Whoever did the additions probably should have realized this and not made them so well.

That's an extremely complicated subject. One of many that are so hard to grasp, that people don't understand how little they grasp of it.

Seriously! When was the last time we got a national park? Did anything to protect labor? Cared about a baby? Not in a while. The left is sadly not even in the picture.

Depending on gas prices too

Pull in with underwater tank

Sub committees is the solution here. Designate a day for bathroom talk and another for all other PTA stuff.

Ralph Nader is too old and he's the only person who cares.

Solar doesnt put a huge blanket of poison in the environment. Oil does. We need to grow trees and shink consumption.

There's a lot of serious shit we definitely should ban, though

Jeffy, trump, prince andrew, most likely lots of saudis

Don't say heat.

Either one. No one would ban anything. Nobody cares abd some people even like to pollute and destroy the environment

I see your point. I have a plan to provide long term heating solutions to the community with no pollution and a massive cost savings.

Nobody can be 100% sure where they were born.

I hope you are right. But you don't seem like the type

My town won't ban burning oil. Fuckn boomers

The little sign seems like a part of tbe big sign. Thats seems lile the actual issue here. Separate them. Problem solved

Remove the name from sign and it becomes a mural. He could easily just move the smaller sign part. This is a non-sense issue. Compliance with the law is easy and this fight is definitely not just about the sign.

Endless debate is actually fine as long as both sides are debating in good faith. There's no reason to stifle it unless you have an ulterior motive (like keeping status quo because it benefits you personally.)

You obviously don't want the rail and are doing mental gymnastics to justify shutting down debate BEFORE there is a decision. Let the debate die of its own merit or it will never be settled.

I am in favor of making the best decisions. There is no limit to the amount of discussion to reach that conclusion. But we can't even debate the rail thing because we waste so much time debating if we should debate it. And THIS conversation is like debating if we should debate about debating. A person who is just looking to stifle progress can keep going like this forever. It is another insidious strategy to keep the focus away from the actual question at hand.

Talk is cheap, the only reason to force people to stop is if you think they'll reach a conclusion that you decided you won't like.

Edit: It is actually an insidious tactic to shut down debate just because you've arbitrarily decided "its gone on too long".

But you're in favor of an automatic red light on everything, not much different.

Tons of people pay no taxes, Its simple. The baffling thing is that people who don't want to pay taxes, yet want money. Those people are selfish and short-sighted. So those are the people thinking wrong, like you are.

I was one the fence about that sentence because I assumed you'd make a stink about how voters shape policy just by voting. Blah blah blah. Anyways, you just want to pick apart what I am sayibg without making a point. I DO love to pay taxes so you are the one with inaccurate assumptions