Your Paragon of Virtue

See how bad the logic is? Well, if this becomes a big deal, the real hypocrites will reveal themselves to be the people that were for gay marriage, and against this. I don't understand under which basis of logic can one be allowed and not the other. You're confusing the issue. How is there equality if people of one sexual orientation can marry, but people of the other cannot? Differences in sexual orientation or preference? That's not been shown yet, but either way, why can't someone who prefers to marry more then one person be denied when another man can marry a woman, or a man? How is there equality if some people can marry who they want, but if others want to marry more then one person, and they can't? What if all three (or four, or five) are perfectly happy together, and want to get married and can find a way to have the laws accomodate them? What's the problem in this? Why is it wrong for someone to marry more then one person, yet a person can change the definition to marry a person of the same sex? Why can't you change it again and change the laws to fit as such? I don't think I've ever had so many questions in one post.

Personally, I'd put Manning, Culpepper, Brady and McNabb ahead of Vick. I would have said Favre, but he's obviously in the twilight of his career. Manning and McNabb have way more experience then Vick, who has accomplished more in the short time he's been in the NFL then they had at that point. He does it with less of an offense too, at least when compared to Manning. He never had a genius coach or great defense to help out either. The fact that they are horrible without him and a game away from the Super Bowl with him, should show what kind of player he is. He's more then just Randall Cunningham.

See how bad the logic is? Well, if this becomes a big deal, the real hypocrites will reveal themselves to be the people that were for gay marriage, and against this. I don't understand under which basis of logic can one be allowed and not the other.

Fry FrigidSoul.

The Replacements - I Will Dare Dido - Here with Me Dido - White Flag

You guys? I don't see why they mention this, especially when the bad dudes haven't been caught yet. It would be bad for Bush's image on Homeland Security or whatever, and the fact that they might be out there, makes it worse.

Really. Why is he brought up as a terrible poster all the time? He's good people.

I bet if I posted this in CE most of the usual crew would be defending this guy, so I post it here for the liberal circle jerk crew: Disgusting Does anyone remember the old threads, where people would always post shit like "How old are you/are you a virgin"? I don't remember anything, but I always remember Bob getting older, but that dang NO hung around each time.

How many people do you have to kill to get there? Have you started yet?

Don't believe in God? Well only God can judge the human heart and-- aww never mind, you're probably going to Hell.

I actually heard that the WWE drew a 3.0 and UFC drew 1.5, which is very good considering that 3 is lower then usual, but 3.8 is lower then usual too so I'd imagine that it's a good showing either way. I think it will drop next week, for the people that were disappointed with it will not watch, but then some people think that the numbers will rise because some new fans will be attracted because of what they heard. Who knows.

Alright, I will change it. There.

Probably, but the cage is made for wrestlers, but I agree, submission guys have been much more plentiful in PRIDE. In UFC a lot of it is spraw and brawl, or ground and pound, and I don't think that's coincidence.

Deadbolt is the reason why I don't like Libertarians.

Eh, I still don't think he's a good coach, it's not like they draw up plays that have Vick just breaking the play and running around and stuff. Vick is the reason this team turned around, not the coach, although we can't be sure.

Dawkins has not been the best safety in the league for years, I don't know what you're talking about. This is just false.

That's not the issue at hand here. We should focus on getting rid of CronoT's stupid signature. Your signature is equally terrible. Pictures of Cubs players in the middle of winter. At least his is somewhat relevant since people hate Bush all year round.

How do you know Tazz is not a legitimate badass? The man does have martial arts background. This TE kids are gettin it easy. Tazz being hard on them is for their own good cause no one is gonna babysit you through a wrestling career. Paul Heyman has said that one of his biggest accomplishments was convincing people that Tazz was a legit badass, as opposed to the fact that he's not. So there you go. There's a difference between being hard and making up for your ego by being an ass. Him and Holly fall into the latter category. I understand pro wrestling is hard, but no need to just make up for your own insecurities by picking on kids who have just started doing it for the first time. EDIT: Does anyone know what the ratings were for the show?

Also, as pointed out before, he didn't want to work with whites not because he wanted to completely seperate from them, but he wanted the black community to get back on their feet on their own. Isn't that what you arguing anyway, about the fact that they shouldn't blame others for their problems? Like I said, he wasn't against harmony, he wanted black people to do it themselves to show that he could. This is really different from what segregation was used as before. Also, you can't just dismiss what happened in the last year of his life, because if he wasn't murdered for his change, then that philosophy he now had would have been a part of his life a lot longer. You're assuming that because he held that philosophy for a short time when compared to what he felt before, that this means it doesn't really have an impact. But the fact that he died because of it shows that he must have felt strong about it. He didn't promote violence, he promoted self-defence. Big difference. EDIT: My sig doesn't stretch the page at all, and you're the first to feel that way, so I'm guessing it's something to do with your settings.

It's kind of hard to be law abiding citizens when the law doesn't protect your best interests for the most part.

Well that's what I was trying to say before, he wasn't for segregation as much as he was for black people helping themselves and proving that they didn't need help from white people to do it, like the opposite of affirmative action I guess. The fact that he still talked to white people and gave speeches to white people at universities and such should be proof enough that he wasn't for segregation, even in the traditional sense. I also think what MLK did in his private life would be relevant to members of his Church, but not to what he meant to the movement then.

Has Thurman Thomas been elected yet? Andre Reed, James Lofton, Cornelius Bennett? Those are all the Buffalo picks that I think of now, Levy and Kelly are in already, and Smith is a lock as well. Here are a few borderline picks that are active: Eddie George, Peter Boulware, Priest Holmes.

This is of no relevance whatsoever.

Yeah, this is the short version of what I said ha.

I was about to say, there are so many misconceptions about MX and it pisses me off, because it's unfair to him. People automatically assume he was violent and make opinions based upon that, when people like NYU have no idea what they're talking about. Anyway, Malcolm X was more in favour of segregation in the beginning of his "career" as an activist, but towards the end after his visit to Mecca he became much more open minded about that sort of thing. He gave speeches to rooms of white people at Harvard based upon various topics in the social sciences, as well as conversing with white people on a regular basis. He however was much more in favour of emphasizing the black struggle as opposed to talking about whites changing the way they were. He believed essentially that the black community had to change their own lives first, and than later could things get better. That's why he would accept charities from whites, or maybe he wouldn't? I don't remember but it's important. He was in favour of segregation now so that blacks could get back on their feet, but to bring people together later on. Or something like that, I'm no historian but this is what I can remember at this point. Segregation now, harmony later. Of course, he died so we don't really know what he could have done had he had the time to see his influence on people.