Firestarter

There were two threads in which Mike was accused of advocating rape. I was referring to the first one. In the second, he simply said that your friends were dumbasses for putting themselves in situations in which they could get raped. And with that point I agree. He also said that many women cry "rape" when it's just a matter of them regretting it the morning after. This is also true. So? I really don't know what you're trying to say here. This part of your post could be interpreted as BAN MARNEY~!! or UNBAN MIKE~!! or KEEP MIKE BANNED~!! or pretty much anything else. The only thing that wouldn't change is the implication (and the fact) that the Pit is better.

She's a woman. If you can't understand that, I can't explain further. Nope. He's a gentleman. My wife left me a long, long time ago. And no. Even though I'm a girl myself, I wouldn't hit another girl.

Smarter than he usually is. That's pretty much all he can do at this point. Media saturation is pretty much done and all he can hope for is a Hillary stumble - which is kind of funny given that all Hillary can hope for, nationally, is an Obama stumble. Still, even over a month, a 16-point margin is kinda hard to overcome. Downplaying expectations is a no-brainer.

Die x2

Die.

You pansy-ass twits. Take off the leash and you'd see what we can do. This shit would have been over years ago if it weren't for your side carping and bellyaching and bitching about the goddamn enemy casualties all the fucking time. Hello. Reality calling. In a war the objective IS to BUTCHER as many ENEMY SOLDIERS as possible in the least amount of time. Plain and simple. You cut bloody swathes through their ranks and you leave them filled with the fucking fear of God. We didn't do that because you assholes wouldn't let us. Fuck you. The fact that we're fighting this war with both our hands tied behind our backs is entirely on your heads.

But, just like Halle Berry, he identifies himself as "black." I'm sure their white mothers are so proud. Especially as, in both cases, their black fathers abandoned their families. Does that surprise anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I'm glad to see you're following Dames' fine example and actually indulging in debate on matters of board policy. Thank you. Here are my views. PRO: he's familiar with a lot of sites that even I don't frequent; on more than one occasion he's provided me with information that even the DoD didn't have. I've had to look up his sources several times and he's never been proven wrong. Whatever else he might do, Mike does add serious content - I think this is undisputed. Point number two - Mike always argues in good faith. No matter whether you agree or disagree with him, what you see is what you get. He never brings up some specious line of argument "just to debate" - he says what he says because he means it. And on a personal note, frankly, I'd like some company. It's sort of lonely in my ideological corner in CE right now. CON: "I'm worried that this might upset a lot of members." Pretty much anything upsets someone. The only question is, is it the right thing to do? - and was it ever right to ban him in the first place? I submit that the answer is a resounding "No." He never broke any rules, save the least important: no flaming. Whatever. It's a fucking messageboard. Anyway, the only con I can see is that he might scare away idiots. Now if you're terribly concerned about your idiot audience, there might be an argument to be made there (and given that this is a "professional"-wrestling themed messageboard, I can see why this could be relevant), but otherwise, there isn't much of a leg to stand on there. COUNTER: "He makes outlandish disgusting comments that even cross our line, like how some rape victim had it coming or whatever that was." I think you misinterpreted that entire thread over on the Pit, but Mike (as I read it) was basically arguing for total war. He wasn't advocating rape. He was just saying that we don't need to put a war on hold and start apologizing to Mohammedan enemies who want to fucking KILL us just because they may have accused one or more of our soldiers of rape, credibly or not. "He's such a lightning rod for criticism, bad feelings, and resentment of the community that maybe it wouldn't increase page views after all, and it would drive people away were he to come back." This conclusion I doubt. Even - in fact, especially - the people who complained the most about Mike were the people who engaged him in debate most often. Mike always took on all comers. No exceptions. It didn't matter whether he was outnumbered 50 to 1 - Mike always stood by his principles, and he was always willing to explain them. At great length. Innumerable times. You want page views? Mike's your man. Also, as a side note: I don't suppose anyone else remembers this, but my very first serious interaction with Mike (something like six years ago) concerned GLAAD and Laura Schlessinger. I took GLAAD's side. Mike took Schlessinger's. This resulted in a vicious, multi-page argument, but in the end, he beat me, fair and square. Two years passed before it became obvious that his position had been correct from the beginning and I had been wrong. But that's just one example of what Mike could bring back to your board. There are countless others. Say what you want to about him, but the man always backs up his claims. And he's always been right far, far, far more often than wrong. In sum, if you want more discussion, more diverse views, and more originality in the CE folder, you should get down on your knees and BEG Mike to come back. He might not even want to - I haven't discussed this with him. But I sincerely believe that he would be nothing but a net benefit.

... ...shhh.

Quiet, nigger. <toys with whip>

Fair enough.

I hereby submit a petition to bring back Mike. "He was banned before" will not be considered a serious argument. Either tell me why he's a detriment to the board, or un-ban him.

Okay, I'll admit it, that one went right over my head.

PS ...along with the 700+ other cases that have been brought against me over the course of my career. Actually, do you think you could find a few more equally ridiculous charges to bring up? I want to make 1000 in '08. (I have a running bet.)

Thank you. I hate gay sex anyway. EDIT: ahahaha. Think, THEN post. <slaps self>

In that case, kindly remove your damned word filters.

You have a point.

er, if he were the son of Adolf Hitler, I'm sure quite a few people would disagree with you. As it is, being a congregationist of Jeremiah Wright's is a fair parallel. And a lot of people do disagree with you. Next. Then you should appreciate it, since you rarely add anything to any discussion either. um. Are you serious? Do a basic google search. Even the wiki entry is one of the first results you'll get. NO ONE CONTESTS THIS, not even B.O. Hussein. You're an ignorant twit. yes obviously oh thank you Kindly check the definition of the word "libelous" while you struggle to unwrap your lips from around B.O. Hussein's cock. You and he should feel free to sue me at any time you please. I look forward to watching your case being laughed out of court.

That's better.

So, do you admit that being a bastard would make B.O. Hussein look bad? No, it's been pretty well documented that B.O. Hussein's father was a polygamist Mohammedan who took him to mosques and had at least one wife (and more than one child) before he ever met Ann Dunham. Whatever. Your problem is that you inevitably bring it back to the messenger and not the message. Much like B.O. Hussein. Also, you should look into the proper use of apostrophes.

Okay, then, here's the answer to your friend's question: Jesus was born both human and divine. He came to us specifically to absolve mankind of our original sin of disobedience to God. As Ann put it: Yes, He died. Because someone had to. Because He wanted to give us a chance, and without Him, we never had one. He was resurrected afterwards because you can't kill the divine.

Could you kindly read your fucking Bible and your fucking catechism before asking utterly elementary questions which wouldn't give a moment's pause to anyone who hadn't been brought up as a heathen. I have better things to do than teach Sunday school to kindergarteners without even being paid for it.

<shrugs> I obviously have a different perspective on the matter. But I do think that you can and in fact should do whatever you need to do to ensure your own safety - but you shouldn't go beyond that. According to EHME's own recounting, he went way beyond what he needed to do, and as he himself stated, he enjoyed it. That's what ticked me off. Gloating over harming a woman, for whatever reason - that's just nasty. Yeah, she never had a chance. You kicked her ass. Good for you. Now you're going to use that to build up your e-persona as some kind of hero? What a fucking sadist.

How would I know? I wasn't there. Maybe he still loved her too much to raise a hand against her. Think whatever you want. There's also a difference between restraining someone and flinging her across a sofa and then punching her in the face.

Ignorant blasphemy. Mary was an instrument of divine will, not some kind of mistress of God. According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and He therefore formed Himself, just as God did. Mary's place of honor in the Catholic church as the Mother of God in no way conflicts with her temporal role as the wife of Saint Joseph. There is no contradiction.