Styles

Oh, good one of the few "liberal" issues I care about, and this guy is against it. Was this supposed to endear him to me or something?

That's an interestin comparison. Arnold is a celebrity and a movie star which is where a lot of his mainstream recognition came from, which is different than Dean who sort of built up his own political support. I guess, I just wish against reality than ANYONE else gets the nomination. I really want to have to make a decision, pay attention to the issues, etc. come November. But it's going to be Dean. It should be loads of fun to watch the debates, ads, etc. but when it comes to election day I won't even have to bat my eyes to re-elect the president. It's not so much that I dislike the President, but it's like I want to be challenged. Dean doesn't challenge me, he just reaffirms my beliefs that we have the right guy in office...

I'm so lonely... Well with your mean-spiritedness I'm not surprised... What I meant was, it seems like no registered Democrats who are voting in the primaries are rallying any real support for anyone but Dean, all but guarenteeing he'll win the nomination, which should make for a very entertaining race but an easy vote. I was not, snapping at your opinion, just pointing out that I hadn't recieved any feedback from any Democrats yet. Friends?

We'd all be speaking Iraqi...

I'm so lonely...

The idea here is type of thing comes up a lot here: -Go Bush! -Boo Bush, vote Dean! -Eeew, why Dean? -Um....he's not Bush. I appreicate the well thought out response though. I've been leaning towards Lieberman because of his foreign policy views but his social leanings are a bit of a turn off (then again, as president I think he'll be a little too busy to push for bills banning pro wrestling...) Edwards is intriguing. Everyone seems to like the guy, he's said all the right things...why isn't THIS guy the Democratic nominee. I mean, damn it, a charming, young guy that gets along with everyone seems way more likeable and electable then a firy, obstenate guy that alienates his own party. But it seems like he's had ZERO publicity, I forget he's even running sometimes...

...yet That's reassuring!

Jesus Christ...this better be sarcasm. The turn happened in THE LAST MINUTE OF THE LAST LIVE SHOW. There has been a break in live programming for the last 2 weeks. So, since his turn the next minute of new programming hasn't even begun and already there's bitching that Punk doesn't get mic time?!?!?! What if he gets segment #1, this week?! Can we PLEASE wait to see the show before being negative?

Your right. Bush is pretty moderate in comparison to his party. Dean is quite liberal in comparison to his party. By that logic, Dean has no chance in hell. Clinton was quite centered for a Democrat, remember.

BX, I'm not going to pick you apart. Just a couple questions. First, while Dean might "fire you up" don't you think in such an unstable time with such danger in the world, that we would be safer with a more calm and rational person in the face of danger rather than an emotional and likely not clear thinking person? Also, this is now 2 Dean supporters....both reasoning, He's Not Bush. Well, gee, are you just bandwagon jumping? If you are, be honest and say yes. Because "he's not Bush" is not a good reason when there are so many other candidates avaliable....then again, you hinted to liking Kucinich who makes Dean sound like Reagan, so maybe I'll leave you alone

America doesn't want a "liberal" president. Some of the other candidates seem more moderate while known as liberals (i.e. Kerry and Gephart) but as I lamented in another thread, it doesn't seem like anyone realizes they have a choice...

Maybe AJ.... Who do you all think JJ gives the title shot to?

Seriously: Do you know ANYTHING about Edwards!? Does ANYBODY!?! What does he stand for!?! What are his big issues!?! And you're an R aren't you, so it's not like you have a stake in the primaries! The Democratic party is just so in the shitter right now. I mean, out of 9 candidates the only one that's gained any publicity or real support is an unelectable ranting liberal, while the other 8 mash together in obscurity. I mean, ok Kucinich, Sharpton and Braunn aren't going to win, fine...but that leaves 5 other "top" candidates! Do no other Democrats on this board support any of them? Do you just support Dean because he's the most likely to win the nomination so you're jumping on the bandwagon? I mean, it's like, how can I bother considering anyone but Bush when the only option avaliable is horrible?

Short clip of the new song which will be debuted in full on this week's show. mms://nwatna.com/previews/2004/1/7/3lk.wma%20

Jobber, that's very interesting. My stance is almost completely opposite: Anyone but Dean. If anyone else miraculously wins the Dem nomination from Liberman to Kerry to Gephart, then I might have some real thinking to do. But, I do not like Dean at all. The man dowright scares me with his cult leader like tactics and general unstableness. Some of the things the guy says and then tries to qualify are insane. Plus he says to one crowd he's really the crazy loudmouth liberal people want him to be, and they should nominate him for it, and then to another crowd says "hey, I'm just putting on an act to attract a base, elect me, I'm a lot more moderate and rational than you think!" Well, gee, like him or hate him, at least Bush sticks to his guns. What you see is what you get. If comes down to Bush vs. Dean, there is no question for me. Not even mentioning that I LIKE the president and think his administration is making the right moves to keep us safe and combat terrorism, but even moreso it's the other side of the coin in that I do no feel safe AT ALL allowing Howard Dean in control of the country and am convinced we would be in serious trouble security wise if he was. Again, I'd like to consider a Democrat (I am voting in the damn primaries afterall), but it's really hard....anyone but Dean.

TNA has all their top guys locked up to 1 year contracts with second year company options (I'm not so sure about Dlo though. He wasn't being used for a while because of his Japanese commitments but I have to asume since they've used him the last few weeks that he's signed). Why Back the Mack when you can be Down with the Brown!

I believe so. As soon as it's added to the official preview, it will be added here.

You just proved my point for me. All they focus on is the loud, ignorant "blood for oil" croud. So even if there are some sensible disenters out there, they're not going to be covered anyway. It's going to be the more "embarassing" of the crowd. So, the right and the left doesn't want them acknoledged, so why should they be? Let them protest out of safe distance of the president or media cameras...

If the KKK is giving a rally, while they have the right to do so, should the media give them attention by broadcasting them? I heard that last year at my college som neo-Nazis planned a rally down our main street where all the shops and cafes are. On that day, all shops agreed to close and everyone comepletely stayed away from the area, so while they marched there was NO ONE there to see them, which is how you deal with that type of thing. AGAIN, anti-Bushists are certainly not Nazis, but I don't think they have any legitimacy in representing anyone but the ignorant, radical segment of people out there who hold up signs like "Bush is worse than Saddam". And I am not exactly sad that they are ignored. But, again, I disagree with it.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I don't agree with the officers not allowing the media to talk to the protestors. But, at the same time, it's not exactly a cause I'm upset about because you know darn well that the majority of those people are loud, ignorant "blood for oil" types who want attention. The media (especially local) likes this type of thing, and by putting them on TV as part of a story on the president speaking, it makes it seem like, this is the majority opinion out there (it gives them credibility). So, I think it's best to ignore them (the same way you ignore Nazi protestors or Peta people (before anyone replies, NO Im not comparing anti-Bushists to Nazis but the PETA example is pretty similar). Anyway, just to reiterate, I think the media should be allowed to acess and talk to and broadcast whoever they want, but I'm not losing sleep over this.

Right, but the TV people weren't allowed to talk to them even if they chose to. Well, I'm not saying I agree with that, then again, I'm not exactly upset about it either because most of those people are just attention seeking idiots, who don't need to be given a forum to spread their idiocy to give the impression on the news that this is how most American's think. OMG LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS 2004~!!!!

I don't see the problem either. I mean, it was STUPID, yes, but geez it's his kid, and he's been doing this for god knows how many years so I trust his own judgement with his own kid. Plus, it's not like something happened! I mean, everything came off fine.

You DEBATE-IST~!

Good. They're idiots (oohhh "no blood for oil" how original). I don't think it's safe for the president to be near such irrational people, nor have his duties interrupted. Plus, they have the right to protest, not the right to get seen on TV.

HHH vs. Kane (and Goldberg): Agonizing, plodding, sloppy match, barely *. HHH vs. HBK: 30 minute emotional classic, close to *****. I think I'll take the latter, please!