Elite glucose test strips

Your comments (35)

Tutaur wrote 08.03.2018, 22:21: #1
Would I let wife beaters eat at my restaurant?

Mikazil wrote 16.03.2018, 21:52: #2
You go girl!

Kizilkree wrote 22.03.2018, 01:54: #3
Google forbid I use Google's name in vain.

Zolokasa wrote 23.03.2018, 22:34: #4
Your nonsense bores me. I'm sure you'll need the last word.

Tajas wrote 28.03.2018, 14:37: #5
Key allies have nowhere else to go! Stupid lefty morons have no idea!

Zolorg wrote 04.04.2018, 19:37: #6
Oh Robert, are you testing me right now ? Is it so hard to just be cool ?

Brakree wrote 05.04.2018, 04:27: #7
The post to which you are responding clearly stated that science has not proven "Leprechauns" don't exist.

Daizil wrote 10.04.2018, 22:57: #8
I can tell you're angry. We're only having a conversation. I'm not the enemy. Maybe god's disappointed you in some way. That sucks.

Fenrishura wrote 15.04.2018, 08:59: #9
it skirts the formal line of what's ethical under rules/law (but is arguably ok). It's not particularly ethical under the spirit of those rules.

Tojam wrote 21.04.2018, 03:19: #10
Any examples from a speech where he tries to "remove god"?

Yogami wrote 26.04.2018, 08:43: #11
Now you are wanting us to believe that you know the meaning of the words Jefferson used, not surprisingly to fit your view. No, what he said was "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." You can tap dance all you want, but that is very clear. ("You can worship any God you want, but keep religion out of government").

Fenrizshura wrote 01.05.2018, 13:59: #12
However not changing your views on what is and isn?t in Sharia and accepting the obviously bigoted view of Sharia is more about bigotry and disrespect than critique. Because according to the people who should know best tell us that Sharia only covers Muslims and no one else. And that there are many legal ways of escaping from many of the seeming impossible restrictions. We need a lawyer because the simple version of common law says you shall not kill, except we have three or more levels defined as killing ranging from justifiable homocide to premeditated murder. And we know that just because you are charged doesn?t mean either guilt or conviction. But somehow you believe an entire civilization would blithely accept centuries of injustice? That the courts would blindly accept such? And that good sense would never in 1400 years win out over bad dogma?

Dazil wrote 02.05.2018, 22:50: #13
What if you're not fat enough? That seems to be the point of the exercise. You would just kill yourself, and the five would still die. Only the (apparently) really massive fellow will do, to stop the runaway train. Wouldn't suicide guarantee you a one-way trip to Perdition?

Shaktilrajas wrote 11.05.2018, 16:42: #14
Certainly in Canada the government can legally discriminate against the religious rights of this Law School. I believe I said that in my comment you just responded to.

Vojas wrote 13.05.2018, 12:21: #15
Yup. We just finished toilet training with stickers, dollar store toys, smarties and jelly beans.

Shakalabar wrote 17.05.2018, 17:55: #16
LOL, how do you think Chinese learned about the Huns progress to Europe? Many of their sources are translation from European works.

Bamuro wrote 19.05.2018, 14:53: #17
Apparently some people don't understand the purpose of the Blues and Jazz..................

Tem wrote 21.05.2018, 20:18: #18
No, I don't live in a world of fornication and pornography by any definition. You must be religious.

Nirg wrote 30.05.2018, 21:36: #19
No, but is a death by a means other than gun worse than a death by gun?

Basida wrote 01.06.2018, 10:06: #20
I'll let God defend Godself.

Goltitilar wrote 05.06.2018, 20:13: #21
Public Accomodation laws CAN be challenged especially if they infringe upon other civil or constitutional rights. HENCE..the case were talking about. Are we still speaking english?

Mazumi wrote 12.06.2018, 22:47: #22
My reading skills are not the ones that are questionable.

Tolmaran wrote 23.06.2018, 12:23: #23
something interesting to look into. look up the age that kids, both male and female are coming into puberty now. women are sexually maturing younger,, and younger. getting periods at a younger age. im thinking, along with the constant bombardment of sexual content, and images around them, and the advancement of puberty, women and men are dealing with sexuality at a far younger age. which in my opinion, really gives weight to the ideas of really educating young people about reproduction, and dateing, and risks of sexual activity before a more mature age. just because the equipment works,, doesnt mean you need to start test driving it.

Turisar wrote 27.06.2018, 08:10: #24
Report animal abuse

Dubar wrote 28.06.2018, 17:53: #25
Please point to the recent cases during the time when SCOTUS has been a Conservative majority, that you believe back what you say.

Moramar wrote 04.07.2018, 16:40: #26
Personally, I am stunned that it was a 7-2 ruling. I thought for sure it would be, at best, a 5-4 ruling in favor of the baker. Even on that count, I wasn't optimistic that would happen.

Kajimi wrote 05.07.2018, 05:03: #27
She claims she is teaching the infants that their consent matters, in a situation when in fact their consent doesn?t matter at all. It is harmful to children and society, and thus worthy of rebuke.

Kagabei wrote 11.07.2018, 21:33: #28
How about the bigot follows the law if he wants to run a *public* business?

Jura wrote 16.07.2018, 23:16: #29
You're just not a very punny guy wannabebond.

Jugis wrote 26.07.2018, 08:06: #30
Serpents cannot speak. Reading on further, we discover that the serpent was Satan in disguise.

Meztizragore wrote 30.07.2018, 07:10: #31
what happens if open borders occur - mass immigration of unskilled, uneducated people to live off the us govt - tax paying people. we all know what color tax paying, educated, property owning people are - it aint black or brown

Arashimuro wrote 08.08.2018, 15:33: #32
Only after the blueprint is subjected to physical construction. Prior to that the building only exists in potential.

Nira wrote 12.08.2018, 16:11: #33
Yeah, they're old...

Tygosida wrote 20.08.2018, 04:32: #34
I hear them mubling "for shame" as they amble off.

Fem wrote 22.08.2018, 13:09: #35
If he is being honest, then he would be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, which is a crime.

Comment on: