SuperJerk

Cena, but they won't be here the same day.

Only Batista did. That's one person. Evolution turned on Orton. In Hunter's mind, Orton turned on Evolution. (Wouldn't a better title for this thread have been "Is Evolution going Extinct?" I mean, really... "Has it gone the way of the dodo?" Who even says that anymore?)

I ordered it back in early January as part of a 3-pack special DirecTV was running with New Year's Revolution and the Rumble. I think when I made that particular choice, I was assuming the belt would be off of JBL by the time No Way Out aired.

Thats why Angles best matches were with people far more talented than him like Benoit, Austin, Guerrero, Mysterio etc. etc. Stick him in a match vs. random midcarder with minimum skills and the match would blow. Angle's had good matches also with Edge, Kane, and Shane McMahon, just off the top of my head. Brock Lesnar, the Undertaker, and John Cena also come to mind. Especially Cena, since those were TOTAL carry jobs by Angle.

Good observation.

Congratulations on living under a rock. Yea, because everyone is a Star Wars fan. Yeah, I'm sorry, that was a little jerkish of me... **looks at username** Anyways, to answer your question: Episodes 4-6 were released in the late 70s/early 80s and take place twenty-thirty years after the prequel trilogy (Episodes 1-3). Episode 3 is the last Star Wars movie George Lucas plans to make. There were original supposed to be 9 movies altogether, but he decided against it after the focus of the series became the life of Darth Vader. Since Vader dies in Episode 6 ("Return of the Jedi"), there's no need to continue the saga.

Big Show's the man.

I was wondering the same thing.

Congratulations on living under a rock.

I thought that idea was used since at least the George Perez run.

I never found arguments that they were better off on USA to be that convincing.

I'd sure love it if someone would link to this wonderful Scalia decision everyone's developed a raging boner over.

This thread has BY FAR the most comedic potential of anything to come down the pike since the "OAO Raw is Randy" thread last year.

Anybosy think this will change the quality of the product?

Its not like us straight guys are cheering for Orton anyways.

I like the way we hate HHH so much that our problems with him get classified into multiple categories.

NEWSFLASH: Not every male who watches WWE is straight.

Whu???? You mean women are people too????? When the fuck did this happen?

I'm just saying it'd be nice if for once we didn't repost the same tired old jokes about Ted Kennedy like you guys do every other time his name is mentioned. Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity...they've all become such easy targets around here that it hardly seems worth the effort. I'm going to take this as a sign nobody cares that the left is starting to warm up to Bush (which a few months ago would have been seen as impossible), and shut up.

^ See that? Its an up arrow. If you push "shift" and the "6" button at the same time, you can make one too. I've conceded arguments to MikeSC before. I've conceded arguments to Anglesault before. Does that still make me a brick wall? No, it just means they're better at making convincing arguments than you. Quit blaming others for your own short-comings. I'd argue that most 18 year olds' brains aren't fully developed enough to know what they were doing either, but you got to draw the line somewhere. There's not a lot of difference between a 17 and an 18 year old, but since society has already been using 18 as the age where you are legally an adult, that's a good place to have the line drawn.

Like NoCalMike said, no one is actually trying to get it taken off. I'm just saying that in my opinion it should be there. Am I willing to do anything other than have an anonymous discussion with a half dozen strangers to have it removed? No. Were I a Supreme Court justice or a member of Congress and this case came before me, I'd act to have it removed, but in all honesty of course I realize that having it there matters very little Yes, that is a good point...I'll admit. I would think that the same rules of Constitutionality apply to observances made by the Congress as federal laws, but your exception might actually be valid.

Yes, it does. Since it is the official national motto, it tells what the basic principle of the country is. They are saying our basic principle is to trust God, which is a declaration of religious faith. By making a religious statement a basic principle, you are in effect endorsing monotheism (which is the same thing as establishing that monotheism is the official religion of the state). Now, I'm not deluded enough to think that this is on par with the establishment of the Church of England, but it is along the same lines. I fail to see why this is so controversial. As mottos go, its a pretty stupid one. Nothing about this country leads me to beleive that its people or government trust God.

My problem with his argument isn't that I can't see the difference between judicial activism and judicial review. My problem with his argument is that I can see how a strict constructionist using the definition of judicial review he gave could STILL find the law unconstitutional given the wording of the 8th Amendment, whereas he does not. Just because my posts are written in an easier-to-read format, doesn't make my arguments any less valid. I want EVERYONE to be able to read my posts, not just the elite few who have taken class after class of political science or law. I've posted in the past with these long diatribes featuring long definitions and multiple examples...but what's the point? If I can say what I want to say with a few words, then I've done my job. I don't feel the urge to over-analyze things just to impress people with my vocabulary. Yes, his post was a brilliant use of examples and logic...but you know what? He hasn't done any better of a job convincing you that you're wrong than I have. See, you're an economist (or something) by trade. You feel like its a badge of honor to use 100 words to explain something when 10 would do. I'm a high school social studies and special education teacher. I look for the simplest way possible to explain something complicated. And you do realize that arrow was pointing at your OWN avatar, don't you?

Most of Trip's injuries are due to the fact he's carrying too much bulk for his frame (i.e. various muscle tears he's had in the last few years including the quad tear). The only injuries I can think of that were actually ring-related (direct result of accidents while performing) were the bone chips in his arm from Undertaker and the RVD-caused throat injury.

I'd more than willingly nail either woman, but I'd rather get with/look at Trish. More Trish ass...