Your Paragon of Virtue

Whoever thinks the commercial is offensive to Jesus is on crack. Find better things to complain about.

*Sees that everyone prominent in the commercial is black* *Notices we're at TSM* Ahhh, all's normal 'round here.

IT'S JUST A BIGGER PIECE OF CAKE FOR ME TO CHEW A HOLE THROUGH *Dama stands on a table* I AM DMX

Now that you point that out...damn you for pointing out my minor faux pas with a smartass remark on top of not even replying to the original message. You dick... EDIT: BTW, Paragon, your sig pic with Bas always frightens the bejeezus out of me when it pops up. It makes me want to hide somewhere and cry. I was shocked to see the pic as well. I actually read the post this time, and I wanna know; if you all have to lose is an afternoon, where's the risk?

I hated ROTK, but to each his own. Commander was the best movie that *I* saw last year, but I still want to check out Monster, and Mystic River. The hype on those two is unreal.

I recall seeing Ric Flair himself saying that "whoo" was the correct spelling, so I'll go with that.

I have to say that the title of the article mislead me. I had originally thought that a bunch of fans were angry over the fact that he was celebrating and had tackled him because they were pissed off, sort of like the incident with the man tackling the ref. If that's not the case, then this is nothing more than a sad story really, and not much can really be said.

We all know that Fox Sports has been working on some sort of deal with the UFC, and perhaps Max will be used. That's what I've heard "around the horn" anyway (HA!). Truth be told, unlike the PTI guys, Max is pretty knowledgeable in MMA and supportive of it as a sport, so he would work. I still love PTI though. It's not like MMA is ever discussed.

YOU CAN HATE ME NOW BUT I WONT STOP NOW No need to yell..........jeez........you're still angry b/c you never got that million dollars from me. Oh man, this guy is pretty clueless. Odds are that I'd agree with what he would probably say, about Puff Daddy being a stupid name. That's why it makes that he changed it to.... P.Diddy. Oyveh.

From what I've gathered, mostly everybody is a social "liberal" regardless of how they feel on other issues, on this board I mean. I don't think they'd complain about that sort of bias. In Canada, the one socially conservative newspaper that we had, The National Post, was sold by Conrad Black to someone else, whereas now the paper is only fiscally conservative.

I just read the title, and just wanted to be a smartass in saying that you already have considered. I didn't actually read your post.

The gov't doesn't tend to, you know, endorse (heck, participate) in rape. It is a generalization, but it is sadly fitting with the words of, say, the Democratic Presidential nominees. -=Mike ...Being "for" human rights is useless if you won't do anything to make it happen. Would you feel it necessary to travel to go to any other dictatorship and liberate those people? I have no idea as to what Snuffbox is trying to say at this point.

Simple question: Would you RATHER Saddam be in power? That is, ulitmately, what this boils down to. If you think the world would be better with him in power, then say so. That is the central thrust of your argument. -=Mike I would take Saddam still in power over the current situation any day of the week. Then you are an evil troll, quite frankly. Screw those untold millions of Iraqis who've been killed. Yeah, the left is all for "human rights" --- well, provided that no actual effort on their part is required. If it is, screw 'em. -=Mike Yes, make a generalization based on what one person thinks. I highly doubt that all Liberals feel this way.

Pro-Life, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or rape/incest. Even with the situation of rape, I'd prefer no abortion, but I won't even pretend to know what it's like to go through that, but I still dislike the idea of aborting the child. Pro-Justice. Yeah, that includes the death penalty.

Like most others have probably done, I stopped reading right there.

So what you're saying is that what Tate did is not as bad as this? ARE YOU ON CRACK gOOD SIRZ~!?!? Seriously, beating the shit out of a little girl as they're screaming and showing no remorse is MUCH worse.

And now we disprove this theory. Super Bowl XXXVII MVP Dexter Jackson of the Tampa Bay Bucs was not a QB(surprising, I know). In fact he was a Safety who picked off the ball a couple times. Now Brad Johnson completed about 50% of his passes for 215yards, 1 pick, and 2 TDs...he didn't have a spectacular game but he did manage the clock and got them in the endzone a couple times. From what you've said however Brad Johnson should have been the MVP but he wasn't. Now from what I have counted there have been 19 SuperBowl MVPs to go to QBs, however(!) how many of them were to different QBs? 13...the other 19 have gone to 19 different players who were not QBs. So they do not win them all the time, in fact a different QB doesn't win a SuperBowl MVP even half of the time. Good QBs win a SuperBowl MVP, Elite QBs win multiple SuperBowl MVPs I suppose Bart Starr, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, and Tom Brady shouldn't have gotten them though due to recievers, defense, recievers, and once again defense. Dexter Jackson was in the right place at the right time on two different plays. He didn't dominate the game. I worded it wrong; what I meant was, if there's no one that really stood out in the game, or at least got lucky on a couple of plays, then the QB will always win the MVP. Regarding DB's getting the MVP, one only needs to look at "Scott's Law" to figure out how that one works. Look at Bored's post to see proof of why a few quarterbacks should not have won the MVP. Like I said before, Bradshaw and the rest of that Steelers offense WAS overrated. You want proof? They were known for the defense, yet in every Super Bowl an offensive player won the MVP. When you're leading at half-time 2-0, with the only score coming from your defense, and your quarterback having like 11 receptions in the whole game, well, something is wrong. For whomever compared Manning to Marino, regarding the rings; like I said, Marvin<Pats Defense. For the Walter Payton thing, I was thinking of Barry Sanders. But, the Bears had a shitty team until that 46 defense broke out in '85, I remember reading that his team had the same W-L record as Barry's Lions in the first seven seasons of their career, or something like that. Doesn't make them any less great though.

Development: Apparently he did not want to hold out

He's a leader, as ALL QB's are leaders of their team. That's just the way it goes. If a team wins a Super Bowl, the QB, regardless of whether or not he had a spectacular game, will be MVP. That's the way it is. Hmm, which one proves that more then any other? Read what I said about teams travelling to New England to regarding the focal point. Defenses are not made of stars most of the time, unless they are self-promoting or flashy. Most of the time, it's more about the scheme or system as opposed to the individual players.

Oyveh, these Pats fans are uptight. If he's not the best of all time, then he's underrated. I wouldn't say that he was dominant, but it's not Walter's fault. Football is a team game after all, and their offense was never very good anyway. He was never a difference-maker, a dominant player. They had a losing record before that season, and I'm pretty sure that they had one afterwards as well. Tom Brady is a great quarterback, that plays on a team that scares teams with their defense. Did teams travel to New England this year worried about Brady? No, they worried about their defense.

I never said that he wasn't a good QB dipshit. I said that he wasn't THE BEST EVER OMG JO MONTANA PART DEUX~! It's not my fault you can't tell the difference. It's just common knowledge that if you aren't the main reason your team has won, than you should not be considered the best at anything. Care to disagree with that logic? Tom Brady is a GREAT QB, but the bottom line is that they could have one of a few other quarterbacks in the league and win a super bowl. Is Tom Brady the focal point? Nope. Was Joe Montana? Yes. That right there should show that he doesn't deserve the comparison...yet. Notice how I said that last time too? But since I'm not proclaiming him to be God now I suppose that I thought he wasn't a good QB right? I said that he might be on his way to being the best QB ever, and that's considered a knock on him. What a fucking idiot. If you're referring to what I said about the Steelers, their overratedness may or may not have to do with the fact that they played with the defense. Just saying that there's no way that Harris, Swann and Bradshaw are as good as people say they are. I personally think when it's all said and done that Payton Manning will be a better quarterback then Brady, but Marvin Harrison<Pats Defense. I'd wonder why you totally misunderstood what I was saying, but you know, you've seemed to set up camp on Tom Brady's balls. That would explain a lot.

It's own folder would generate more traffic, but I don't know how much. To put it in sports would probably be more appropriate.

Agreed. Tom Brady plays with one of the most dominant defenses ever, with one of the best defensive minded coaches ever. Am I the only that sees the trend? I do see a trend Terry Bradshaw played with one of the most dominant defenses ever, with one of the best defensive minded coaches ever. You going to tell me Bradshaw wasn't a good QB (he had two SB MVP awards, just like Brady) just because he had guys like Mean Joe Green and Jack Lambert on the other side of the ball, as well as Chuck Noll running the team? And that's to say nothing of how Bradshaw and Noll hated each other, versus how Brady and Belicheck like to work together Preposterous Terry Bradshaw had Franco Harris and Lynn Swann with him actually, a couple of HOF members. All THREE of them are overrated because of the fact that they played with that defense. I wouldn't put them in the top ten all-time in any of their respective positions. Still, their offense was so much better than the Pats, I mean really, just look at the stats displayed this year by the Pats offense and Tom Brady even. His passer rating wasn't stellar, and they didn't win games with their offense. Your comparison is more coincidental, as I can use any team from recent past that would seem to be a better fit. A better comparison would be Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson of recent years. No one else on their offense and the best defense in the league. Though their coaches are supposed to be offensive geniuses, but whatever. Now that I think about it; could the patriots have won the Super Bowl with a different quarterback? Probably, I could think of a handful. Could the 49ers have won in the eighties with another quarterback? Doubtful. Steve Young doesn't even count, that team was much better, and they beat a depleted Cowboys team that should've won four straight. Tom Brady isn't Joe Montana....yet. Too damn early. I wouldn't even say that he's the best QB in the league right now.

Agreed. Tom Brady plays with one of the most dominant defenses ever, with one of the best defensive minded coaches ever. Am I the only that sees the trend?

Yet Neo Nazi bitchez that travel in groups and beat the crap out of people don't get caught at all. You'd think a crowd of people would be easy to find, but then no.