Before people start waffling on about stupidity, this is not stupidity, it's fucking ignorance. All the questions were things a late primary school child could answer (well, at least when I went to school).

He's so pig ignorant that he doesn't understand that they are all taking the piss out of him...

I had a trainee at work this year who, at 19, didn't know what the fuck a JURY was.

Ahh ya big fucking sook, have a cup of concrete and harden the fuck up. You haven't even provided a single link to this mountain of supporting evidence and you're already exhausted? /eyeroll

1. "There are many organisations which have conflicting views, (my Tamaskan is 5 years old, male, un-neutered, and non violent) you happen to support the one that supports your extremely slim argument." <-- Having my "extremely slim" argument supported by the biggest animal protection agency in the US tends to lend it some credibility... Your dismissal of my argument is a dismissal of the ASPCA's similar argument. If you're too pig ignorant to understand that, not much I can do about that.. =)
2. I take it you don't have kids? Or are you one of those sad cunts who never let your kids actually do anything? Life is a risk. Going to the beach is a risk. Going to the park is a risk. Living is a risk.

3. Forced as in "made to give up the bone against her will"... Already explained it, you train them on the "leave it" command on something they are more willing to drop without aggression then migrate them progressively to things that are more likely to get a reaction. Reward good behaviour, punish bad. And before your asshole starts weeping tears of blood about punishment, it's a thwack on the bum with a thong (I guess what yanks call a flip flop). Don't overstress the dog and once you've asserted that you can get them off the bone, let them have it undisturbed.

4. So you're going to pick a position and be too fucking bone idle to bother supporting it with your own research?

5. Many bans are knee jerk reactions to situations rather than considered actions.

6. Yes, you did. Commentary on my parenting (which you know almost nothing about), assuming "force" meant something rather than clarifying. Your entire tone is bombastic and condescending and it's not just to me. Everyone else in the thread that has disagreed with you has been dished up a serve of your sneering lip.

7. Expert evidence that is so freely available you can't even cite one example. So yeah, you're done. Dismissed. ; )

>> ^Barbar:

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.
Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.
What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.




I pretty much agree with Barbar.

And, criticizing Santorum doesn't mean I can't criticize Obama. His appeal to religion is nowhere near the same level as Santorum's, but I don't like either tactic. I think it's more in line with how things are "supposed" to run to leave religion out of the entire process, no matter who is running.

I use more than two brain cells when I think, and when I do, I infer that the right usually have specific social policies in the crosshairs when they try to get us revved up by using religion. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. These are all specific issues that are directly impacted by the Right's appeal to Christian voters. They aren't shy about name calling (neither is Winstonfield_Pennypacker it seems). They tend to forget, if they were to be elected, they would have to represent all Americans, not just Christians.

And so, while I'm not a fan of Obama's appeal to churches or religion, it's different from the way Republican candidates, namely Santorum, invoke religion to get a vote. If you look at my previous posts, I make a pretty clear distinction between an individual stating his believe and a government official letting his personal religion guide policy. The thinking seems to be: Since most of us are Christians let's use religion to our political advantage.

So, when religion becomes a justification of the decisions our government makes, we need to call them out.

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.

Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.

What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".

Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2010 — about .7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.


Sorry, I forget I'm dealing with liberals. I'll type slower.


>> ^Asmo:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Which countries are we comparing to the US incarceration rate? The ones where the government kills you without a fair (or any) trial? The ones where women are still enslaved? Two million incarcerated out of 300 million...go ahead, boost the number imprisoned to 10 million, that's still one-thirtieth of the population.
Figures you're so pig ignorant you can't even google the rate before you shoot your mouth off... =)

>> ^quantumushroom:

Which countries are we comparing to the US incarceration rate? The ones where the government kills you without a fair (or any) trial? The ones where women are still enslaved? Two million incarcerated out of 300 million...go ahead, boost the number imprisoned to 10 million, that's still one-thirtieth of the population.

Figures you're so pig ignorant you can't even google the rate before you shoot your mouth off... =)

Bartleby isn't the only authority, though I like Bartleby, and the argument is good. But basically, what Bartleby says is that *sometimes* none means "not one" and sometimes it means "not any". I think "none of them works" clearly is "not one of them works" and honestly, "not one of them work" sounds, as Mr. Fry said, pig ignorant.

"None but the oldest of them" is clearly plural, and the plural verb sounds fine. I suspect Mr. Fry could have gone on about the variations had he wanted to.