spreads like butter

OK, I'm not against assisted suicide, but I have to ask what did the husband have? Did he just want to die with his wife? That's cool, it's about choice I think. What confuses me is the Dignity in Dying charity organization saying that they'd still be alive if they had it in England. Uh, no. They'd still be dead. That's the point of the whole thing right? Unless they mucked it up and then they'd be alive, in a lot of pain but alive. Yeah, sure they could've put it off longer but they sounded motivated.

Environmentally friendly bullets? Really? You don't think that not having bullets would be more environmentally friendly? I'm not saying to stop war or any of that, but I do think that bullets do have a negative impact on the environment due to overhunting of certain species. I'm just saying, I think there'd be less hunting if we had to use a bow and arrow. It's a good idea I think, I spent 3 years purifying lead from water for drinking purposes.

It's stuff like this that pisses me off. Trying to be all PC. Maybe I am being all sexist when I'm saying firemen or mailmen, maybe it's just what I learned as a kid. I know, that's not right. I learned it wrong (or something) but sue me I'm comfortable with it. Do I want to spring for the sign that reads "Men, Women, and Transgender at Work?" No. The point isn't to identify what kind of people working on the side of the road, it's to POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WORKING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I'd be fine with a "People at Work" sign as a compromise but not just to be inclusive of everyone. Besides, an 80's band called "People at Work" probably wouldn't have done as well.

I would've called her bluff. I bet you she would've found someone to take care of the kids really quick when you started issuing combat boots to them. Sure it would've been a public relations nightmare, but I think it would've gotten the point across to people. Now you've set a precedence. Husband travels for work? Not as much while she's deployed. If not, we would use a couple extra sets of eyes on convoy duty. Huh, look how a caretaker magically appears.

If I ever commit a crime I'm doing it in Canada. No, seriously. I mean, what's the deterrence there? Kill your kids? 3 years. Criminal negligence? One count? Um, there's at least two counts there, one for each kid. Oh, is counting different in Canada? And screw the Yellow Quill First Nation! Let's assume that their statement is true, that the deaths were an accident. Fine. Who was responsible for them? They were 1 and 3, not capable of making decisions like this on their own. He was responsible, thus negligence. What what what? He was drunk? That's not a get-out-of-jail-free card, in fact that should be an aggravating circumstance. On another note, by the time he's released from prison (if he serves his full sentence) the kid will be old enough for him to leave out in a blizzard. 

I can see their point, I mean locking him up to keep him from stealing their food. But from a criminal justice side I have to say: 40's is elderly? Couldn't they find something better to charge them with? Like criminal confinement, cuz I think she won't be found guilty of injury of an elderly person.

I guess there really isn't a statute of limitation on homicide. Chances are the person they're looking for is in prison already.