SuperJerk

Not necessarily. Someone who is a Rhodes Scholar might or might not be an expert in defense and intelligence. The Rhodes Scholarship is not a specialized degree, but a scholarship to study at Oxford. What they study when they get there is up to them. Therefore, a Rhodes Scholar may or may not be an expert in those fields. In some cases, Rhodes Scholars might become experts in defense and intelligence (James Woolsey and Wesley Clark were both Rhodes Scholars, for example), or in other cases earn MBAs. Some with an MBA *must* be somewhat of an expert in economics in order to earn that particular specialized degree. Therefore, Bush should be an expert in economics, because he has a specialized degree in an area directly related to the field.

LOL, him getting "buried" is nothing compared to what Jericho and RVD have been going through all these years. But we're not talking about them, we're talking about Brock.

We were? News to me.

That's high praise from a Democrat, Popick, nobody knows pompousness and arrogance like the liberals The Czech Republic, my 4th favorite poster You should have used an emoticon in that post.

I'm sorry... What the hell were we talking about again? Oh, yeah, Trish. Mmmmm, Trish.... Oh, sorry. This is supposed to be a serious thread. No, because its a million times better than the stale face character she played from 2001-2004.

And they call wrestling fake.

Because, as Ann Coulter has taught us, if one liberal possesses an iritating character flaw, then enough liberals must possess that same character flaw to the point where said flaw is an accurate description of practioners of the ideology in general. You had me agreeing with your rebuttal until you tacked on the rolling-my-eyes emoticon and proved my point for me. Because, if two liberals possess an iritating character flaw, then enough liberals must possess that same character flaw to the point where said flaw is an accurate description of practioners of the ideology in general.

There isn't. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase Seperation of Church and State in 1802 letter. The term "DNA" wasn't used until the 1950s, but that doesn't mean DNA didn't exist before that. Think about it. Jefferson used the term to describe something that already existed, therefore the concept he described using that phrase existed before he coined the phrase.

Here we go again.

If Hannity really wanted to quote someone saying soemthing homophobic, all he has to do is quote himself.

Really? The one I went to had about a dozen or so copies left... ...at 3:45 in the afternoon. DVD sell-out, perhaps?

No, dude, you gotta say it like this: BATISTA IN THA HOUSE~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

I think they're lucky to get me to watch 4/2. *****

I would venture to say yes. We're all sinners. That's kind of a given. Sin is a concept within a religious structure which I do not believe in. Just saying. Christ. No pun intended. Then just substitute "sin" for "fallibility" or "wrongdoing" or "iniquity". Surely you can fit one of THOSE concepts into your paradigm. So, even using that terminology, what "fallibility" or "wrongdoing" or "iniquity" is she guilty of? She's done nothing wrong.

Is this the wrong time to point out that Brock was in the process of being buried around the time he left?

Booker v Heidenreich at NWO? What great build!! Meltzer was right, so I guess they've been planning this match since last week when they realized they had a PPV coming up with no matches booked for it. I guess the WWE forgot part of the reason they switched to split brand PPVs was to give themselves extra time to build up to them.

For some reason I barely watched Season 5 when it originally aired (work related, I'm sure). I've watched all previous episodes of both "Angel" and "Buffy". I saw a few episodes of the beginning of the season, and most of the Illyria arc (but not "Time Bomb"). I bought the DVD today, and I'm going to watch the whole season straight through. I already watched "Conviction" and "Just Reward", which I already saw in 2003, and enjoyed them a ton more this time. I'm looking forward to the "Smile Time" episode. Anybody know why the show was cancelled? Surely it couldn't have been ratings (I read on TV Tome that the season premiere had 5.2 million viewers, and the finale had 5.3 million). I'm sure its been discussed, but I don't feel like reading through a 208 page thread.

HELLLOOOO...actually union member who's been working since he was 17 sitting right here! **waves arms around** Because, as Ann Coulter has taught us, if one liberal possesses an iritating character flaw, then enough liberals must possess that same character flaw to the point where said flaw is an accurate description of practioners of the ideology in general.

So I've noticed.

These "experts" usually have "degrees" or years of "experience" within the field they are talking about, and come to conclusions using "facts" and "logic" rather than conjecture based on circumstantial evidence. Damn "experts" and their "facts" and "logic". My FAVORITE conspiracy theory would have to be that Sirhan Sirhan didn't assasinate Bobby Kennedy. Never mind the fingerprints on the murder weapon and kitchen full of eye witnesses. The unrefutable proof of the conspiracy, as we all know, was the visible holes in the kitchen ceiling which appear in some grainy black and white photos which no one has ever seen in the actual hotel kitchen where the murder occurred.

I would venture to say yes. We're all sinners. That's kind of a given. Sin is a concept within a religious structure which I do not believe in. Just saying.

Exactly. It's perfectly acceptable to use "I want the black man to win" as rationale for voting for Jesse Jackson (God knows there's really no other legitimate way to explain voting for him), but nobody could EVER say "I voted for the white man because I want a white president." I'm going to assume you mean one is more socially acceptable to say than the other, because I'm certain if the situation ever arose, plenty of people would be saying one or the other (and both would be wrong).

A man with an MBA should be an expert in economics, even if he's not an economist. Just like a medical doctor should be an expert in biology, even though he's not a biologist.

I never cease to be amazed by the amazingly low expectations we've set for our leaders.

I'm fairly bothered by the idea that someone can justify pollution by claiming humans don't have the power to destroy the planet. The article this thread was based on, and the subsequent points made by me, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBABL WARMING OR ANY OTHER APOCALYPTIC ENVIRONMENTAL THEORY. Jesus, its like some of you are speaking another language or something. I never said mankind had the power to destroy the planet. I just said we had the power to put our own health at serious risk by dumping toxins into our own food, water, and air supplies.