Michael Jackson vs. Mike Tyson

Who would you rather spend a little "alone time" with?

Flint wrote:

Who would you rather spend a little "alone time" with?

bwmmcaw?

MJ if he sings 'Ben' for me. MT if he doesn't say anything.

They're both f'ing wierd and both would creep me out in person. If I had children I wouldn't want them eaten nor molested thankyouverymuch.

Wasn't MJ found not guilty of molestering?

He was by our amazingly infallible court system.. :rolleyes:

Dude. Michael Jackson touches little boys and gives them alcohol. Mike Tyson rapes women and mutilates faces. Unless you are a little boy, I really don't see how this is even up for debate. Hell, even if you are a little boy, I'd still rather fend off the willowy moonwalker than risk the possibility that Mike Tyson thinks beating up kids is funny.

Neither one of them has a tight screw in their entire haid...

:crazy:

vs.



PPV anyone??

Clodfobble wrote:

Dude. Michael Jackson touches little boys and gives them alcohol. ~snip

I didn't know he was clergy.:rolleyes:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

I didn't know he was clergy.

...
...
...

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

How did I know there was an attack on religion coming.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Christians come in all flavors, you can't pigeon hole them by race, color, ethnicity or behavior.
You can't nail them down to what you think their behavior should be...

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

You only have to know that you can't attribute any behavior by someone to them being a Christian.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

...the sentence must start with SOME, in all cases.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Why don't you keep your childish anti-religion agenda to yourself.

__________________

What's your point, flint?

feel the point of my pointy poking-stick :stickpoke

Your stick has no point. That's why I asked.

Since you insist, my point is your assertion that ALL clergy "touch little boys and give them alcohol" since you didn't say SOME.
Why do you have to attack and pigeon-hole them this way?

The assertion is in the mind of the beholder. I made no accusations.

Oh, I see. It's probably "different" right? I understand.

Can't anyone have fun anymore?

footfootfoot wrote:

Can't anyone have fun anymore?

oh hey, there's fun. He puts the 'fun' and 'funk' in dys-func-tion.

:eyebrow: