I guess it is a better idea to try and secede unilaterally, followed by a bloody war over several years, crippling and killing off a generation.
It's estimated that only 1/3rd of American colonists actually supported the idea of independence from Britain.I guess it is a better idea to try and secede unilaterally, followed by a bloody war over several years, crippling and killing off a generation.
So is she supply-side, or trickle-down?What's a rebellious daughter to do when Dad's already a hippy and doesn't care if you drink, smoke weed, or sleep around?
Her rising tide lifts ALL boats, namsain?So is she supply-side, or trickle-down?
--Patrick
Where is the "WTF???" option for a post? This would qualify.
The Redskins are the only one (of the actual teams not the ones you listed) I have a problem with. Well, and the Indians mascot too.See, I keep saying that if all of these people supposedly have no problem with the "Redskins" name, we should really embrace the trend and expand the league to include the Des Moines Darkies and the Portland Ching-Chongs; and then see how many people don't care about the name Redskins. Sadly, I believe that most of the people for whom this is truly an issue would miss the point completely.
It blows my mind that people can be talking about the Redskins thing and not the Indians one. That Indians mascot is miles more offensive than anything Redskin related. (I am not defending Redskins here, I think it needs to go as well, but the Indians mascot is arguably the most offensive mascot/name in all of pro-sports.)The Redskins are the only one (of the actual teams not the ones you listed) I have a problem with. Well, and the Indians mascot too.
Because they're white and not a minority, duh.Can somebody explain to me why the Minnesota Vikings logo isn't racist?
Because they're white and not a minority, duh.
No, I'd say it's been plenty ruined.Needs more runes.
Oh, wait.
--Patrick