Who'd eat a cat? No meat on them.
Chinese people eat basically everything. Saw a programme were they had dogs and cats in tiny wooden cages going to slaughter.
Who'd eat a cat? No meat on them.
Target Field is a great park and one of the newest if not the newest. I've been there 3 times. I'm a fan of the Twins and they're not the best side but they're having a better season than the last 2 already. They have some quality players but their pitching has let them down. I notice they're playing the Baltimore Orioles. That's the team that was in town when I last went there. The Twins won 20-7.
I'm not entirely sure if the Chinese do eat cats or dogs, or if that's some sort of urban myth. China has its faults, but it's an up-and-coming, westernising country.
North Koreans, on the other hand, may not have any other choice.
Who'd eat a cat? No meat on them.
Thanks for that info Tom, I might be able to blind my American hosts with a little knowledge. When did you last watch them. Glad you said "Twins" as I couldn't remember their name? Do you know why they're called twins?
No meat on chickens feet, but they're an absolute delight.
Thanks for that info Tom, I might be able to blind my American hosts with a little knowledge. When did you last watch them. Glad you said "Twins" as I couldn't remember their name? Do you know why they're called twins?
It's not just Question Time unfortunately, you seem to get the same thing on almost every "debate show". 10 O'Clock live is the same, and it doesn't help with the embarrassingly partisan studio audience cheering and wooping either. You can also see similar frustrating arguments on American shows like Real Time with Bill Maher, and The Bill O'Reilly Factor if you're brave enough to turn that on. It's probably partly due to the fact that they have limited time to get their point across, and of course there's always one person who takes a lifetime to get their words out. Also it seems to be considered an acceptable strategy to just try and drown out your opponent's argument. I'd put it to these people that the only reason they won't let their opponents talk is that they're scared they might be right.
If you really want to get yourself enraged, try watching a "debate" involving Peter Hitchens, brother of the slightly-less-annoying (and also now deceased) Christopher Hitchens. He's been on Newsnight at least once, including one ridiculous argument about drug addiction between him and Russell Brand, in which Brand comes off looking the far more mature of the two, if you can imagine that.
[video=youtube;SsMU77TwYM0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsMU77TwYM0[/video]
Thanks for that info Tom, I might be able to blind my American hosts with a little knowledge. When did you last watch them. Glad you said "Twins" as I couldn't remember their name? Do you know why they're called twins?
I can get this - it's because the area it's in (the part of Minnesota with Minneapolis and Saint Paul) is known as the Twin Cities - Twins derives directly from that.
Beat me to it. Well done. Do you know why Los Angeles is called the Lakers?
Beat me to it. Well done. Do you know why Los Angeles is called the Lakers?
I really enjoyed that, didn't know the two had been debating at all. They're so contrasting, its a bit of a party piece! Peter Hitchens is just so odd, and so fixed in his views, and ends up being a bit of a parody/spoof like figure. I guess you could lay that at Brand as well, although I don't. I don't like his stand up much, but he's an interesting character, and I certainly prefer his views around addiction and how to deal with it.
I don't! I know why San Francisco 49ers are called the 49ers and why Philadelphia 76ers are called the 76ers, though, so that has to count for something.
No meat on chickens feet, but they're an absolute delight.
Beat me to it. Well done. Do you know why Los Angeles is called the Lakers?