This is really hillarious. The audio is here (scroll down):
http://larrybrownsports.com/gossip/m...d-enough/87379

If Boro's one liners weren't enough justification to leave this thread open, this is.

GG Glen

Go Glen!

I would hit that.....I bet she is a freak in the sheets.

Has Glen Rice commented on this story?

I haven't heard any comment from him, he does come by the cigar bar I go to so you can be sure anything I hear will be shared.

The guys a stud and a great guy, GG to Palin too.

just briefly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ImRyPymRAM

Here's some other people I think the world needs to hear from about this controversy (feel free to add some names and let me know if they've actually already commented):

Andrew Cromartie
Warren Beatty
Tiger Woods
Bill Clinton
Monica Lewinksy
Newt Gingrich
Elliot Spitzer

oh, never mind, the list is endless

I've reviewed your list and don't think any of them would top Tyson's ramblings.

What? If Palin announces, I'm going to be convinced that she's actually a liberal mole, cause it's terrible for everyone except Obama.

FWIW, this would have happened when she was 23. Anyone who thinks that anything a person does at 23 is at all relevant to them as an adult should be laughed at.

What if they were using the pill and condoms and got pregnant anyway?

Are you old enough to remember the Republicans going ape**** over Clinton trying to get out of being drafted?

Considering the effectiveness % of each if used correctly, not to mention effectiveness % when multiplied, I think it's safe to assume that odds they weren't using anything (or using it incorrectly) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odds they were using both correctly at the same time.

You would have to run insanely bad for both the pill and condom to not work, then just throw in the chance of actually getting pregnant when not using anything, which isn't close to 100%.

Murdering people? Molesting children?


I get your point, but it's in no way an absolute.

Don'T want to derail too much but since someone was kind of shocked on page one about wooks definition of adultery...

wook,

Depends on how you define "standard Christian" and "church". If your point is that palin would agree to your definition and therefore should be held to it, I guess we agree.

Your view certainly doesnt agree with the catholic church's definition of things, though. While official church teachings encourage premarital chastity, marriage is defined as the act of free will to gift yourself to your partner blablabecomeonefleshbla (cf. can 1057 and 1059 CIC/1984). Sex does not figure into that. There's no instituting marriage via real act, be it having sex or enacting a marriage ritual without believing it. Not even having sex, *wanting* it to be a real act would suffice as there are legal and formal constraints that have to be satisfied (can 1108ff).
So, since no marriage can be instituted via real act, it can't be broken by further sex with a different person, hence said sex isn't adultery in the legal fashion.

In catholic eyes, she wasn't legally and sacramentally married until she was married. Anything before was idle ****ing around, anything after would be adultery.

surprised rice wasn't already bought off to deny this in 08

Maybe he was pd on 08 and tried to get more $$ this year, was refused, had his bluff called, and showed her by releasing the info. Thoughts of NBA guys end up broke or short on cash.

Older, southern republicans in my area are in denial. If she ever admits this publicly it will be a GOP disaster for the ages.

At best, premarital sex would constitute fornication (sex between two people who are not married to each other), which is unambiguously a sin according to the Bible.

I am currently rather drunk, so my ability to argue with you is dampened. That said, I reject your claim that hte Catholic church would agree with the claim "In catholic eyes, she wasn't legally and sacramentally married until she was married. Anything before was idle ****ing around, anything after would be adultery."

I would review this link: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=724

I am not a Catholic, but I am engaged to one. As best I can tell, the Catholic church without a doubt considers premarital sex to be a sin. If you want to nitpick about whether the Catholic church considers premarital sex to be a sin of adultery, "future" adultery, or "merely" fornication, well, OK, but that seems pretty nitty to me. I highly doubt any Catholic authority will assert that any sort of premarital sex in whatever form is nothing more than "idle ****ing around" and not sinful.

08 deal should have taken the issue off the table forever but im no expert in this kind of thing

wookie's crusade is moot due to the snowmobile guy

My point was that adultery is breaking your marital vows (or at least I take it to be). You don't get married by having sex. can 1057: link

That's the law. Period. "Idle ****ing around" is obv. polemic rhetoric, but the rest stnads. "give and accept each other" =/= sex, as Can 1055 details.

Does an org in the url make something the official organ of the institution? There are a number of r-w catholic news sources in Germany too - that doesn't mean that the stuff they spread is anything besides stuff being spread.

If they were in any way officially affiliated with the catholic church, they'd have pointed that out in thier "about us" section, no? The only adress they give is one in Bakersfield - no official church office or anthing. I might as well create my own catholic.de domain and be just as "legit" and "binding".

Or did I miss something?