SuperJerk

I think the Andrew Sullivan quote in my sig says it all.

Maybe I can "invent some quotes" about gay porn.

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution. If you ignore entire portions of the Constitution, you make them irrelevant. Which DOES change them. -=Mike That's pretty far-fetched reasoning.

1) What is your favorite WM, top to bottom, of all time? X7 2) What is your least favorite WM of all time? 9 3) What is your favorite WM match? Savage vs. Flair (8) 4) What is your least favorite WM match? Rocky Maivia vs. The Sultan (13) 5) Name some honorable mentions for favorite match: Austin/Rock (X7) HBK/Ramone (10) Hart/Piper (8) Hart/Hart (10) 6) What is your favorite WM venue? MSG 7) What is your least favorite WM venue? Caesar's Palace 8) Going in, which WM card do you think looked the best on paper? 14 9) Going in, which WM card do you think looked worst on paper? 9 10) What do you think is the most underrated WM of all time? 19 11) What do you think is the most overrated WM of all time? 3 12) What is your favorite WM moment? Benoit's win at XX 13) What is your least favorite WM moment? Hulk Hogan wins the WWF title from Yokozuna at WM9. 14) Who would you pick as the top three Wrestlemania performers of all time? Steve Austin Bret Hart Randy Savage 15) How many of the previous 20 Wrestlemanias have you seen? 15 16) What was the most surprising WM moment to you? Triple H retained the WWF title at WM16 17) Who was your favorite "special guest" at a WM? Pete Rose 18) Which WM have you seen the most times? Ten or X7 19) Which WM commentary team was your favorite? Ross/Heyman (X7) 20) Above all, what do you want to see at WM this year? Angle/HBK

I think you're reading way to much into what she said. Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution.

Obi-Wan killed Darth Maul without any ill effects. You turn to the dark side if you give into your anger and let it control your actions.

If you can't handle my rebuttals to your arguments without resorting to pointless and immature name-calling, then I no longer have the desire to discuss this issue with you. At this point I'm just repeating myself, anyways. I'll let others decide if my arguments have merit or not, although I doubt many will find your fallacy-filled posts to be persuasive. If anyone else wants to step up and try to have a rational discussion about this, please post your point of view and I promise to read it.

My friends have been debating whether or not this is true ever since the DVD came out. Speaking of debates over endings, the things at the end of "A.I." that everyone (except me) thought were aliens were actually ROBOTS. Trust me, its on the DVD. Jesus Christ, I got tired of trying to convince people of this. The much-hated ending to the movie actually WORKS if you know that they're robots. (I know nobody was actually talking about this movie, but I had to get that off my chest.)

He could have been lying to psyche-out Luke. Maybe he saw nothing but only pretended to?

There are three possibilities: 1. Job security. 2. He actually likes Triple H. 3. Some combination of the two.

Ah, so Boxer thinks it's only fair to COMPLETELY change the Constitution because she doesn't like the current political landscape? She wants to require BOTH a supermajority AND for judges to face election. First of all, according to this quote, she was referring to them facing election by the Senate, which they already do. Second, her suggestion would not COMPLETELY CHANGE the Constitution as you claim. Third, Boxer isn't the first person to suggest amending the Constitution because she didn't like how the courts were behaving. After all, this reasoning part of the justification for the gay marriage amendment. Fourth, I am curious to know why you or anyone thinks making judicial apointments require a super-majority vote in the Senate is such a bad idea. I have not made up my mind yet on this issue, and wouldn't mind seeing people actually debate the merits of it rather than just throw insults at the person who proposed it.

This is another red herring. No one here has said they want to get rid of Christmas. But aren't you the guy who said this? Now, for those of you tuning in late, here's the quote that MikeSC provided to show that my views (yes, he did mean me specifically) on religious displays contradicted my views on environmentalism: Wow, he sure caught me, didn't he? Even more hilariously, he then said this: Wow, you sure did. Anyhow, he got really, really pissed though when I said this: Sounds to me like you're saying I advocate the outlawing of religion. Using terms like "prohibit free exercise thereof" and "force" in this context means the same thing as outlawing religion. Mike, here's a tip, when trying to use someone's quotes against them to contradict them, it helps if you ACTUALLY HAVE A QUOTE. And one last thing... If I'm a moron, then I guess it doesn't take that much to outsmart you.

Am I alone in thinking that its just too damn soon to be coming out with the next system. Most X-Box games have yet to take advantage of the system's capabilities as it is. I can understand wanteding to beat PS3 to the market, but I'm not sure the world is ready for this thing yet.

^Took the words right out of my mouth.^

"But we won't care" = Best. Comeback. Ever.

I'd say pretty much everyone's acting was shit in Ep.2, which makes it George's fault. Except for Portman. She's terrible in EVERYTHING.

I never understood why more people didn't dig Firefly. Off the top of my head, a bad timeslot and the fact that it was essentially a "space western" (you can say that it wasn't, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...) would immediately make it a hard sell to viewers. And yet Joss sold the Fox execs on it. I meant I didn't understand why people who actually gave it a chance didn't dig it. Of COURSE its a space western. Finacially, I expect Serenity to turn enough of a profit (assuming its low budget, say $20-$30 million TOPS) to warrant its existence as a film, and will do really good secondary market business (just look at Firefly DVD sales), but not to break $60 at the box office domestically.

I never understood why more people didn't dig Firefly. As far as Wonder Woman goes, I'd cast Jennifer Connelly.

I think we've all worked that one out by now. <---Late to the party.

The problem with this isn't with Jake going back to WWE, the problem with this is that he stupidly claimed he'd never work there again, when in fact all it took was the right circumstances. I'm not saying I'm not glad Jake's working with them again, but it needs to be noted that the words "I'll never work there again" are total bullshit 99% of the time.

Never heard of it. What was it about?

Well YOU heard about it, didn't you? Just saying.

I've addressed this before. There are THREE ways a government could act. 1) It could be pro-religious and insist everyone beleive in God. 2) It could be anti-religious and insist that no one beleive in God. 3) It could be non-religious and not tell people anything about God. The first two are wrong, and the third one is right. The 2nd and 3rd are not "just as bad", because the 2nd gives people no choice, whereas the 3rd gives people to right to choose. The problem is you have absolutely no ability to comprehend the differences between positions 2 and 3. How is saying I want to force atheism on people not the same thing as saying I want to ban religion? How is saying I want to prohibit the free exercise of religion not the same thing as saying I want to ban religion? You're grasping at straws.

If this wasn't a problem back in 1999 --- which it wasn't, considering that these stories didn't EXIST back then --- it's illogical that the IDENTICAL levels of mercury would be causing problems now. Just because we don't know about a problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist. No, it shows that environmentalism is not a science, but a religious cult. They praised Clinton's environmental policies, but when Bush KEPT them, he was trying to poison the water. -=Mike Who "PRAISED" Clinton's enviornmental policies? Good luck finding an environmental group who ever criticized it. Ralph Nader and the Green Party during the 2000 election.

It might be easier if you used the correct grammar. "And they no say that you want to ban God."? The hell? Mike, you've become so angry that you're now completely incoherent.