Manny Pacquiao Is Unbelievable.

[miron_lang]

Hans- Rebecca is a witch

Rebecca- No I am not

Hans- Prove it by letting us burn you

Rebecca- NO

Hans- See told you she was a witch...Burn her

This is so apt to the Floyd/Pac is on PEDS debacle, summed up perfectly Daxx.

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

That was after the Officer didnt plug down 3,588 other cars that was driving the same manner as this driver.


If the Law says the officer can plug down randomly without any reason then the driver can be apprehended. It boils down to the written law or guidelines.


The Witch sample is more accurate.

[josef4334]

So please can anyone tell me what this A-side meth really is? This is the exact drug that Pacquiao is accused of using by some people in the boxing world. A drug that can make you invincible on the battlefield of war against .38 and .45 caliber bullets and was designed by the Filipino military. A drug so powerful that you can keep on moving forward whether on the battlefield of war or in the boxing ring.


This is the site of the New England Journal of Medicine. Use by MDs and medical students for reference and research and I cannot find this super drug. The New England Journal of Medicine: Research & Review Articles on Diseases & Clinical Practice

So if someone can point me in the right direction, I would like to read up about it.

ive heard stories about it so i asked my dad who used to be in the military intelligence group in the philippines. he said that its not true. he said that filipino soldiers during the american war era were outnumbered and outgunned but the somewhat summoned their courage to fight on even when hurt.he said that adrenaline and refusal to submit to american rule made this people "invincible". the .45 caliber was developed to replace the 9mm the americans favor because 9mm is not know for its stopping power(we all know this). the american military developed the .45 cal to stop any charging filipino with a machete. well, it was really developed for the moros(muslims in southern philippines).this was around 1898-1900's thus when they came out with 1911 model colt the caliber used was a .45

check this comparison of bullets to see how potent of a knocking power a .45 has over a 9mm based of diameter of bullet alone
oh.. by the way.. .38 and a 9mm have the same diameter but .38acp has a lil more weight and shell casing is little longer to fit in a revolver.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.jpg

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Hans- Rebecca is a witch

Rebecca- No I am not

Hans- Prove it by letting us burn you

Rebecca- NO

Hans- See told you she was a witch...Burn her

This is so apt to the Floyd/Pac is on PEDS debacle, summed up perfectly Daxx.

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

[Gandalf]

Stop being idiots. All Manny needs to do is submit to random testing and we all get a fight. Nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that it is being built into anything more is the stupidity factor being built in.

[Gandalf]

This is so apt to the Floyd/Pac is on PEDS debacle, summed up perfectly Daxx.

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

[Gandalf]

No more idiots, please!

[Gandalf]

Shouldn't that idiot be banned anyway?

[DaxxKahn]

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

.....I swear post like that are becoming more common then caffeine in Pepsi....

[CFH]

Shouldn't that idiot be banned anyway?

You mean Xadu errr... InANeutralCorner?

[levi#1BoxingFan]

What was Clottey doing for most of the fight he just stood there guard up waiting for the bell easy fight for Manny but he cant be called the best until he fights Floyd and he would'nt stand a chance no wonder he thought of every excuse going in order for it not to go ahead

Well said..........not!

[InTheNeutralCorner]

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

[DaxxKahn]

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

Don't threaten him with a good time

[Althugz]

Unbelievable. I see the same old yells of 'PACMAN'S' greatness are still audible around here.

With a mediocre recent showing and questionable methods, I'd wait before pinning him as an ATG. the only thing that Aaron Pryor and Pacquiao's careers have in common at this point in time is the amount of scrutiny they've recieved over the possibility of utilizing illegal substances.

That being said though, I highly doubt Pryor would've declined a fight with Arguello over a couple blood-tests aimed at fair-play... then go into his next fight and throw more punches than some pressure-fighters... landing at a minuscule percentage (while spin-doctors/commentators billow on about how 'great' he is).

I realize I'll get flamed for this so while I'm at it I'll also mention that I give him no credit for the Cotto win either. I believe a win over Cotto two years earlier and 2lbs heavier, with his old team, prior to the Margarito fight would've been impressive. The recent showing was just a ploy to squeeze the last of the juice from Cotto's following. God, for Cotto's sake I hope Pac isn't a juicer. Margacheato (...most probably...) cheated the guy into early retirement, Pac stomped out what was left. Big whoop.

Go ahead and say I'll never appreciate Pac's "greatness". The fact is, he doesn't even have to beat Mayweather for me to call him great; he just has to be honest. If he would've just agreed to the tests in December/January, we'd know he's not a sham... I don't know that I'd be his biggest fan (biggest Pactard?), but I would definitely be a supporter - although regardless, I'd bite my tongue before EVER mentioning his name in the same breath as Robinson or Ali (most definitely not under current circumstances).

Agreed with a lot of what you have said - Roach is the master of "picking" the perfect fight at the right time, under the correct circumstances for his fighter.

However, Pac will definitely go down as an all time great. He's been crazy good recently although that Clottey fight didn't impress me at all...but even without impressing me he shut out a huge welterweight who's never been shut out before. Go figure lol..I guess it was because I was imagining him in with Mayweather - Just made me more confident of a Floyd victory where as before I thought Pac was the fave.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

You are an idiot.

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

Don't threaten him with a good time

I apologize if that looks like a threat. That is not my intention. I just realized that I should not have inserted the word still in there. I was trying to show that I was responding civilly to the name calling.

I would want to know from any posters here to tell me what was wrong with my interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver that would make someone blow their top.

[TitoFan]

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

Don't threaten him with a good time

I apologize if that looks like a threat. That is not my intention. I just realized that I should not have inserted the word still in there. I was trying to show that I was responding civilly to the name calling.

I would want to know from any posters here to tell me what was wrong with my interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver that would make someone blow their top.

?

Damn... i GOTTA stop reading threads from the bottom up.