Andrew in CA

Great movie, but how is No Country for Old Men considered an action film? I would classify it as a drama. Action film means something that could just as easily star Jean Claude van Damme as the main character, in my mind.

Comedy: Anchorman Horror: The Orphanage (Freddy v. Jason wins for most entertaining horror movie, but it wasn't scary in the least) Romantic Comedy: Forgetting Sarah Marshall Superhero Movie: V for Vendetta Action Movie: The Fast and the Furious Documentary: No Direction Home Animated: Ummmmmm, The Simpsons Movie, I guess? Drama: Mystic River Best Overall: Gangs of New York Biggest Disappointment: The Matrix Reloaded

I realize that. I was implying that hiring a new GM/ Front Office makeover is the real move that needs to be made for any type of progress in this organization.

If the new GM they bring in thinks he's good enough, I'm fine with it. They need a brand new front office before anyone on the field can get anything significant done.

No way, I'd MUCH prefer to beat the Patriots* than the Colts, especially if the Colts are 15-0 heading in... nothing would drive Pats* fans crazier than to have their most hated rival go undefeated only 2 years after them! In fact, I'd love to see the Colts and Saints meet for perfection in the Super Bowl just so Pats* fans' heads would explode when it's guaranteed that their undefeated regular season is lessened even more when there's a 19-0 season.

He was certainly amongst the best linebackers in the nation last year. Definitely a QB-of-the-defense kind of guy on the field. Very inspiring story, and the whole ACC and some other BC opponents this year have donated a bunch of money for Ewing's Sarcoma research. I can't wait to see him back on the gridiron next year!

Frito Bandito PM'd me to stick up for him.

:lol: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: This is just about the funniest thing I've read here!

Because tax benefits are an inescapable part of the equation as things stand. If they want to eliminate tax benefits for married couples, go ahead and marry the whole town. However, as long as tax benefits are part of the deal, it must be limited to 2 people. Like I said, they can legally get married for all I care, but only 2 people in the marriage may receive the benefits. Establishing visitation or custody rights from there is fine by me. And Jim, at least you've admitted you don't want gay marriage because it grosses you out. As wrong as that is, it's not as messed up as EII's "I believe what society believes" reasoning. At least you have deduced your own reasons, regardless of what others say.

Jim didn't address that question to me! WTF!

Don't act like I haven't addressed every response you've made to my posts, I'm not avoiding any questions. There's nothing arbitrary about the line I'm drawing: frankly, if anyone's line is arbitrary, it's yours, because it shifts with the changing of the winds, as far as you've articulated. How's this for drawing the line: preventing consenting, mentally capable adults from being legally married is a form of government invasion on personal choice, which is wrong. There's your !@#$ing line.

You didn't address that question to me, but frankly I don't give a !@#$ if the all of Ralph Wilson Stadium wants to show up to the Pats game naked.

Then every 2 person, consenting, adult marriage is an abuse of the system. It has nothing to do with whatever nonsensical "norm" you are articulating. Can you really not see the difference where allowing plural marriages to obtain tax benefits, from a budgetary, and not freedom-encroaching, perspective should not be permitted? Or hell, let them get legally married, but only 2 persons in the marriage can qualify for the benefits, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the "norm."

Because then you are abusing the system for the benefits. If we are going to afford government tax breaks and benefits to married people, it should be made that you cannot join multiple parties for tax purposes.

But in the bolded portion above, you seem to have admitted that you have adopted an anti-gay marriage stance because that is the majority opinion. Thus, you don't believe it is wrong because you personally have deduced that, but rather because society dictates the appropriate "norms" of the day, whatever that means. In essence, you have formed this opinion because others have formed it. That is what I am struggling with. Frankly, you seem to be implying that homosexual marriage makes you uncomfortable... is that it? You're giving conflicting responses. See the italicized portions. These express conflicting ideas. I'm not going to "get over it", because the "arbitrary line" can easily go both ways. The more you allow the government and the herd to dictate what is normal and right, the more your freedoms deteriorate, just as a general rule. It is wrong to prevent rational, consenting adults to legally enter into marriages, period. I'm not just going to "get over it," just like I wouldn't get over it if I couldn't marry someone from a lower class or different religion. It's the government yet again interfering in people's business when it's unwarranted, and I won't just "get over it." If they get married to get health benefits, BFD! There are plenty of sham hetero marriages, it happens! Have better screening processes then, if that's your hangup.

Yes, but you are making that your opinion because it is the majority opinion of society, not because you feel it is empirically justified... no? It bothers people because its !@#$ed up to live in a society where consenting, rational adults can't get married because it freaks people out, because God says so, or, in your opinion, because everyone thinks so.

I guess I'm just astonished that someone would admit they don't form their own opinions on issues. Well, at least you know you're incapable justifying your irrational position.

So what you're essentially saying is you're a cow in a herd of cattle when it comes to what is socially acceptable. If gay marriage is not socially acceptable, fine; if it becomes such, whatever, just as good. Is this correct? If so, this is even worse then the foolish "it ruins all marriage," or "it's against God" reasons out there. At least those are based on arguably self-determined principles (as misguided as they are). You're saying that what you consider OK is determined by what everyone else says?

It's a one point game!

The ACC CG is coming down to the wire as well

What a great play by Gomes!

I posted this in the other thread as well: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...aska/index.html Here's a good article that asserts Texas winning the Big 12 would be the best thing for a future playoff.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...aska/index.html Here's a good article that asserts Texas winning the Big 12 would be the best thing for a future playoff.

Are there any legitimate arguments against homosexual marriage out there? I'm really curious.

Yeah, Meyer is an ND fan. He's coach of another squad, but worked at and openly loves ND. I don't see where we disagree...