Jump to content
What a JOKE! My name is very common (over twenty possible listings match in the Orlando phone book, not to mention those not in the phone book), therefore I have a unique screen-name. So now, if there's one more "John Smith," you're going to "determine" it's a fake? Like the others said, if you're going to do that, why not do a simple moderation of the existing system? Your reason for this change is just an excuse So tell me Jimbo, what's the real reason for the change?.
If you're so happy with it, why did you not reveal your real name in your post? Can anyone provide the definition of hypocrite please?
Yep. But sometimes it's the idiotic manner in which someone expresses their opinion that makes the difference. In Americus, a certain Heating & Air small business person put a bumper sticker on his company vehicle degrading all democrats. That's over 50% of the Americus population he insulted. When I saw his sticker, I told him to leave immediately. I Dared him to charge me for simply coming over and being sent away. And... he's no longer a small business owner. He works for a company in Albany now. Now if it had been on his personal vehicle, I'd have never seen it. Or cared as much. Evidently others felt the same way. That was his chance at anonymity. He blew it. So did the Herald.
SELLOUTS!!!!! PATHETIC SELLOUTS!!!!!
You DO Realize That There Are More People WITHOUT Facedumb Accounts Than WITH Them, Right?
It's like the survey several years back. The baseball team with the most fans? The Yankees. The baseball team most hated? The Yankees. The "Hates" outnumbered the "Likes" four to one. Same with Facedumb.
Funny how you can't tell the difference between "attacking (a) supreme being" and attacking the shoving of that "supreme being" into your life every day by people that would, in normal circumstances, be labeled as delusional.
Funny how a certain group of people believes that an individual that claims to have "been spoken to by" or "received a message from" a "supreme being" is a mental case only when the "message" was something like "drown your children in the bath tub." Which really makes the person "mental?" The fact that she claims to have received a message from a "supreme being" or the content of the message? If you claim the content... didn't your "supreme being" order people to kill their children in your book of fables? Didn't your "supreme being" supposedly wipe out entire civilizations? So that message is different how?
"My boy's life was saved because god was looking out for us" when the shark bit off half of his leg. So why didn't your god prevent the shark attack in the first place? Oh yeah... because "the lawd work in mysterus ways." I guess occasionally making little babies suffer great pain that drugs can't control is because your "lovin' gawd" is again working his mysterious ways. Oh the hypocrisy of the religious!
Funny how you can't comprehend the difference between "attacking (a) supreme being" and attacking the forcing of that imaginary "supreme being" into your life every day by people that would be called "delusional" by normal standards. (What?)
Example: Why is it that a certain group of people think that someone claiming a "supreme being" had told them something is mental only when that something was something like "drown your kids in the bath tub/" Did your "supreme being" not tell people to kill their kids in your book of fables? So why would you think that he would be any different now? Your "supreme being" wiped out entire civilizations. What's three kids? Right? Oh the hypocrisy of the religious!
Hey erudite, why don't you know the difference between "ban" and "restrictions?" You know, the part where...
"He said he's already begun work on an updated ordinance that would, among other things, require pit bull owners to register their animals, provide specific enclosures for them and require the owner to maintain insurance or a surety bond against the possibility of a pit bull attack."
I have a friend with a large rottweiler. Dog loves me, and would, no doubt, attack and kill someone else under various circumstances.
BTW... the proposal does not prevent ownership of the breed. It puts certain restrictions in place to ensure that the owners of the breed are responsible for any attacks made by their dog, that they are aware of the inherent dangers (read - inbred in the breed for hundreds of years) associated with the breed, and that they are able to pay for damages (maiming, killing, etc) done by their dogs.
You take care of the big problems first. I'd say putting restrictions on the ownership of the one breed responsible for 60% of dog attack deaths is a good first step in the right direction.
So having a bad attitude puts a pom on par with a pit bull as "dangerous?" Also, are you aware that you obviously didn't read the entire story to which you linked? Or are you just cherry-picking the parts you liked, like only the headline?
"Pomeranians are a breed of miniature canines that have a foxlike face, pointy ears and long, fluffy hair. The deputy said Pomeranian attacks are rare, especially compared to attacks by bigger dogs such as Rottweilers and pit bulls.
"Obviously it doesn't take much to kill a 6-week old baby but it's not something that happens with that breed," Solis said."
Pomeranian = 7 lbs
Pit bull = 50 lbs
Maybe you should learn to use Google to research FACTS: "In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans and accounted for 60% of the total recorded deaths (251). Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths." One search. Less than one second. 2nd link. (I figured you'd scream about the wikipedia 1st link) Read the details for yourself http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php
Last login: yesterday