UZI Suicide

Wasn't Madden 2001 or 2002 a PS2 launch game?

That's a piss-poor argument. In a military engagement, people die. That's what happens in reality. If you can't understand that, you are a child. Just because people die in a military engagement doesn't mean that 'we are sending them over there to die', or that it's a 'quagmire'. These things happen. But to simply say that 'they are dying' ignores everything that they are actually doing over there: Stabilizing the first Arab Democracy in the Middle East. Yes, yes we should. We should have finished it back in 1990, but we didn't. Iraq has always been a threat, and we had to take care of it, especially in today's day and age. Iraq is "a threat", but not nearly a big threat compared to our other threats. What were they going to do to us? They had no WMD's.

The difference is we shouldn't be in this war in the first place.

We're sending them over, and they're dying. We aren't sending them over for the purpose of dying, but that's what they're doing.. dying.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...5-edwards_x.htm ""There will be no draft when John Kerry is president," Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation." "Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has complained about the extent of the Bush administration's use of Reserves and National Guardsmen and a device called "stop loss," which prevents soldiers from leaving when typical obligations end. "They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft," Kerry said." http://www.channelone.com/news/2004/09/23/ap_election_draft/ "Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past." As far as Dems proposing the draft bill, Charles Rangel proposed that right before we went into Iraq, to get children of Senators and Representatives who were sending America's youth to die in Iraq, to also go to Iraq, and then to see how they would feel about it. It was, as most expected it to be, DOA.

I can picture Bradshaw with little boys a lot more than McGreevey. In fact I'm sure JBL has hazed half the lockerroom.

Some do, I mean USUALLY you don't see a big time school doing any cheap stuff, but a little school with nothing to lose will definitely try to injure you. I mean I was an average RB and they tried to hurt me, so they defintely go after guys like Adrian Peterson, Reggie Bush, etc

As far as "Recruiting" goes, it's not really a big deal, as most top tier schools do that. I know a lot of Florida schools do, Jenks in Oklahoma does, Evangel Christian in Lousiana does, and De La Salle, Long Beach Poly and quite a few schools in California do. As far as the intentional chop blocking, well I don't find it that hard to believe, from my experience playing HS Football lots of that stuff happens, but a little bit more hidden. I played Runningback and guys tackling you will try to twist your ankles when they tackle you, especially under the pile, it gets really brutal down there.

Have you ever seen what it would look like to have it taped to your body? A strip going up and down, and then tape going across, almost shaped as a T. Hey look at that, looks like what Bush was wearing! Yes, during interviews. So who's to say he doesn't wear these a lot during interviews? This stuff doesn't happen during speeches.. sure he may fumble a few words, but he never has pauses like that, or "goes back" to touch on previous points.

The utter lack of evidence is a big stumbling block. Umm, no, I really don't. Considering that there is no, you know, evidence. Sucks for Kerry, doesn't it? -=Mike Ok, what would you need to see, short of a picture of Bush shirtless wearing the actual piece, that you would consider evidence? Because so far we've seen the piece STICKING OUT of the back of his jacket, combined with his flustered speech patterns, and always going back to topics after he's already answered them.

There's a lot more risk involved in REACHING INTO YOUR JACKET in front of a national audience of millions and millions of voters, than wearing a fucking piece taped to your back that nobody watching at home can see. Yup, NO chance of that backfiring. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that even IF Kerry brought more than a pen in --- it does not even remotely matter. Kerry did not "win" due to substance --- he "won" on presentation. Did Kerry bring something in? Absolutely. Was it against the rules? Yup -- but provided it was only a pen, it's as thoroughly irrelevant as a story can be. It was dumb of him (the debate people PROVIDED pen and paper) --- but so be it. Did Bush bring anything in? Nope. -=Mike How can you say with 100% conviction that he brought nothing in? You have got to be able to admit that the evidence looks a bit damning in this situation. If this happened to Kerry, you would NEVER shut up about it and this would be a 4 page thread already.

There's a lot more risk involved in REACHING INTO YOUR JACKET in front of a national audience of millions and millions of voters, than wearing a fucking piece taped to your back that nobody watching at home can see.

A.K.A. - Damn we're really fucked on this one, I'll just pretend like it's no biggie. I'll just go with the fact that there is nothing here to back up your baseless accusation. -=Mike There's no 100% clear cut pinpoint evidence And with that, your point is moot. Got it. -=Mike So let me get this straight again.. Kerry is a cheater for taking a pen out of his jacket, but Bush isn't a cheater for an EARPIECE? There's much more evidence for the latter. Stop trying to dodge the POINTS, and then just pick and choose what you want to quote. You have no points --- what with that lack of 100% proof or anything. Kerry's a cheater for bringing something into the debate. Bush isn't because you've yet to show that he, you know, brought anything. Again, that whole lack of proof thing. Especially if you consider that Kerry had a pen in hand WHILE digging into his pocket for --- if your claim is true --- he pulled out a second one. I'm not "dodging" the points --- I'm simply highlighting the only relevant point you've made to date. -=Mike Kerry didn't have anything in his hand, he shook Bush's hand with his right hand, then walked over to the podium and took out a pen with his left. If it's not a pen, then what is it? Obviously it's something not visible from seeing the tape, so I doubt he could have a whole sheet of facts on something that small. Do you really think he's dumb enough to do that on National TV? Just reach in his jacket and take something out? You're grasping for straws.

True, save for: -=Mike By 100% clear cut evidence, I'm talking about actually seeing the microphone or earpiece on him.

A.K.A. - Damn we're really fucked on this one, I'll just pretend like it's no biggie. I'll just go with the fact that there is nothing here to back up your baseless accusation. -=Mike There's no 100% clear cut pinpoint evidence And with that, your point is moot. Got it. -=Mike So let me get this straight again.. Kerry is a cheater for taking a pen out of his jacket, but Bush isn't a cheater for an EARPIECE? There's much more evidence for the latter. Stop trying to dodge the POINTS, and then just pick and choose what you want to quote.

I think it looks exactly like a mic under there, you've got the strip attatched to his body, and then the piece of tape going across.

A.K.A. - Damn we're really fucked on this one, I'll just pretend like it's no biggie. I'll just go with the fact that there is nothing here to back up your baseless accusation. -=Mike There's no 100% clear cut pinpoint evidence, but when you look at the fucking earpiece pressing against his jacket in the picture, combined with his speech patterns during the debate, combined with him continually wanting to go back and "touch on" previous topics, it seems a bit obvious. But you would never believe it even if Bush came out and admitted it.

A.K.A. - Damn we're really fucked on this one, I'll just pretend like it's no biggie.

Give me a damn break. You don't think the SECRET SERVICE can hide an earpiece? Here's one man's opinion from that link.. No wonder Bush's camp was ADAMANT about wanting the podium's 10 feet apart, no wonder he kept hesitating.. staring off into space as if he was listening to someone in his ear. It's piling on.

The polls would say otherwise, my friend. Nothing can come good of this news for Bush.

Baseless? Look at the picture! Kerry pulls out a pen during the beginning of the debate and he's cheating, but Bush wears an earpiece and he's not!?

http://indybay.org/news/2004/10/1697371.php Hmmm maybe that explains all the.."Let me finish this point" ..."I'd like to go back and touch on that last topic for a second"... plus the hesitant speech pattern, continually pausing to get new info.

After what is GWB's strongest area to debate, John Kerry has climbed back into the race. With the next two debates in Bush's weaker areas, this can only mean good things. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...htm?POE=NEWISVA

Yeah, she looks stoned in the picture. I figured either that or she was tired.

I'm still entertained, not to the extent I used to be, but still entertained.