Well, I didn't want to go that far, Pooh. I know that a lot here already think I'm a trigger-happy brother.
You aren't wired that way--but there are a lot of folks out in the world who are. Look at how many shootings there are where the motive boils down to "He dissed me."
Like I said, some of the lines I've seen thrown around with onanistic glee are the sort of thing that a wise person doesn't utter to someone who's carrying, particularly if he doesn't know the person very well.
Don't take chat forums so seriously. People will always say radical things online that they'd never utter in person.
You got that right, especially if they like their front teeth!
In some cases, more akin to "especially if they like not getting shot." Some of the insults I've taken of late are the sort of thing I refrain from saying unless I am absolutely certain the target isn't packing heat.
For what, refusing to be intimidated into silence?
For participating in a forum that went way the hell over the top in terms of acceptable discourse. Guess what? When people talk about judges meeting "fatal accidents" and such, the authorities tend to not be very humorous about it. And they tend to look rather dimly on those who associate with those people.
Sweetie, you'd better have the cleanest damn underwear in all history if you're ever in an accident.
Are you starting a ping list for that? I think some of us would like to know when to pop the bubbly and get the corn popin!
If you really insist on me pinging you to a thread that includes one of your most foolish posts ever as an evidentiary exhibit, I will be happy to accomodate you. But please don't blame me when everyone winds up assuming that you are as foolish as you will sound.
For an example of intentional false swearing, we have Michael telling the police at the time of the incident that he and Terri had not been fighting. But they certainly had been fighting, with such ferocity that a worried friend offered to give Terri shelter that night for her safety.
And I have to believe that she said not a f***ing thing about it until over ten years later.
I'm supposed to believe this woman?
Oh, and remember when Michael sued the doctors? How come the doctors didn't say a f***ing thing about this being caused by abuse?
Michael lied to the cops. A reasonable person would call that perjury.
Sorry, there is no evidence of that, aside from a deposition solicited by the Schindlers' lawyer, and Gibbs has, IMNHO, engaged in enough chicanery (both in questionable testimony that gets cut to shreds on cross-examination AND in legal maneuvering intended to lose the case) that I cannot accept anything he proffers at face value.
And a continuing, and unending "cause" to rally 'round (and raise funds for). Which a successful "nuclear option" would have ended. Got it.
No, once "the cause" was achieved, they'd do something parallel to what the Provos always said would come after they forced reunification of Ireland and Ulster--namely, go to phase II and seek to impose a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship on all of Ireland.
If abortion was outlawed, the Army of God would probably go after adult bookstores, followed by Victoria's Secret shops, etc...
Thanks for the bill. I just don't see, however, how Congress gave any leeway to the District Court. All the "mays" go to the plaintiff and the direction to the courts contain the absolute "shall," including the requirement for a de novo determination. What am I missing that you're seeing in this section?
Key sentence here:
In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings.