(U$)Shadowboxin7

Whoever does trade for him will be taking a big risk if they cant get him signed to a long term contract. The Brewers might very well be the best trading partner for Cleveland but if they dont sign him to the long term then they will be giving up a ton of talent for a 3 month rental.

LOL people are always going to find a way to cheat on their stats or rank up. Its the old theory that no matter how well you build a safe, somebody will eventually find a way to crack it. Its easier to destroy then it is to build...

I think Shaq did plenty and it was a great thing to watch. I think the Ben Rothlisberger and the kid in the wheelchair was even better. The kids dad made a special set up so he can still play PS. The kid plays with his freakin chin!!!! And he kicked Bens ass in some fighting game. It was pretty cool

lol u cant shoot what you can not see. Your m4 would be useless when the guy comes up from behind you and slits your throat lol. You dont need many maps for a tourney so that shouldnt be a problem. Also the game types are quite fine and all could be fun and strategically challenging. Anyways, hopefully the demand will start to rise as people keep playin and realizin the potential of the game. Or maybe if we cant get enough clans we can guage the amount of people who would be down for a MGO Ronin. It would be cool to get some kind of MGO tourney in there before were all consumed by Confrontation

My uncle use to tell me about the orange box he got in 'Nam

lol well placed and you prolly didnt even mean to. Yea im level 2 in a few things and working towards master. I want to get to level 3 of CQC so I can slit throats. then I probably wont even use guns lol

LOL that would be hilarious. Its like when you tell the fat kid to come over and then when he does youre already gone.

This might be a stupid question but is the Socom edition of Ronin using the map packs or is it going to be strictly 3/CA??

I think the cup has been played out. How about 2 guys 1 toaster???

I am getting real sick of people going in and out of retirement!!! We have spent the last three years giving Brett Favre a farewll tour, have had to watch him cry in his press conference, have had to watch Aaron Rodgers deal with all of the nonsense "following favre" questions, and now well have to do it all over again. Its getting old....

So I wasnt sure if this has already been addressed, but are there any plans of creating a series of MGO tournaments?? I think the potential is tremendous and the game could provide for some awesome specialty weeks, such as CQC only or knives only, etc. It has a socom feel with servers, private rooms and in game mail and friends lists which would make match creating simple. I think this game would be another good way to keep our Socom desires underwraps until Confrontation is released (Groundhog Day 09).

Yea after all of the negative feedback I think alot of people are thinking twice about this game.

HAHAHA now I know where Sal got it from. I just opened that damn thing up on my clans forums.

Im fine with anything they do as long as their is no party system. I really hate that in COD you cant go find games or make your own rooms

LOL went to Ocean Beach for a couple of days....

The slaveowners comment was misinterpreted. Let me just explain what I was getting at. The young brilliant men who framed our constitution had their own faults and shortcomings. They were not perfect. They did things wrong just like anybody else. What I am saying is that through the years we have ratified amendments and added to the constitution, to go with the times, but we have continuously misinterpreted and protected this truly outdated amendment. The framers got this amendment wrong. This amendment has no place in a modern world and needs to be repealed. I was just using the slaveowner comments to get across that these men were not perfect and we should not be protecting one of their mistakes out of the principle that is in the bill of rights. Does everybody in this room understand that we are the most violent society, not fighting a holy war, on the planet?? Do you think it might be due to the fact that we have the most guns lol?? Or can you admit that it may at least be part of the problem. I just think guns should be systematically removed from society and the second amendment will always prohibit that. The continuum of force teaches officers that the last resort is to fire your weapon. Why is it that our first resort in anti-gun policy is to introduce more guns? Wouldnt that be the last resort?? Are we at the last resort?? The last resort usually means people die....

Great throw rocks cause theyre easier to get away from especially when their arms get tired lol Lol thats the point I was making... And the First Amendment, as well as any others that needed to be, has been ratified from that time to this to go with the times. The Second Amendment decision has now been set back 100+ years and does not at all consider the time we live in. Yes we will continue to fight for our rights and I guess well continue to do so with deadly weapons instead of with our intellect and we will fight violence with violence instead of with common sense. I live by a motto too: The pen is mightier than the sword Please reread my statement..... Also, allowing people to arm themselves would mean that more guns would be entering the homes of the civilians which would give more opportunity for criminals to steal said guns. What if, in the town where everyone had a gun, the criminals decided to stage a mass string of burglaries with the target being the weapons. They would rob houses when the people were not at home and steal their guns. Well we have just given those criminals an arsenal.... What if he wants your gun....? Dont have to do the research but no guns would create a steeper decline in crime than the interesting idea of many guns, which numerous towns have adopted. lol LOL really.... The statement was not meant as a literal comparison between the two. By the way thank you for pointing out those concrete differences. And I did not compare the bombs to the guns. I actually compared the nuclear arms race of the cold war to the policies being created by town boards of arming all civilians.....

Hahah you mean "those old slave owners entitled to us white tax paying men", dont you?? You are trained which is great. Which means you dont fall into the "most" category. In regards to the Missouri law: I am glad that the law has armed EVERYONE which has cause a dramatic decline in armed robbery and carjackings. I just ask you this one question: If arming EVERYONE can cause a decline in those crimes, what do you think arming NOONE would do? I figure if nobody had guns then their would be much more than a decline. Hell it might render the whole crime virtually non-existant. This law CAN also indirectly puts more guns in the criminals hands because it is opening up the gun laws to all citizens and putting more guns onto the street. Maybe the criminals will now forget about jacking cars and will start to break into houses in order to steal the guns. Somebody might get held up for their gun. What a novel idea. A criminal, knowing most people are armed, walks up behind somebody, puts a gun to their head and steals the victims gun. Now the criminal can have TWO GUNS. Whatever happens, more guns are still hitting the streets. What a great world we live in. Doctors might mis-diagnose or fail to save (in your words, kill) more people then guns do but doctors also save more people then guns do. I dont remember the last time an open heart surgery was successful because of a gun (besides in the movie John Q.). I dont remember the last time a gun walked through the door and said, "Betty, your husband is going to live." Plus when the doctor "kills" people and it is deemed malpractice, at least the family can sue for millions of dollars. When that guns goes off and somebody dies, the gun doesnt pay millions in damages. I agree that we could go back and forth on the interviewing topic but do you really feel it is beneficial to put more products of violence into the violent society in order to counteract the other products of violence?? About your story: Ironically if their were NO guns, their would be NO shoot out, which would mean NO dead officers, which would create NO dead widows, who would make NO thankful phone calls, to the bounty hunters who DIDNT have to catch the man, that the NON dead officers would have had already caught. Have you ever heard of the nuclear arms race? We built up a massive amount of weapons to protect against the enemies massive amount of weapons. We just kept building weapons because they were building weapons and they were building weapons because we were building weapons. This went on for years until somebody sat down and said, verbatim, "What the fuck" lol. Three near disasters and some realization later caused a different train of thought. Now I ask you, does it make sense to have more guns than the criminals do or to just get rid of them altogether?

Lol the fact that pro-gun people can still hide behind an archaic and completely outdated amendment is simply ridiculous. The whole concept has been reduced to this retarded line, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.†This amendment was meant to protect the States right and authority to organize militias. The wording has given a chance for gun nuts to argue, for over 2 centuries, their right to carry weapons wherever they please. All this judgement did was send us back 100 years. It was another panel of individuals misinterpreting this one crucial sentence. All it did was provide the slippery slope of making it easier for all individuals to carry firearms. Oh wait hold on, they did make this statement: The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons." It did not stipulate what weapons are not "dangerous." HAHAHAAHHA allowed for the room to prohibit DANGEROUS weapons!!!! RETARDED You people do understand that this amendment was created by a group of men who at that time did not give women or african americans the right to vote, right? You understand that the amendment that we are still arguing about 230 years later was created by a group of white slaveowners who felt that all men were created equal, right? These brilliant men who fought for our independence from England, over money, lived in a time that had little to no violent crime. They created the amendment for states to have militias because it was in a time that our country was not truly unified. And now in 2008, in a world that is over run with violent crimes (68% of last years murder was gun related), you want to keep the guns in our hands so we can protect ourselves from the criminals who have guns in their hands?? Like George Carlin said: "Why do they ban toy guns but keep the fuckin real ones!?!?!?!!" The fact that you are carrying a weapon will not diminish your chances of being involved in a violent crime (it actually may increase that chance.) The only people who will not attempt to hold you up at gun point or attack you are those individuals who know you. Criminals dont know you from baby Jesus so why would they be less apt to targeting you?? The fact is that if a man approached you and put a gun in your face, you wouldnt even have time to take out your weapon and defend yourself. If you did attempt to take out your weapon you would probably end up getting yourself killed or possibly somebody who was with you. Simply put, most of the time when you are the victim of a violent crime the criminal has the upper hand. You may actually increase your chances of being victimized because you will feel more comfortable placing yourself in riskier situations because you carry said weapon. Just my opinion One law abiding citizen with a gun in the right place at the right time will save lives??? Probably not, he will probably just get people killed. If that law abiding citizen is an off duty police officer then he/she probably will save lives (most likely by not using their weapon), because they are trained individuals. In all honesty I would rather not see that Dirty Harry wannabe pull out his weapon in the attempts at stopping that bank robbery. He would probably shoot himself in the foot and then shoot three others when he is dancing around like an asshole You also cant just shoot anybody who comes onto your property. You have to have a just cause. There has to be threat or danger at hand. You cant just sit at your window and snipe anybody who walks on your property so theres nothing to be excited about in this sense. The reason why people get hard ons over "Castle" laws is simply beyond my understanding. Their are plenty of self-defense statutes and laws at hand that state you have the right to defend yourself so why would you need an extension of those laws to say that you can shoot somebody?? Ridiculous Most regular people who freely carry weapons wouldnt even have the balls to use them. Most would freeze up like little girls when the situation arose rendering the weapon useless. Hell they would probably hand it over to the criminal lol. I would say that most people who carry a firearm, barring police officers, military officers, etc, are just doing so because it makes them feel like a BIG man. It is there to inflate their sense of manhood and to make up for something else. A few of those people are reading this right now. I would love if all of you gun enthusiasts could interview a family member of somebody who was killed by a gun and see how they feel. Watch the tears that run down their eyes. Watch the pain that is caused all because you assholes want to walk around like John Wayne lol. Watch the suffering of the mother of a 10 year old girl who was killed, stray bullet, by a 15 year old showing off for his friends (happened here in albany last week). All this could be ended if everyone accepted how big their dicks were and for the good of the nation joined in removing dangerous weapons from EVERYONES HANDS. But like George Carlin said: "The world is run by the bigger dick policy. What they have bigger dicks?? BOMB THEM. And all the missles, rockets, bullets are all shaped like dicks." In my opinion the only intelligent statement made in this room was, "I hope I never need it". And you would never need it if this archaic and misunderstood amendment was repealed and a real attempt was made to remove guns from our streets JUST MY OPINION

Call of Duty 5: The French and Indian War Call of Duty 6: The Death Star Call of Duty 7: Helen of Troy Call of Duty 8: Helms Deep Call of Duty 9: Raiders of the Lost Ark Thats what the pooch next door told me was in the works....

The world will never know another comic of his caliber...

I really think you should go with "Cheese Tits" for anybody who posts over 5000 times

what scoring system/rules do you use in your league. We would need to know that before any advice can be given

GROSSMAN!!!!

Yea you have to send and accept squad invites and then you can play with each other.