Why is...
 

Why is Chloe listed among the raw superstars? It is a fucking retarded dog that belongs to possibly the biggest waste of space on Raw roster as is.

Welcome to six months ago!

Yeah, its just not needed.

The dog, not the thread.

Well......Now that i think about it

:shifty:

I think Chloe is a little bit better in the ring than Torrie. :shifty:

Agreed. I think we should instead discuss why is Torrie listed is a WWE superstar?

Because being gorgeous is all you need to succeed in professional wrestling.

So...what about Mick Foley. I know your arguement applies every well to Kevin Nash.

Anyhow, she isn't that gorgeous...then again I think big tittied blondes are kinda boring. Now big tittied burnette or red heads are a different story.

I think she is gorgeous. Big tits, blonde, it works for me.

She's hot... but not as hot as she was five years ago. Now she's more annoying than hot. And she STILL can't wrestle.

Well I just found out that Chloe is in SmackDown! vs Raw 2007 so I think she sooooooooo deserves that spot on the roster page. Especially over no talent chumps like, err, I dunno...Billy Kidman.

Open up last month's FHM and tell me she isn't hot. ;)

huh? Chloe belongs to Chris Masters? :shifty:

I know it's old and all but I still agree that the dog is a waste to list on the Superstars list and I hope one day, Umaga eats her. Now THAT would be cool.

*bites apple*

Another pathetic attempt by WWE to make their roster look bigger. Sadly, when they resort to putting little gimmick dogs in superstar classification, you know the company is getting closer and closer to the bottom of the toliet.

I don't see what the problem is. Chloe for Women's Champ is what I say.

RUFF! It's time to sit and beg! RUFF! This time I won't play dead! RUFF!

Is Nacho Libre still on the Smacdown page?

No, he was replaced by the Miz...oh wait...