AndrewTS

http://movies.go.com/moviesdynamic/muppets...AC-HC2142552059 Pretty amusing for some short downloads. Nothing like the old classic material, though. Biggest complaint is Ralf as a sort of PG Triumph. Yuck.

Cody and Andore had a lovely prison wedding several months later.

Holy crap. That's a heck of a lot of spelling errors in that "interview." (Unless Morgan speaks like Mongo--"athelete")

Our list > that one, even though we only did 30. IMO, PC games don't belong on a console list, or vice versa, unless they were multi-platform.

Okay, I personally don't like it, but let's weigh the + and -s. + The built-in network adapter is nice, although PS2 online games aren't nearly as plentiful as X-Box Live. + The smaller size (duh). - You have to be very careful with PS1 discs, because if you don't put 'em on standby before opening, the laser can make marks on the underside of the discs. Plus, whenever playing a PS1 disc, it starts making a loud whirring noise about a half-hour into playing the game. + I initially thought it would be harder to get it to play imports, but apparently it's a little easier. Not sure if that's a big factor around here, though. - Lack of a power switch--just the standby and lid open button. And they're separate instead of the one rocker switch. Personal design pref on my part. - It gets hot very quickly because it doesn't have a cooling fan. - I had to get rid of some wireless controllers I had with my old PS2, because of the different design the receiver won't connect into the controller port. - No physical way to add the HDD, although it's very minor and everybody and his sister knew that. - It's still relatively new, and thus I've heard of quite a few people who had PS2s for a heck of a long time, but a Slim died on them. Less sturdy overall, and the flip top leaves it more prone to dust getting in there. So, ignore my biased opinion and use the above (many of it anecdotal/personal gripes which may not apply to you) to make your decision. However, given the choice between them, I'd take a sturdy refurb older PS2 (with a warranty of course, which I got with my Slim too).

Naw, he didn't say anything either way. He seems like a decent candidate, more likeable than Hillary and not dreadfully dull like Kerry, but 4 years seems a bit too soon after being crushed in a presidential campaign. 8 perhaps would be fine (although if Dems win this time, he'd have to wait longer). *sarcasm detector explodes* I'll drink to that. And could we please stop considering Barack for, oh, another 8 years or so?

Clark is considered a complete loser. He got positively pummeled last time. Of course, 19/20 of people would hear his name, and go " who?" and may not connect the stigma right away. However, AFAIK he has no interest in running. Allegedly, however, John Edwards is. Obviously he'd suck hard and would lose. Plus, since there's no way to get that perverse "dream match" debate of Edwards/Bush, I can't think of a single reason to support him. Bayh or Biden looks to be the most probable candidate for the Dems. Gut says Bayh. GOP candidates--George Allen I think is one of the few to definitively announce he's running, but there are more high-profile choices that haven't really announced it yet. McCain is too damaged and doesn't really follow the party line. Gingrich would be heavily attacked by Democrats. Pataki I can't really say. Rudy's weaknesses already have been mentioned.

LCS will sell regardless. It could be a card-based, stripped down GTA3 and still sell. However, there are 15 year olds right now who will be of voting age if Hillary becomes the Dem nominee--so I don't think she's planned this out well. Not that they'd vote Rep., but it won't reverse young voter apathy.

That's perfectly reasonable. I don't see government intervention as reasonable, however. What you just suggested is what happens right now. What's wrong with it that we need government intervention for? My point was that it's a "problem" that I feel is blown out of proportion, and those number of young teens that are in walking/biking distance and have their own money are not the vast majority. It should be pretty easy to not sell those few kids M-rated games. I also have no problem with upholding the already-established policies of making certain that only 17+ folks are buying the M-rated games. I've personally enforced it already faithfully without fines hanging over my head (although with regulars I know if I've carded them already). I've given the spiel about the content to parents who don't give a damn. I've told snot-nosed brats who can't see above the counter no, and had them go get a parent who looked ticked off I had to dare bother them. So, why the hell would I suddenly buy the line of BS that retailers everywhere put on blindfolds and hand M games to anybody that can count up money? Have you seen instances of that happening? One? Two? Three even? The scapegoating going on here is ridiculous, IMO. Um, no they didn't. That's why we're discussing this right now. And somewhere along the line people (Hillary, Yee that is) begin to think "OMG kiddies are buying M games and stores don't care!" It's bullshit. They have nothing to do with each other. Does it go on? I'm sure it does (it's a big country), but there's not a single shred of evidence suggesting how much and if it is a problem.

PSlims2 suck, but good luck.

Stolen from 1up. Hooboy.

I think Smit was being sarcastic, since Hillary tends to bring out the Partisan Fuckery in people.

Kudos to Gary about the quoted part. It was getting waaaaaaaaay too long to continue reading, but that part was gold.

Ripper: Yes. Hillary Clinton, Leland Yee, parent groups who want to parent for other parents but are already doing their jobs are people. From what I've seen, it *is* enforced. Some people in Congress seem to be confused that it isn't because of the GTA controversy. Or they know better and they're deliberately misleading people. You're working with the assumption that the stores rarely enforce the ratings, which I don't believe is true. Why do the repercussions need to come from a government agency? Why can't the industry self-regulate? And where are the kids that are allegedly buying the games without parent/adult consent getting $49.99 from? And how are they playing a game jam-packed with tens of hours of gameplay without parents having a clue that they have it? That's as far as the ESRB, by themselves, can take it. So you're saying the government is gong to be much more effective in "correcting" a problem that may or may not even exist? Remember that parents buying a game for their kids is going to happen regardless. The proposals are so ridiculously easy to circumvent it is accomplishing nothing. Oh, and porn is an irrelevant comparison. We're talking about games with the equivalent content of R-rated movies, not things that can only be sold to adults 18+. AO games are already almost impossible to get ahold of right now, treated with similar taboos as porn already. Hell, AO games are *harder* to find than porn. Lushus: Which is the standard policy for every video game retailer I know of. Thing is, Johnny 14 year old can't drive. Johnny 14 year old doesn't have a regular job to afford a $49.99 + tax. And I personally do not see a trend of stores selling M-rated games to Johnny 14 year old. Besides that, no one has convinced me yet that retailers selling M games to unaccompanied minors is happening much. GTASA having OMGPR0n discovered into in it after-the-fact has nothing to do with that. No, I'm not taking it out of context, I'm saying that they're not the same thing. Those other things you need to be 18/21 to legally buy, and they're much more harmful (okay, porn is debatable). Plus, they have similar laws attached to them they're ignoring. It's not just illegal to sell stuff like that to kids now, but if you *give* it to them and let them use them, you could be in some big legal trouble. So next parents might be penalized for letting "Johnny 14 Year Old" play an M game? Where is the line drawn? The problem doesn't begin and end at the retailers. I'm proposing ratings be enforced and treated like movies/DVDs are now. Other people want them to be enforced and treated like drugs and alcohol. Sorry, but I think my proposal is a hell of lot more sensible and valid. And frankly, I believe once you're 16, can drive, and likely have a job, you should be able to buy an M-rated game. The age 17 designation makes no sense--ditto for R ratings. Current ratings are totally archaic.

A Marge one couldn't even fit on most shelves.

Reno 911 is almost unrecognizable these days, though. =/ Perhaps his stand up material, but his show was a bit different from what I saw. I can't decide whether I think Stella is "mildly funny" or "off the scale stupid."

The government can't do it either. It's even harder than expecting small theaters to always catch kids sneaking into R-rated movies, because once they have the game in their hands, they can play it all they want. Parents will still buy it for them because they're AWARE of the ratings but they DON'T CARE. Holy crap--which one of these is not like the other? So, you want laws to throw parents in jail for giving a kid under 17 an M-rated game? Maybe you want similar laws to prevent selling of T-rated games to kids under 13? If there are immeasureably-stupid laws on the books against selling non-alcoholic beverages to minors, why not?

It's very funny to recall Hogan's pathetic attempts to rip off Austin in WCW.

MoM is just some guy named Ned (his daddy is white, his mom's Honduran--what a friggin' poser) yelling "beaner" and "wetback" for most of his show. The "sketches" are just ol' Ned going somewhere else, and then doing stupid race-based "comedy" there instead of in the studio. I saw it both first eps. Painfully unfunny. At the end of the first episode he brought out a midget Gallagher to smash stuff with a hammer. That's how little creativity went into that mess. This isn't really a surprise, but damn--are they going to show the episodes they've made already or can 'em?

And the goofy looking fratboy reminds us he's still employed. Whoopdie-****. Taker-Orton 2 -- this time, it doesn't mean a damn thing at all.

17-18 I believe. I think he was supposed to be 10 in 1998, according to WCW.

Reid Flair could kick the everloving crap out of Nick.

Somebody calling in to ask about Brooke's "music career." Yeah, that's not a plant.

They did... his name was Val Venis/Mark Henry/Godfather/Viscera/Hearthrobs, and possible "Playa" Vinnie Mac. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I meant from this one specifically. I'm aware this is a sequel. Ah yes. We'll wear warmup gear when not in the ring, actually sound menacing on the mic, and put on good matches.

...but...blood goes through your hear-- ah screw it.