cawthon777

AHHHHHHHH! I missed that????? DAMN IT!!!! Was watching Confidential and the Perfect tribute.

Well put. Goldberg and Bischoff alike didn't think Jericho could draw flies. Even more reason to dislike Goldberg.

Actually, they worked a match together at the very first house show I attended in 93. Great bout and a similar rematch 2 months later. But Summer Slam ... well that was ...

Vader illegally eliminated several guys, not just HBK, in the 96 Rumble.

I honestly don't know of any conservatives that I back that do bible-thump or bash gays and / or minorities. Especially not any on Fox News like O'Reilly or Hannity. The religious right does step over its boundaries quite often. I remember back in 99-00 when McCain and Bush were neck-and-neck. McCain called out the religious right and said what they preached was trash. I respected him a lot for doing that when so many others wouldn't. He caught some backlash from that within the party and maybe that's what lead to his defeat (I would have much preferred to have McCain win the primary at the time). As far as the book covers, all they're saying is "don't give in to the dark side". lol jk

"If George Bush goes there and he makes those people angry, all the Middle East and Europeans, then he will be a threat," said Erol Kozanoglu. "Only Saddam Hussein does not threaten the Middle East. But a war and George Bush threaten the security of the Middle East." Yeah, better keep big bad Bush out of Iraq. Bush = evil. Saddam = savior. All hail Saddam and his non-genocidal ways. DOES NOT THREATEN THE MIDDLE EAST? Heard of the Gulf War?

I turned on Fox News this morning shortly after waking up and the first thing I see is a stock photo of Curt Hennig while some guy is takling about him. The guy is skinny and has a very raspy voice. And after a few moments I'm thinking "...Bobby?" He's almost unrecognizable now. Just caught the last few minutes but he talked about hearing Hennig had passed away and not calling his home for fear it was nothing more than a bad joke. He also mentioned that Curt had had an irregular heartbeat for years. Talked briefly about fans immitating the wrestlers they see on TV, although that was only brought up by the interviewer in an obvious attempt to point fingers. Apparently the interview was about his book that went off on a tanget on Hennig. After the interview, Bobby made it clear that he still has it when he interrupted the interviewer's sedgeway by asking "Do I get paid for this?" and as he was getting up he asked where Katie Couric was. That was pretty hilarious.

Wow... Not sure where those quotes came from but most are pretty funny (in a "I know I'm not supposed to laugh at that but it's just too offensive not to" kinda way).

Hmm, didn't see that coming lol

SPOILERS... What happened is that Buffy's mom got sick in Season 4. It was just a nagging thing that slowly escalated into something more as Season 5 began. I heard somewhere about Anthony Head commenting on that situation. He was told that Joyce was to be killed off. But it never happened. They just kept dragging it on and he assumed they had decided to keep her on. Buffy's mom gets better and life continues. Then Buffy comes home at the end of a fairly light-hearted episode and finds her mom dead on the couch (eyes wide open, very creepy). That's classic Joss for you. Catches you when you're least expecting it.

LOL That's great. I e-mailed the reporter in question and rather than her replying (I guess she was too busy) she had the news editor stick up for her and tell me that my opinion was only my own (well, kinda already knew that but whatever). I think the way he put it was "It's clear to me that you're a very talented writer and if you would ever like to write for the paper I would encourage it ... but keep your opinions to yourself." (paraphrased of course) I'm also print.

lol The sad part is this wasn't an editorial at all. This was a poorly-written (and as a journalism major I can say that) hard news piece. It was one of those hard news pieces with zero research put into it, though.

Well, it's good to have things in common. Maybe later they can go out to eat at an American fast food restaurant and then watch an American TV sit-com.

lol No, but I can imagine. I brought all that up from personal experience at college. We have an anti-war liberal student paper - which is fine, whatever - but the "facts" presented in supporting that argument are so flawed it's sad. For instance, the cover story in last week's edition claimed that the Bush Administration was finding European allies "few and far between". What bullshit. If these people knew the facts, they would have a much different opinion on the situation.

As he said, if it were about oil we would have done this a long time ago. And why Iraq when Saudi is right next door? Most of the hijackers were from Saudi and Saudi has more than twice as much oil as Iraq. Let's go to war with Saudi Arabia!!!!! ...That's sarcasm. This is about American safety.

That's classic. Might have to borrow it from time to time.

Saddam wasn't even a blip on the radar screen during Clinton's 8 years. Why didn't we take care of him then? Because we were busy not taking care of the Twin Towers bombing in 93, the attack on American embassies abroad, and the attack on the USS Kohl. He would have been taken out during the Gulf War had Bush Sr. been given the "right" by the UN. We've tried to take him out since via assassination missions but he's got all those damn bodyguards and lookalikes... I've heard criticisms of the war saying that it's simply George W. making good on what his dad couldn't take care of. It's not quite that simple but it does show that both Bushes understand that Saddam is a threat and needs to be taken out of power for the good of America and the rest of the free world. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

Not big on MNF but I'll go along with that. Miller is too intelligent and high brow to really fit in there (not that I'm saying everyone else there is a retard).

Exactly. That's why it's brought up so often in the anti-war reasoning and why it will not happen.

Bush came up with that? Damn, that's impressive considering he's only been in public office for about 10 years. That's one of the most widely used tactics in politics.

If you're going to call Bush a dictator, might want to come up with something aside from him disagreeing with protestors and the Orange alert warning. The Orange alert argument sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me - especially since it didn't stop too many people from protesting anyway. Whatever feeling you got from Bush was probably more frustration than anything else. From what I've read, most of the people on this thread know what they're talking about. However, how many people in the real world are really into politics or really watch the news (and can see through the news) on a regular basis? Not too many. I'd wager that most of these demonstrators are out there without really knowing what's going on or what's at stake. Not all, but most. They think "Oh, peace is good. I'm into that." and grab a sign. Add that to all the talk of oil being the reason for war, or George W. only going to war to appease his daddy, or bringing back the draft. The casual media viewer is bombarded by these ideas all the time. I know colleges and universities are mostly liberal but mine takes the cake. Everyone completely buys into these anti-war theories without question. When it's debated in class, although I'm in the minority when it comes to my politics - I'm the only one that knows what's going on.

The show would not have been as interesting and would have fizzled out by now. Loss and conflict = good TV. It forces change.

Aww crap, really? I always liked him. Oh well. Eh, the NRA has been publically raped by the media moreso than pro wrestling - with less reasoning behind it. "We have a military. We don't need the crazies with AK-47s running around too." Now when has that ever happened?

Like I said, most the changes that need to be made are beauracratic within the government. Even if they were conducting checks on the 9/11 hijackers, due to how slow their papers arrived nobody would have heard the alarm bells until way after it was too late. Yes, I agree. And I'm not promoting or endorsing that behavior by the government - but background checks alone won't solve all the problems. The terrorist cells, sleeper cells in particular, know how to cover their tracks and occassionally things will get out of hand and someone's rights will get trampled on. Do I believe it's justified? No but let's say this girl really was involved in some plot against America and the authorities just went away when she wouldn't let them in. What happens then? There is a big gray area here and some controversial decisions will be made. The intent is not to rob us of our freedoms. Bush and Ashcroft aren't out to turn America into a dictatorship. It's kind of their responsibility to weed these people out and bring them to justice (which we are doing on a regular basis now). There is a general consensus in America that we would rather let a guilty man go free than send an innocent man to prison. I'm not about to take an eraser to our constitutional rights, but we can't allow the guilty to go free in this situation.

Oh please. Iraq has been a small piss in the bucket. It's certainly not a big enough deal for all this rhetoric and the scaling back of nukes nearly into conventional territory. This is enough reason for war? Iraq endorses terrorism, Saddam wants us all dead, and he has the capabilities to kill a lot of Americans. He will do everything in his power to use them himself or pass them into the hands of others who will. THAT is reason enough to go to war. And I think using the word "war" is giving Saddam a bit too much credit. This won't be a Vietnam, or Korea, Germany, or Japan. When we go in, we will go in hard and fast, cut off communications systems, and the Iraqi soldiers - as with the Gulf War - will surrender for the most part without much of a fight. Despite the pro-Saddam rhetoric to the contrary, the Iraqi people are behind the U.S. and once they see an opening they will help to oust Hussein from power. That's the thing, 9/11 fucked up almost nothing. It's still a bunch of guys sneaking in and striking out of nowhere. It was just more effective this time. What I meant is that it fucked up a lot of things regarding future safety. We can't very well allow them to continue to sneak in therefore we need to take measures to see that they don't. So what measures should we use and which ones are constitutional, protect the individual rights of citizens, yet will also protect them from foreign enemies?