Spicy McHaggis

Of course, there must be a melody for a song to be a song. So, you could say Tupac allowed for rap songs instead of "tracks".

Ignorant non-Christians and thin-skinned Christians.

I got Vick in the 4th. I might've waited till the 5th but I didn't want to take any chances. I'll see what I can get for Pittman & McCardell.

What do you think? We start 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 k, 1 d. QB - Vick, Plummer RB - Edgerrin, Pittman, James Stewart WR - Owens, Driver, Charles Rogers, McCardell TE - Sharpe, Freddie Jones K - Elam, M. Gramatica D - Pittsburgh, St. Louis

My first clue was when I found the Georgia Tech/BYU halftime show more interesting. I flipped over to see A-Train getting protected over Benoit. Later, turned on the main event to see UT humping Show's face, and Cole talking about how much everyone wants Angle's ass. Read the review today... no WGTT, no Mattitude, Cena & Eddie having to fight each other instead of going over the big, old morons. The only place I want to see Cena, Eddie, Benoit, Angle, etc, go over each other is in the main event for the TITLE. It's the usual complaints: too many McMahons, HHH, old fatasses on top, no young talented WRESTLERS on top. But most of all, it's plain boring. Good thing, too... College Football is back. Here's to WWE hitting rock bottom sooner rather than later... then they'll have to change.

Bullshit. It's a bad idea not to go big for what has traditionally been the 2nd biggest ppv of the year. It's exactly the same as using Wrestlemania to set up Backlash. Tell me this... who on Raw has HHH not gone over? No point? Shane, a guy I've been a big fan of, is a nonwrestler McMahon. Kane is old, slow, and past his prime. What advantage is served by either guy going over? What?!? Dude, I've been a WWE/Vince apologist for 2 years. I was all over IWC negativity. In life, I'm an optimist. The fact is WWE is painful to watch. It's like your favorite sports team in the middle of a 5 year slump. It's boring. There are barely any signs of improvement. I'll give you Brock. And Kurt IS the champ. But who's in the ME? I guarantee UT either wins the title or loses with a minimum of 2 ref bumps and a run-in. On Raw, HHH is the champ and will be until he loses his legs.

Post if you're Irish or Scottish. We need members and a good name. I'm in!

CE has to be MikeSC vs. Marney.

It's because I *am* Jewish senor rant, along with the fact that general ignorance infuriates me ,and as someone who spent his summer with a bunch of racists I've had my fill of it for a while. I don't condone making fun of Christianity either, and for crying out loud I'd have hoped by now that our society would have evolved past arguing about shit that happened THOUSANDS of years ago based on thirdhand sources. Like what, the murdering of our Lord and Savior? [/sARCASM]

I agree. I like football more, but everyone I know including people that don't like--nor do they have ANY knowledge of--sports know how to play baseball and know some of its history.

Your condescending act is getting tired. If natural selection is supposed to eliminate flawed characterstics, then why is the human eye built backwards, inside out, and upside down? And how exactly does gradual evolution contradict God?

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation. -=Mike Science cannot disprove religion/God. In fact, I believe as science advances it will go the other way and help prove it. For example, theories on molecular replacement in the human body will go a long way toward proving the existence of the soul.

Didn't say it wasn't clearly an issue of religion, read it again.

Because the statue with all 10 Commandments violates neither the Separation of Church and State nor the ban on government endorsement of one, specific religion.

That's pretty much the Yin and Yang of Buddhism, so you're right.

Want a medal?

Somehow, THAT's more logical to people than God creating it. Amazing.

Note K's question mark. Can't say he didn't get what he deserved.

Yes. My background is a conservative Catholic one, but I've become pretty liberal, theologically. I'm saying that the Church says it has to be about both equally. My view is that every sexual relationship should be open to life...meaning the couple can use contraception as long as they intend to have kids or will be open to a child if it fails.

It's exactly the same as the Church's line on premarital sex. I should note that I'm merely pointing out and defending the Church's official position. My views are a bit different.

Wrong. The Church's stance is that every sexual act must serve a dual purpose of life-giving and love-giving. Sex purely for procreation is wrong. Sex purely for pleasure is wrong. Both the possibility of procreation and the expression of love between the wife and husband must be present. Bullshit on divorce. Marriage, which is divine in origin, is a Holy Sacrament. It is indissoluble until death. It is by nature above human law and cannot be ended by human law. I've never done that.

Keep reading my post. EDIT: Also, you can't control your attractions and feelings but you can control your actions.

Of course it does. But one passage in Leviticus isn't the only reason that homosexual activity, not orientation, is prohibited. You first have to understand the Church's official line on the sexual act...then it's easy to understand why they can't possibly allow gay sex.

Nope.

Maybe SP will back me up here... when studying the Bible, especially for Biblical Scholars, its pretty easy to differentiate between out-of-date terrible customs of the time and divine teachings.