Laron Landry.....
#1
Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:59 AM
-The schedule is a template that they developed years ago. No one can complain about who they get or don't get to play, as there is no decision-making in the process and all teams rotate the same scheduling format. It's all prepackaged- David Yudkin
#2
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:03 PM
#3
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:04 PM
#4
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:22 PM
#5
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:43 PM
But, as one comment says, he doesn't have any tats in the top picture?
Edited by Black, 23 February 2012 - 12:44 PM.
#6
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:45 PM
#7
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:46 PM
that has to be fake, blown up or something.
#8
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:56 PM
That's like David Boston big.
But, as one comment says, he doesn't have any tats in the top picture?
Yes he does, they are just covered by his shirt. The bottom pick is reversed as he's taking it in the mirror. He doesn't have any tats on his right arm, the one you can see in the top pic.
#9
Posted 24 February 2012 - 06:30 AM
"Let's not give guys a lot of accolades on a team that has that many losses,'' Kenny Smith said. "I call it being a looter in a riot. It's easy to get great numbers with all of the chaos going on.''
#10
Posted 24 February 2012 - 06:37 AM
#11
Posted 24 February 2012 - 06:45 AM
That said, the issue with Landry is not whether he is strong or even whether he can play well when healthy (he can). The issue is that he just can't stay on the field. Isn't there some link between extreme steroid use and repeated injuries -- something about the muscles kind of "outgrowing" the supporting structures like tendons, etc. I really don't know anything about this, so maybe someone could help me out here. I'm wondering if he should actually slim down a little bit to stay healthy...
#12
Posted 24 February 2012 - 07:35 AM
Edited by Kiddnets, 24 February 2012 - 07:35 AM.
#13
Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:01 AM
That's like David Boston big.
But, as one comment says, he doesn't have any tats in the top picture?
I think the 2nd picture is a mirror image so it appears that his "right" arm is tatted, but really it's his left. The 1st picture is not a mirror image.
#14
Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:43 PM
#15
Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:52 PM
Edited by Kool-Aid Larry, 24 February 2012 - 12:52 PM.
#16
Posted 24 February 2012 - 01:38 PM
#17
Posted 24 February 2012 - 10:25 PM
HHS Secretary Kathleen SEBELIUS: There also is no abortifacient drug that is part of the FDA approved contraception. What the rule for preventive care…
(R-PA) Rep. Tim MURPHY: Ma’m that is not true…Is the morning after pill or something like that an abortifacient drug?
SEBELIUS: It is a contraceptive drug, not an abortifacient… It does not interfere with a pregnancy. If the morning pill were taken, and a female were pregnant, the pregnancy is not interrupted. That’s the definition of abortifation.
MURPHY: Ma’m that is your interpretation, and I appreciate that’s your interpretation.
SEBELIUS: That’s what the scientists and doctors…
MURPHY: We’re not talking about scientists. Ma’m we’re not talking about scientists here, we’re talking about religious belief.
Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users










