SuperJerk

Stupid WWE Rule #8743: Can't have a guy with a singles title wrestling another guy with a World title for the World title, unless a stipulation is that the titles are being unified (rule implemented after Wrestlemania 6).

Maybe this thread should be merged with the "WWE Married Wrestler/ Diva Affair?" thread.

So I guess it was Edge cheating on his wife with Lita, then. (This thread now has closure.)

Al Franken is PJ O'Rourke for the left, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about. P.J. O'Rourke is actually funny so I don't know what you're talking about. Al Franken wrote for Saturday Night Live back when it was actually good, so I don't know what YOU'RE talking about.

Speaking as some one who's actually read the book "To Renew America" (I even own a copy)...I'd love it if he ran for president. I mean, seriously, you think Howard Dean says stupid things? That book's wall-to-wall right-wing comedy.

Why on earth would something religious require any sort of validation beyond tolerance by the government? Because it's not tolerance to eliminate anything that might possibly have any chance of being construed as religious. I find that tolerant people are intolerant of non-religious people. Having a government that constantly makes references to God, despite having a provision in its constitution that says it cannot establish a religion, shows an intolerance for non-religious people. I also like the way you keep trying to confuse this issue by insisting we want to remove all references to religion. I already defended the President's right to say "God bless America", and would also defend his right to place his hand on the Bible when he is sworn in. That's not the same as the government adopting a religious slogan as its motto, which should be outlawed. That's just crazy talk. OF COURSE the First Amendment bans government recognition of religion. You've completely twisted the First Amendment to make it a tool to reinforce your own religious views. You don't have to go to church to have religious views. Duh. You just don't get it. I'm saying 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. You keep insisting that the 2nd and 3rd are indentifcal, which THEY ARE NOT. So God = "the American Spirit"? That's incredibly stupid. I'm enjoying the kind of semanitic gymnastics you're needing to do in order to justify your belief. Not only is it amusing to watch, but it only helps prove my point for me.

O'Connor's argument you cited was circular. She's trying to argue that their doing something justifies fact that they do it. Of course the words "under God" aren't a prayer, but the First Amendment doesn't specifically ban prayer, it bans governemtn recognition of religion. Breyer doesn't seem to get the fact that expression of faith in the supernatural is by definition religious, and that the First amendment forbids government recognition of religion. I'm beginning to understand now why Scalia considers his colleagues such idiots. Hardly. I can read the First Amendment as well as they can, and have a good enough understanding of the English language to understand what the words "no", "law", "respecting", "establishment", and "religion" mean when used together in a sentence. I never said religion should be banned. In fact, I said the opposite. The only people you seem to want to protect are the religious ones. I've been saying all along the government has no business either confirming or denying the existence of God. Government needs to be completely silent on the issue, and let people worship or not worship. Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the issue matters more to me than those hacks. He said: Amen.

I like the way you've made this personally about me. Since we're playing THAT game, I think the reason you cannot grasp my point is because you lack the ability to step outside your Judeo-Christian bias and see that that the belief in God is religious by definition, and that not all religions are monotheistic (the motto CLEARLY implies that the government favors monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones, thus violating the First Amendment). Heh. Good one. If *you* understood the slippery slope concept you know that once the government starts telling people to beleive in God, they'll soon be telling them which God to believe in, then which church to go to, then which doctrines to believe in. Each step is a simple justification away. After all, this whole debate started because a government agency decided to put up a sign that said "Thou shall have no other gods before me." Not just MY right, EVERYONE'S right. This isn't about me. If I was actually doing that, I'd be saying the government should be telling people NOT to believe in God. I'm *not* doing that. I'm saying the government should be nuetral and silent on the issue. Have you not been reading my posts all the way through? Wow. Its amazing that I can type a quote from something over and over FROM MEMORY without actually reading it. I must have super-powers! You're totally wrong on this. The First Amendment doesn't use the words "specific religion" at all. According to YOUR version of the First Amendment, its okay for the state to mandate its citizens must believe in God so long as it doesn't specify which God of which religion? Fuck that. I'm glad you're not actually the one in charge of interpreting the Constitution. There have been plenty of stupid traditions in this country over the years. Saying something that is wrong and illegal should be kept around simply because its a tradition is a slippery slope. You DO know what a slippery slope is, don't you?

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/28/m...reut/index.html This articles doesn't name names, but says that complaints were made. Seriously, this film (despite a few storytelling flaws) is a great work of historical fiction that realistically portrays the horrors of war. Can we all agree that people who would complain need to learn how to change the damn channel?

I smell a MadLib... noun: table tennis "Table tennis is bad for kids! Ban table tennis!"

I have more respect for Mike than that. Her writing got old for me once I cracked her formula: -Liberal X said this statement/might believe this position/has this character flaw. -Saying this statement/believing this position/having this character flaw makes you evil. -Liberal X is evil. -All liberals are the same. -All liberals, therefore, are evil.

We used to get JD down here in Wichita, but the station dropped him in favor of Don Imus *shudder* Because I really need to know about local NYC events He hasn't been the same since Murphy quit the show, but he still rocks. Sig worthy.

Believe me when I say that her looks are probably the ONLY reason anyone pays attention to her. Its certainly not her entertaining writing style, her insightful analysis, or her copious understanding of the issues.

I once wrote a letter to Marvel complaining he made everyone look like Callista Flockhart. Of course, for my one letter there was probably 1,000 "Authority" fanboy letters creaming over his uniqueness.

Here's my argument in three easy-to-follow points: 1. Making the words "In God We Trust" the OFFICIAL MOTTO of the U.S. is an endorsement of monotheism. 2. Monotheism is a type of RELIGION. 3. Endorsing monotheism contradicts the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Therefore, "In God We Trust" should not be on money. I think what you don't understand is that while I oppose the term "In God We Trust" in theory, I do realize that having it as our national motto isn't the end of the world. You don't exactly see me rioting in the streets over it, do you? The only reason I even brought it up is because I beleive there's a strong case to be made that having it as our national motto violates the First Amendment. Having said that...If the words really did "nothing", then you would see no harm in getting rid of them. But the words actually do something. They reinforce the belief in God. Its not the government's job to tell people to believe in God. Do you even acknowledge that people have a right not to believe in God? Then why is the government telling me I should beleive in God? You know what a good sign is that I've read the First Amendment before is? The fact that I've been QUOTING IT repeatedly.

YES! I love how that stupid v-chip was supposed to solve all these problems and now the problems got "worse." This idea gave networks more of an opportunity to be more vulgar because if you don't like it, just blank that station out of your TV. And yet, parents STILL complain. Its like the idiot cunt DJ at one of my local radio stations a few years ago complaining that there was "literally nothing else on for people to watch" instead of Saving Private Ryan. Bitch evidently thought there was only one station on her TV and that she was required to leave her TV turned on at all times with her kids in the room. (Note: for those of you in the KC area, I'm referring to Tanna on the "Max, Tanna, and Moffitt Show" on 99.7KY. Johnny Dare owns their asses.)

But everyone keeps saying the Democrats are moving to far to the left, and citing the use of MoveOn's tactics as an example. Using MoveOn's tactics is not the same thing as moving to the left. Again, there's a difference between tactics and ideology.

You're arguing that those crosses should be allowed to stay in as a nod to history, then I agree. How do the words "In God We Trust" acknowledge history? They do not. The words "In God We Trust" promote religion, even if it is not a specific one. If you think that the government promoting religion is harmless, then you do not understand why the First Amendment was put into place. By putting the words "In God We Trust" on money, the government is telling us that (a) there is a God, and (b) that we should trust him. That's a religious message. The government should not be in the business of distributing religious messages.

You're incorrectly blaming their tactics on their ideology. If it is their tactics that alienate people, then why say it is their ideology that turns people off?

Voter turn-out was much higher than usual, even for young people, in 2004. The Democrats got 8 million more votes in 2004 than they did in 2000. The problem was that the Republicans got their constituency to also turn out in greater numbers.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike. As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions. One party does no one in the country an ounce of good. Instead he wants the Democrats to be just like the Republicans?

I was too busy listening to Coulter calling the Democrats the party of murder to notice. Yeah, I guess I just have diminished expectations.....well for everyone on FOXNEWS lol, but Coulter especially, and Colmes is the sorriest excuse for a liberal they could have ever got. I take it with a grain of salt, but it would be nice to see the only so-called liberal on the network not play the bullshit game He may have been trying to trick her into denouncing a quote she had no way of verifying, but she was also given the opportunity to give an example of a time she acknowledged that a Republican went too far, and she refused. Instead, she started flying off the handle and accusing all Democrats of being liars and murderers.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike.

Irrelevant. You're arguing that M&Ms and Skittles are both kinds of candy, while I'm telling you some people just don't like candy, and have the right not to like candy, and that the government shouldn't be telling people to buy or not to buy candy. You're creating false alternatives. No one is saying the government's position should be anti-religion. The government should have NO POSITION, for or against, religion. Government should be silent on it.