spiny norman

Why not. 7388607

Okay. What's the biggest you can make it?

Ha, that's what you get when you sell your soul! A frozen post count for all eternity!!!

But people have known AIDS could be prevented by not having sex for years and it hasn't stopped them from going at it like rabbits. I think you would be silly to think that by letting people know that no sex equals no AIDS would make for a working method to prevent its spread. Yes, people should be told to exercise caution, but, as JOTW said, for it to be the sole prevention promoted is an unwise action.

Would you like a matching one?

De Niro is so much better than Pacino it's not funny. Pacino needs a tight director to play his roles correctly. De Niro's run from the 70s through to the early 90s was amazing. I can't stand much of Pacino's 80s work onwards (though he was awesome in Angels In America). I like Pacino, but he is incredibly overrated and nowhere near as good as De Niro, who I think will win this.

It's a bit less than 10%, but nevermind. It is impossible to control how often people have sex. I would say that a resounding majority of the population know that if you have sex more often with more sexual partners you are more susceptible to getting an STD. But I think if they are aware of how to properly use a condom it will be a good cause of prevention of gaining a disease. It is not always the case. But 90-95% of people are going to be prevented from getting AIDS. It is an obvious way to help prevent the spread of the disease. It will not prevent it altogether, but to teach one about how to practice safe sex is a more reasonable option than to tell them to remain abstinent.

That's what I meant by sex outside marriage. It's not something that is outlawed in society or talked about being such. And I hope that abortion is not made illegal, I think that's a far worse issue than the one being discussed here though and thus won't dwell on it. But nonetheless, my point still stands. Whether you moralistically oppose any of these issues such as gay marriage or abortion, I don't think it is within your rights to order these same things on society just because you and your religion don't agree with them. It is fine for you to have your rights but you can not deny others. You can condemn it, but is it right to impose your beliefs on the rest of society, no matter how strongly you believe in them?

But to teach someone to effectively use a condom so as to make it as difficult as possible to contract the disease is going to be a better cause of prevention. Yes, you can promote absitence all you want but the fact of the matter is that a huge amount of people will ignore this. Yes, some people will not have sex because of this, but more than likely the large majority will not be affected in their sexual behaviour. Thus it is more logical to teach them to use a condom correctly. If they don't use the condom correctly the chances of contracting the disease is much higher than if they don't use the condom correctly. Thus promotion of the use of condoms and safe sex makes sense in trying to prevent AIDS. It is amazingly closeminded and naive to think otherwise.

That's fine that your religion is against homosexuality. But the thing is, because of your religion should those who wish to have sex out of wedlock? It is socially acceptable. So why is it unacceptable for gays to marry? Though it isn't acceptable according to your religion, can't society accept this seeing as how the United States is not a Catholic state. Up until recently it was seen by the bible that women are the possession of men in marriage (and to many people this is still the case). The interpretation of the Bible's teachings have changed before. It will change again undoubtedly.

Not to be rude, but you are the one who is an ignorant fool. It's the 21st century, that's an old wife's tale. Teach someone to use a condom correctly rather than teaching them to abstain from sex.

Not sure why, but I found the following the most amusing section. 'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.' 'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.' 'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

I bought a dishwasher on the weekend. It works incredibly well.

Antarctic krill populations decreasing

The Godfather The Godfather Part II

Robert De Niro Marlon Brando

Married With Children was terrible by the time it was cancelled. That was a mercy kill if anything. I'd say Twin Peaks, but after 13 years it's not going to happen. But it's the main show that I wish could have continued as it was and not have been cancelled. I really don't care about most other cancelled shows. And everyone's going to say Angel, just so you know.

I still think you should have named yourself Mr. Mister.

I love Stand By Me, but it's The Shawshank Redemption, no contest.

Yes, but you have chlamydia.

I thought it would be De Niro and Brando until the inexplicable and rather silly love for Edward Norton came along. Now I'd say the tournament is stupid because De Niro will win, but by saying that Norton will probably end up winning this.

Patience, without a doubt. Paradise City was a close second.

Robert De Niro Kevin Spacey (Neither deserve to make it this far though) Al Pacino Marlon Brando (If Norton wins...)

I honestly have no idea of what this is. There are people who are incredibly intelligent who act stupid or ditzy so as to hide their intelligence for any range of reasons. I don't think Jessica Simpson is one of them. For her to say "Isn't it amazing what nature can do" while looking at Mt. Rushmore, thinking it was the product of erosion shows an incredible amount of stupidity. It could be put on (I know I at times act like an idiot at times) but the sheer amount of times she has done such a thing makes it seem unlikely.

Victoria vs. Molly: This has had absolutely no build and thus impossible to choose. I'll pick Victoria because Molly never wins on PPV. Kane vs. Matt Hardy: Have Matt do everything to try and keep Kane down, but ultimately have Kane come out on top. Eugene & Flair vs. La Resistance: Eugene and Flair is the logical outcome from this match, but I hope they don't because they have a lot of potential in La Resistance to try and build them as a strong tag team. I'll pick La Resistance, because I think that's a more interesting outcome. Jericho vs. Batista: I say keep Jericho strong for a title shot at Summerslam. Edge vs. Randy Orton: Have Orton win but through devious means so as to get a rematch at Summerslam. Triple H vs. Chris Benoit: Benoit has to win. Whether it be by Eugene's interference backfiring, Eugene turning on Triple H altogether or by a means in no way connected with Eugene. Let Benoit win it, have HHH move on to Eugene for Summerslam. So there you have it. I'm predicting no title changes. Should be quite good, but I'm not buying it, so bleh.