SuperJerk

Anyone who thinks the motto "In God We Trust" actually fits America is deeply deluded.

They still are. No one on the right really takes her seriously. It's not as if the head of the RNC is coming out and gushing about how great she is, unlike ol' Terry and his pal Mikey. Wow, this time it took TEN posts before someone mentioned Michael Moore. Good job.

I was too busy listening to Coulter calling the Democrats the party of murder to notice.

Oh well THAT makes it okay then. Do people in South even realize they lost that war?

Yeah, but I think its becoming painfully obvious to EVERYONE she's crossed the line and is an embarrassment to the right (hence the expression on Sean's face in the clip). Remember when the right was represented by people like William Buckley, George Will, and Milton Friedman?

No, that's a group of religions, not one specific one. Are you honestly saying that making something plural negates any rules against it?

Damn, even Hannity was looking at her like a nut, and he's in love with her.

Source?

Isn't this the special Ric Flair hosted last year?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/ae/music/sto...p-4282999c.html

Using "God" means that you support the monotheism, which is a religious viewpoint. How is this an attack on others? He's attacking the people's right to use government property to promote their religious views...which is right that doesn't exist. If a monument to the Ten Commandments was erected for historical purposes, I say fine. But if that is the real reason for erecting it, then I doubt everyone would be getting so upset at the thought of removing them. Using public property to promote your religious views, which is what this guy thinks they have done, is clearly illegal. I think someone also needs to post the FIRST Amendment. Especially the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".

I didn't see another one. edit: Still don't.

Indeed.

If it was ever challenged, Bush saying "God bless America" would probably be protected because he's stating his own personal religious view, rather than officially mandating that all Americans must believe in God. Likewise, Congress begins sessions with a prayer, but it can be argued that it is merely members of the Congress observing a tradition at the request of its members, rather than endorsing religion (although why they need to do it at taxpayer expense has never been explained). I suspect than many things that the government does might be found unconstitutional if it ever was seriously challenged in court. For example, the challenge to the words "under God" was thrown out of court not because the complaint was judged invalid, but because the Supreme Court said the person didn't have the right to sue the government on behalf of his child. "In God We Trust" being on money is plainly a violation of the First Amendment, but no one challenges it. School prayer led by teachers and administrators was ruled unconstitutional some time ago. Maybe instead of attacking the person making the argument you should stop to consider that he might be right. Having no life doesn't automatically make you wrong. Trying to invalidate someone's view based on their personal traits rather than the merits of their argument is not logical.

As big a Victoria mark as I am, I have to say Trish is better. Trish had NO CHARACTER as a babyface and was quite boring on the mic, but now she's highly entertaining.

I can understand saying the Ten Commandments can be displayed on the grounds of historical purposes, but some of the other arguments that are being used are just wrong. I also think roughly half the people who responded to this thread completely missed the point. Its not an issue whether or not people are offended by religious displays, its a question of whether or not displaying religious text on government property implies sponsorship of religion. Government sponsorship of religion is clearly illegal, and has led to some serious problems in other countries throughout history. Only four of the Ten Commandments are part of the law in the U.S. -Thou shall not kill. -Thou shall not commit adultery. -Thou shall not steal. -Thou shall not bear false witness. "Thou shall not commit adultery" isn't even so much against the law as it is grounds for divorce, and "bear false witness" is only against the law if it is done in court or in legal documents. The rest of the Commandments are definitely NOT against the law, and coveting your neighbor's property is even encouraged to some degree. ARE YOU KIDDING? Do you REALLY THINK that no one would object to a sign on government property that says "Thous shall have no others gods before me" or "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"? Some of you who are defending the displaying of the Ten Commandments don't even seem to know what's actually in them.

I really like Trish's current heel character. You almost NEED a character like that, going around making fun of the other Divas. Most of her promos fit into the "funny cuz its true" category. I appreciated Trish's mic work a lot more after I saw the movie "Mean Girls".

If this isn't another example of Bush using his religious views to enhance his popularity, I don't know what is. The problem isn't allowing private groups to help people using public funds, the problems is allowing private religious groups to get out of the same government regulations non-religious groups must follow.

I hear that.

This would be the best opportunitu to break out the Million Dollar belt from Vince's vault. I would fucking mark out if that happened. Sadly, it'll probably end up having bullhorns or just go back to being the same ol US title that we all once knew. Maybe it'll look like the Texas Hardcore title.

Cons of watching PPVs at bars: -Potentially shitty food. -Annoying-as-hell marks. -Overpriced drinks. -Can't hear shit. -Possible cover charge.

Sounds like you got an early start. (You type like my Dad talks when he's drunk.)

Agree 100%. Like we think he's cool because he drank a lot of beer. What a cool guy. I bet the guy's really a 13-year old who drank too much ginger ale. Who also happens to look like Paul London.

It just hit me...storyline wise, isn't Joy going out with Big Show? So why is he teaming with McCool? Maybe he needs the rub.

Except for those times they did the triple title match gimmick. and there is no such rule considering how often People have held two titles at once. They just havent had a champion vs champion match as high profile as WM6 since. Correction: 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).