Search results

Well, historically. . .

No, you're an Alex Jones fan cuz you ain't real bright.

Historically, another strongman steps up. Guess we'll see.

Yep, that's pricing. Costs + reasonable (or unreasonable) profits = price. Duh.

Better here than on a streetcorner you can't avoid.

They do. The convictions in question are "Whatever it takes to get as high in the pile as I possibly can."

Not a lot of "personal choice" in the forces. If you'd really been in the Navy, you'd know that.

Good. Even the Canadian forces don't need cowards.

Ya gotta have FAITH, Dex! Defined as "believing what you know damn well ain't true."

And be OUTRAGED! It's WORSE THAN STALIN!

But wouldn't the exaggerations and undercounts kinda. . . cancel each other out? That's OK. As long as you get to be OUTRAGED about what a government you can't vote for does in a country you don't live in.

Must be the hair.

Perhaps the best answer is the so-called Scottish Verdict: "Guilt Not Proven." Look at it this way. In a criminal case, it's "Are you absolutely sure he did it?" If yes, guilty. In a civil case it's more like "Think he did it? Yeah, probably." And he's liable.

Wrong. A prophylactic involves rolling it onto your dick before you fuck her. Or him. Or it. I don't judge.

Well, I'm glad somebody put you out!

Not me. I'm immortal! Well, so far anyhow.

So, which is it? Exaggerating or undercounting? You've accused the governments of both.

For me, Dad was long gone before I was born, so he didn't get a say.

I've never been spiritually oppressed. Maybe my spirit is stronger than yours.

At American law, and I believe it's the same for Canada, there are three standards of evidence. The classic "beyond a reasonable doubt" of guilt in criminal cases, the "preponderance of the evidence" rule in civil cases, and sometimes an enhanced preponderance standard called "clear and...