Lets all be friends
#BFF2s
#BFF2s
pirana6 wrote:
no
The 2012 throwback is so realSteve-0 wrote:
quoted for truth.mkxiii wrote:
Engerland is shitFatherTed wrote:
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
i'm in engerland atm
oh, and this is the Hi Mark! of the thread. you can close it now.
Engerland is shitFatherTed wrote:
Small hourglass islandKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
hi ted. how's ireland
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
i'm in engerland atm
probably like 15-20coke wrote:
Yeah he's shit though, and how many Premiership appearances has he actually made.mkxiii wrote:
Simeon JacksonJenspm wrote:
Junior Hoilett!
But yeah, that's about it.
also im guessing if they are vague enough to just say addicts, alcoholics may be counted as wellaynrandroolz wrote:
lol i hope you're kidding. you can become a drug addict to over-the-counter prescription drugs (america has a particular penchant for painkillers).rdx-fx wrote:
Rather redundant, no?west-phoenix-az wrote:
Those barred include felons and addicts.
Don't you have to commit a few felonies on your way to becoming addicted to illegal drugs?
Simeon JacksonJenspm wrote:
Junior Hoilett!coke wrote:
Honduras have some good players that's why. They at least 2 premier league players I can think of, can't think of any Canadian ones...pirana6 wrote:
Well this isn't Premier League but how the fuck does canada lose to hondouras 8-1 to get knocked out of the 2014 WC? WHAT THE FUUUU
But yeah, that's about it.
Sick!coke wrote:
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL on Sky...!!!!!
Port Vale v Oxford
scum, pure actual scumMacbeth wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PEWEp9bs-o
Attack starts at :26
unfortunately I couldn't find a pure video without a news cast
because i knew how much everyone missed me, and by everyone i mean the 3 people who remember that i used to come on here, and by missed me i mean were completely indifferent towards whether i was here or notMiggle wrote:
why are mkxiii and cowami back? don't they know this place is dead?
its a good point about the separation of race and state point, as i do believe that in the last election, obamas race was way too big an issue and was a factor in losing and gaining him votes dependant on the voters inclinations, and that was the wrong way for voting to take place. essentially what i am saying is that i believe that this election, the religious aspect is the thing that is weighing the election away from objective voting more than any other issue, and if i had given my opinion in the last election, i would have thought exactly the same about the race issue, essentially i was just attempting to say that i wish the whole public would vote objectively as opposed to using a trait that a candidate has that is irrelevant to the job, and that i think this time, the trait in question is Romney's religious viewsaynrandroolz wrote:
this is a pretty dumb post. you can't stop people in democracies from voting on whim and personal preference. it has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" when religious people vote for other people of the same religion. that's like saying "separation of state and race" when black people vote en masse for obama without giving a shit for his politics. yes, the mass are capricious and whimsical. yes, hardly anyone gives a fuck enough about politics to make an informed-choice and responsible vote. but what can you do? the only thing you can hope for at the end of the day is that your voting public has less religious nutjobs than ordinary rational citizens; you have to simply outnumber the people that vote in blocs according to colour/creed/class/fashion sense/whatever.mkxiii wrote:
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.War Man wrote:
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters.
again, as i said, i may be wrong
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.War Man wrote:
Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.mkxiii wrote:
If Romney wins, americans shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore
surely only being on like once every few months is a pre-requisite for the jobFatherTed wrote:
because he needs to post more >:[