Comments Thread For: Miguel Cotto Praises Orlando Cruz For Coming Out

[I Love Jesus!]

no there is not, there is however proof that he tried to cheat in his next fight.
you typically don't feel the need to cheat after the best fight of your career, unless you cheated in that fight as well and know you need the edge to win.
hey, i would love to think he didn't like i said up until mosley, i was a big fan.
but common sense tells me that if he cheated for mosley he probably did for cotto as well.

There is circumstantial evidence that he cheated. The red spot on the plaster pad also seen on his hand wraps after the cotto fight. As well as the extensive bruising and swelling of cotto's face in the first fight and the remarkably different outcome of the second fight.

A guy doesn't get brutally beaten and stopped in 1 fight then come back to fight the same guy and beat him with ease and not feel any of his punches. Name one time that ever happened so dramatically. look at pac marquez. close every time like almost all rematches aside from a 1 punch knock out usually in the heavyweights. the dramatic difference in the 2 fights should tell you all you need to know.

[I Love Jesus!]

lmao....Larry Larry Larry......They talking about **** shlt bro....What kinda **** you been watching lol!

should be obvious dude. All the floyd love, the endless guy chat on nsb. The tongue and cheek ****phobia. All signs point to one thing.























JK

[BartBears]

Sergio you are next

[SpeedKillz]

gay is in the eye of the beholder

ummm, no, gay is gay, and straight is straight, then there are bisexuals. not sure at all whatsoever what this means. is this a fortune cookie gone wrong or somethin??

[chaos]

There is circumstantial evidence that he cheated. The red spot on the plaster pad also seen on his hand wraps after the cotto fight. As well as the extensive bruising and swelling of cotto's face in the first fight and the remarkably different outcome of the second fight.

A guy doesn't get brutally beaten and stopped in 1 fight then come back to fight the same guy and beat him with ease and not feel any of his punches. Name one time that ever happened so dramatically. look at pac marquez. close every time like almost all rematches aside from a 1 punch knock out usually in the heavyweights. the dramatic difference in the 2 fights should tell you all you need to know.

You have to keep in mind AM was damaged goods the second time around. His eye was a mess after the Pac fight and he had been on the decline for a few years. Cotto wasn't prime either but he's been somewhat rejuvenated at 154, so you can't really do a straight comparison between the two fights. Plus, guys can lose bad one fight and then come back and beat the same guy by fighting different or being more prepared (eg Lewis-Rahman). I just find it hard to believe that every opposing manager before NR failed to notice his hands being loaded (since many people imply that was the case for all the pre-Mosley fight).

[AntonTheMeh]

ummm, no, gay is gay, and straight is straight, then there are bisexuals. not sure at all whatsoever what this means. is this a fortune cookie gone wrong or somethin??

that's a typo he meant to say, gay is in the eye of the ball holder.

[I Love Jesus!]

Apparently it's not as easy as you think because your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said ******ation is a lifestyle, the comparison with ******ation is to address the fact that just because someone is born a certain way does not automatically mean they're normal. I've never once addressed in any of my posts whether I believe it's nature or nurture. I only use the ****** example because it answers the nature argument.
The reference to "acting on it" has to do with the fact that even if they are born that way it doesn't mean they have to act on it. Being a f@g is one thing but no one is forcing them to live the lifestyle. ******s have no choice but f@gs have a choice. Paedophiles are the same, they're born that way too but have to decide whether or not to act on it. For you one is wrong and the other is right. For me both are wrong. The standard of whether something is right or wrong is not just whether or not it hurts someone. An incestuous couple is wrong and they're not hurting anyone. Some things are just wrong in and of themselves. You're just more liberal in what you'll accept but even you'd agree, unless you're a sick f_ck, that incest is wrong.
Your last argument is pathetic. Procreation between man and woman is what's natural, not just the mere fact of being a straight man or woman. So your whole blacksmith example is useless because it's based on a false premise. And don't even start with the fear mongering about over population cause that's the most laughable argument of all. I know you can't possibly be so stupid as to believe what you wrote, you probably thought you'd jot down a few smartass replies and give yourself a pat on the back thinking you got me, when in fact all you did is make yourself look like an illiterate jack@ss. Nice try kid.

What are you going to do if you catch your son slapping dicks with his boyfriend?

[chaos]

I see your still on here spewing your hatred. But I have to give you credit because you attempt to cover up your hatred by using fancy Latin terms and by telling us all that you are being personally attacked. Because you somehow think that you have outwitted the opened minded people amongst us.

Your approach may be different but in reality your argument is the same as most of the other closed minded folks that I have had discussions with on the subject of ****sexuality. They always say it is a mental defect or try to compare it to unacceptable behaviors in our culture such as incest. And my personal favorite and what I believe is the silliest amongst them that they cannot reproduce. I figured you would like that one for obvious reasons.

However, when its all said and done they usually let there real reason seep through and you are really no different. You see your hatred is displayed by your consistent use of the word f@g. And unless you are referring to British cigarettes you consistently use that derogatory hateful term about a group of people that you most likely have never even had a conversation with.

And yet you state that you are being attacked when you yourself use such a hateful word to attack a whole group of people. In my eyes its just plain old hatred regardless of how many Latin terms you throw into the equation in a weak attempt to cover it up.

And when I asked you about the use of the word this is what you said. I am paraphrasing but it was something along the lines of you use the word because it is easier. I not positive but I assume you use f@g because it is easier to type then the word ****sexual? So are we to assume that you also uses the N word or wet back because it is easier to type or say then African-American or Mexican? Or if you happen to be black do you use derogatory terms for caucasion people? I have no way of knowing this. But it surely wouldn't surprise me because the mentally is the same and that its all based on ignorance and hatred is hatred.

I also find it rather odd that you would spend so much time and energy comparing ****sexuality with incest and pedophilia. And then state that you don't care about ****sexuality as long as it happens behind closed doors. And since you so eloquently attempted to compare ****sexuality with incest and pedophilia as if they go hand and hand. Are we to assume that you are also okay with grown men raping children or with fathers raping their daughters and sons as long as it happens behind closed doors? I mean you make it sound that way so for their hope I hope you are not a parent. And if you do have children I will ad them to my prayers. Because you don't seem to care what goes on as long as its a secret.

I really did use to be like you and then I realized that I don't have to figure everything out. And that it also took way to much energy to hate. And I am not even sure if you realize but you are full of hate and I really do feel sorry for you. Because it must be tough going though life bearing that cross with such a closed mind and carrying all that hatred.

And if I could suggest one thing to you it would be that you better learn how to accept it. And you don't even have to understand or agree with it. Just open your mind enough to accept it. Because as much as you probably wish it would happen gay people aren't going anywhere. And if your not careful sooner or later your hatred may consume you.

Jeez another essay. Listen, I don't need to hate in order to recognize that something is wrong. You want to lump everyone who doesn't agree with this stuff in the same category then that's on you. You're obviously too closed in you views to understand that people can disagree with you without being bigots. What do you think that I go beat up every f@g I come across? I couldn't care enough to do that, we're just having an online discussion, it has nothing to do with hate. Also I don't know why you're obsessing over a latin term that anyone who didn't grow up on a farm would know.

Fyi I never say "african-american" or "caucasian" I say "black" and "white" cause it's easier. You act as if we're writing formal papers here.

[I Love Jesus!]

Lol QFT

This guy's dumb arguments can be summarized this way. Keep in mind he conceded that it's the actions of ****sexuals that are immoral, not necessarily their nature.

1. Anything that isn't a man and a woman procreating is unnatural (and somehow wrong)
2. If everyone on Earth chose to be practicing ****sexuals, we'd go extinct
3. Therefore, practicing ****sexuality is wrong.

Here's a simple way of illustrating how stupid that is:

1. Anything that isn't a man and a woman procreating is unnatural (and somehow wrong)
2. If everyone on Earth chose to wear condoms during sex, we'd go extinct
3. Therefore, practicing safe sex is wrong.

I rest my case: chaos is an imbecile.

you been making that point for 5 pages now I don't think he gets it. he just thinks he owned you or something. dunning krueger affect again on the board.

[I Love Jesus!]

You have to keep in mind AM was damaged goods the second time around. His eye was a mess after the Pac fight and he had been on the decline for a few years. Cotto wasn't prime either but he's been somewhat rejuvenated at 154, so you can't really do a straight comparison between the two fights. Plus, guys can lose bad one fight and then come back and beat the same guy by fighting different or being more prepared (eg Lewis-Rahman). I just find it hard to believe that every opposing manager before NR failed to notice his hands being loaded (since many people imply that was the case for all the pre-Mosley fight).

well whatever its pretty obvious he cheated to me. Im not going to try to change your opinion.