unbillievable

Answer this question: Do you think that women are allowed more excuses to leave work then men? Children having problems? Personal Issues? Maternity leave? Weddings, Funerals, Birthdays? Girlfriends, In-laws, grand-children in town? Doctor's appointments for kids and husband? Mother's day? I would say men are allowed 1 excuse: That they're hung over because of the game last night. Every other instance they're told to "man up" and take it; Go to work and support your family. I've worked in office settings, and restaurants (where women out-number the men) and also in construction and manufacturing (where men outnumber the women) and I have to say that the anecdote of which gender works more diligently is actually more a reflection of the company and environment. There really isn't much difference there. Sometimes it's the guys that are goof-offs and sometimes it's the girls. But I think, in this culture, we tend to be harsher on the guys to provide for their family by staying at work, while allowing the women to do same by letting them leave.

Is it bizarre to think that the case has so completely turned around that it's now racist to believe that the man is guilty... ...when the opposite was true at the beginning?

Anyone who's ever worked with a woman knows exactly why they get paid less... because they don't work as much.

In every right wing dominated country of the world ---(cause the left wing dominated ones aren't allowed to complain)

Hypothetical: Imagine a world where the wealth was perfectly distributed. Everyone had the exact same everything. How would it look? How do you make it work?

Did anyone notice that Denver seems to be the safest place to go in disaster movies?

If the Republican sequester hadn't forced Obama to cut Nasa's funding a few years ago, this asteriod would never have been allowed to get this close.

How would reducing the amount of rich people help the people who are starving?

Which would mean that George should walk and that this should never have gone to trial for Murder 2. You can't send a person to jail for murder if all the prosecution can argue is that "maybe he's lying" and that "it could have happened this other way too," just because a guy has a sketchy past. Only the Defense can play the "Maybe This or that happened" game. Unless the state can produce a witness willing to testify that he saw everything, then we're just wasting tax payer money in a futile attempt to appease the public and media.

Which begs the question how the altercation could have occured that close to the car if Trayvon had continued to run away? The 911 call transcript shows that George had lost sight of Trayvon, then headed back to his car. For the location of the altercation to make sense, it would mean that either Trayvon hid somewhere when George passed him then was found when Zimmerman walked back to his car, or Trayvon CAME BACK towards George to confront him.

As an outside observer, I did note that while you feel that you were being objective, the fact is that it read like you believed Zimmerman was guilty, and was just waiting for the details to come out in court. Like those old Columbo episodes where you knew who did it, but still patiently waited for the end to to find out the how's and why's of the crime. Personally, I believe that one thug killed another; ...and the only thing that we can learn from this case is being a WHITE hispanic is somehow relevant. I wonder if the news would be as compelling if a BLACK oriental shoots an ASIAN redneck.

This is blatant discrimination!! How are men supposed to compete for permanent jobs when women are given these advantages?

The fact that the GOP is ousting it's fringe members while the leftist nutjobs like Pelosi, and Reid actually LEAD the democrats, is frightening.

I applaud this father for doing everything he can (no matter how ridiculous) in prolonging his son's inevitable slide into a life on welfare and career in the fast-food industry. While admirable, this suit will do more damage to his son's collegiate prospects than getting kicked off the team.

The stimulus was a giant payout to groups that helped Obama get elected. It pays to back the winner.

I wouldn't be surprised if the latter was true. Obama strikes me more as a willing puppet they can parade in front of the cameras to deliver an eloquent speech written for him and delivered by teleprompter, than an actual leader.

The main goal of Obamacare is to screw up the system so badly that the ignorant masses will start screaming for the government to take over the industry completely. ...the same way Obama declared that he needs to find a way to get gas up to $10/gal so that green energy can look affordable.

There were a few people who actually cheered when they started banning certain topics, but as always, the mods began abusing the power. Pretty soon they started banning topics that were sorta kinda about politics, then topics that might lead to talking about politics, then topics that might be too serious, then finally a mod comes out and declares that all topics that might lead to an argument will be closed. They even closed a thread with pictures of Buffalo Jills declaring the topic too "mature."

...visit the OFFICIAL Buffalo Bills board and see the recent changes to their Code of Conduct. And people say it can't happen in America. First they took away freedom of speech by banning ALL topics that can lead to a "heated" debate http://boards.buffal...and-or-Politics Then, they're forcing posters to be more "PC". http://boards.buffal...ual-Orientation Finally, they took away the right to protest. http://boards.buffal...ate-Please-Read It's basically turned into a Liberal wet dream over there.

That's quite interesting and a good start on making Bitcoins a viable currency. Still need to ask though: Why would I use dollars to buy bitcoins to buy giftcards that purchase goods in dollars?

" We understand completely. You want to go into our credit card account and delete the balance owed, which would be downright stupid if it was issued by your bank, or illegal if issued by another bank. Let's make it simple. You issue me a credit card I use it at Walmart I pay you in some form of "good or service" You erase my credit card debt Walmart asks you (the bank) for money you only have bitcoins Walmart takes you and me to collections I sue you for my "goods" back and throw out your worthless credit card. How exactly did your scam work?

Let's look at the sentence you can't understand. I Used two adjectives before currency: "Legitimate" and "paper", implying that there are both "fake" and "non-paper" currencies available. So how the hell did you get the idea that i meant currency HAS to be made of paper? Which proves you're an idiot. I can give examples of how I can convert rocks into cash by selling it as gravel; it doesn't make it currency.

That still doesn't explain how you figured that I meant currency was only found in paper form. That would be like assuming that OC plans to do large business deals in CASH only.

You're basing your entire argument on a single word? The use of the word "paper" in my reply was a response to OC's use of "cash" which traditionally refers to "paper" currency; which is why I changed the term to "real" when presenting my FULL argument on the validity of his scheme to include all forms of money. (including bank transfers and such) how did i equate paper and currency being mutually exclusive? Reading comprehension....

So you're saying that the MAJORITY of currency cannot be turned into paper and coin? (...and ignoring the fact that I never said that money ONLY moved in paper form)