500 subs, wow by the time this video is out I think I’m on 499 haha, but thanks all of you if u read this for your support suggestions spent hour and half on this ay 1 ma😂😂
Nathan Harding would’ve beat Jim comfortably Skill will beat strength especially when Jim had trouble with Steve a few times while Nathan never had any issues with any one
@@Respect12948 Brian Tilsley would’ve beaten Jim too. Brian was far more skilled than Jim and his last scene included him taking on three men at once and almost winning. Jim has never done that.
When he defends Steve as he's getting beaten up by Alan Mckenna, it's a rare occasion where he doesn't actually hit someone and comes off as kinda reasonable. But prime Jim versus prime Grant Mitchell, with their similar military PTSD backgrounds and lack of fear of pain, would be one hell of a fight!
I’d go with Nathan Harding but I could see arguments to Tony Stewart being above both Simply because he actually had scenes where he was punched and didn’t take significant damage while Jim and Nathan never really had scenes where they ate shots So in a full fight tony might beat Jim
Hard to say really you got remember Cain and Phil have KO power and Jim hasn’t had many scenes displaying his chin so who knows if he could take a punch from them two One things for sure tho he’d lose to grant Mitchell
@@H.K.5he really would grant would struggle with him so he would cain is overrated and the shows big him up in the last decade to be sommat he not and Phil is similar
2:31 Anyone remember who those two characters were (Cleaning motorbike, standing at yellow door)? Very familiar but for the life of me cant remember anything
@@corriearcade60 "pro LGBT"? You mean you don't support the rights of LGBT people to live peacefully? Not quite sure what you mean. However, if we're all made in God's image, then we are as we're made. Science vindicates us too. I'm a gay woman, and that's how I was born. Socialisation and religion attempted to divert me from myself, but I found my way back. Finally, the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. It's a mistranslation from as recently as 1946. The bible, by its nature, is an inconsistent document that makes claims that we know now are absolutely, scientifically impossible. My stance on religion aside, religion itself is no excuse not to support LGBT people. Alas, the final thing you said isn't morally-repugnant. She absolutely did not deserve to be treated that way. Science validates trans people as themselves too. The bible says love thy neighbour as thy self, and thou shalt not judge. Those are things often overlooked, rather disappointingly, by those who cherrypick what parts of the bible they want to believe. Anyway, I've nothing further to add other than think about what you're saying, and how you think about LGBT people. We've always been here, and always will be.
@QueerChica If GOD made you gay then he wouldn't have said its wrong now would he?. That's like GOD saying women having their periods is wrong even though that's how he made them.
@@ebakindeji5941 prove God. I can prove being gay, as we conceptualise it, occurs in nature. As far as the evidence goes, your "God" hasn't said anything. Just people interpreting things. And people have subjective views. Furthermore, the biblical condemnation of homosexuality comes from a mistranslation (not that it matters anyway. See previous point). Thankfully, your "opinion" doesn't matter because the facts speak for themselves. Also, I find it rather amusing that you use specious reasoning, which invalidates your point. Though most of us do, not every woman gets a period either. Rather than sitting behind a keyboard pontificating on subjects you do not understand, use the wonderful resource that is the internet to educate yourself.
@QueerChica Where's your evidence to prove that the bible verses condemning homosexuality are mistranslations. Evidence not your opinions. Also animals eat each other and eat their own excrement in nature also. I s'pose by your stupid logic it's natural for humans to do the same?. So because animals do something then humans should copy them?.
Back in days when there was always something going on in coronation street, Today its as dull and boring as watching paint dry and as realistic as sesame street,
The only issue with Jim was he struggled with Steve a few times and never displayed a good chin Owen had guys beat him up so it’s not out of the question to say he lacked a good chin which would definitely make him lose to Zak dingle, grant Mitchell and Nathan Harding
