.
I just ordered it on Amazon for $4.99 with free shipping.
Pure twaddle and gobbledygook.
Still, at least Sam recognized the quote; you didn't.
Does that apply to things done to Jews throughout history?
But they believe they are just in killing Jews because Jews are unrelenting when it comes to their rights. Are you saying that killing is where you draw the line on your Randian rights? Or is that only a stricture imposed on others when they come in conflict with you?
No, this is wrong. Common law does come from case law, but when people talk about rules at common law, they are excluding statutes.
Correct.
If that's what you meant, I certainly didn't understand it. I responded to your suggestion that businesses in the US didn't follow the common law rule. Implicit in this is the assumption that those businesses were subject to the common law rule. If they weren't, then of course they weren't violating it. But the whole context of the discussion (which started with the Woolworth's lunch counters and Trailways buses) was common carriers.
It's much more complex than that.
That was a problem with the implementation of Plessy, but not the theory. What the CRA and related Court decisions did was reject even the theory.
Woolworth's wasn't a common carrier!
(Of course, to switch the topic from rights to "social values" is just a bait-and-switch.)
I'm sure Good Face could come up with a theory as to why that is so. Can't help with the last minute/NYC thing. I may be back up in Princeton this month, if the go-live doesn't settle down and, well, go live. I will attempt to contract a messenger service to carriage you a missive to the Gulch.
I'm so happy that I'm not the regular you've got blocked! I wish there was a feature to see who had me blocked, so I could insult them in the quiet spaces in between.
If you read, you'd know I've said time and time again that there rights exist only a context. In the biological contest you have the right to eat, try to keep from being eaten, copulate, and excrete. When our biology gave rise to rudimentary social relationshps (permanent mating, friendships, alliances, etc.), the rights became richer and more complicated in our inter-relationship. You better quit running in place. Because as that noted evolutionist, Satchel Paige, has warned you, something just may be catching up to you.
Of SAM? -guffaw-
According to the school's website they have a uniformed officer on duty there. Your move NRA.
EDIT: Of course, it appears that he wasn't there today. Figures.
I can see it. Though I am afraid of geese, mannequins, and scissors so I guess that's not saying much.
There is nothing scarier than being at a 2 year old's birthday party, and while you are trying to extricate a new toy from its packaging having said 2 year old run off and run back straight at you with pointy scissors in hand.
How many armed teachers? AHA! Shame on you hippies for contributing to the deaths of these innocent children!
Note to self. Acquire mannequin.
Is this the part where you tell us how some of your best friends are Jewish?
Sounds like you actually fear Kim Cattrall...which is a perfectly understandable fear.
No, this is the part where everyone agrees to mock you for being an idiot earlier.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main