NYU

Wow.....that must have been one food fight. She's looking gorgeous as always though.

Ugh, that may have been one of the most unrealistic ones yet. Let me get this straight.....your "girlfriend" was abused by this guy. She's best friends with this other girl Yelena. Now Yelena is going out with this abusive guy, even though your "girlfriend" MUST have told her about how abusive he is? Huh? And once you knocked him out of the house, he didn't try coming back? Didn't knock on the door once again? Dude, he must have felt horrible being punked out by you, so I seriously doubt he wouldn't come back. But the part of this that lacks the most logic is.... At the beginning of the entire thread, wasn't this girl supposed to be pretty cold, unemotional, and a little stuck up. Now, not only does she make out with you in a syrup-filled room, she has no reservations about making out with you in a crowded movie theater? The same girl that had trouble laughing has done a complete 180 and is the EXACT opposite of what she started out as? It doesn't even fit together. But for a fictional story, once again, not bad. I'm sure you could find somebody to buy this novel. .....by the way, why fight with him at all? Just explain your girlfriend was trying to read Harry Potter, and that he was disrupting her reading. I'm sure that would have stopped his urge to fight - it's worked wonders before.

Good thing I woke up from that "Every Democrat is pissed off at Howard Dean because he said Osama required a trial" dream. Yes, while there is a competitive primary happening at this time, this already disproves your "Democrats won't call out other Democrats for remarks" theory. They "called out" Dean for personal gain. What did Bush gain by calling out Lott? -=Mike Support from the African-American public.

Good thing I woke up from that "Every Democrat is pissed off at Howard Dean because he said Osama required a trial" dream. Yes, while there is a competitive primary happening at this time, this already disproves your "Democrats won't call out other Democrats for remarks" theory.

Another story for Mad Dog, just to make sure. Scrutiny of Lott's past reveals controversial associations By Ana Radelat Clarion-Ledger Washington Bureau WASHINGTON — Since the beginning of his political career, Sen. Trent Lott has had ties with segregationists. The Mississippi Republican entered the political world in 1968 as an administrative assistant to then-Rep. William Colmer, D-Miss., a champion of white supremacists who used his position as head of the House Rules Committee to bottle up civil rights legislation. Richard Barrett, the general counsel of the segregationist Nationalist Movement in Mississippi, says Colmer was a "freedom fighter" and "a staunch segregationist who groomed Trent Lott." Lott, who is supposed to become Senate majority leader next month, has come under fire for remarks he made last week suggesting he sympathized with segregation. He apologized again Wednesday, saying he does not accept those policies. But he would not be interviewed for this article. Lott's controversial remarks have prompted greater scrutiny into what he's said and done in the past — a scrutiny that wasn't applied when he became Senate majority leader once before in 1996. He has longtime ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a neo-Confederate group that has been accused of racist views. In the last 10 years several columns written by Lott have been featured in the organization's publication, the Citizen Informer. Lott, 61, has tried to distance himself from the group since it was revealed in 1999 that he had addressed a rally sponsored by the CCC. "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries," Lott said at the CCC event. During a radio interview Wednesday, Lott said the rally was an open forum for political candidates and that he wasn't sure he was aware of its sponsor. The senator's membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans also upsets civil rights groups. The Tennessee-based organization is the successor to the United Confederate Veterans and the oldest hereditary organization for male descendants of Confederate soldiers. It was founded in 1896. "Most of us are mainstream," said Ben Sewell, the group's executive director. "I can't say that everybody is, but most of us are." In a 1984 interview with Southern Partisan magazine, Lott was asked about comments he made at a Sons of Confederate Veterans rally in Biloxi. At the event Lott said, "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform." "All the ideas we supported there — from tax policy, to foreign policy, from individual rights, to neighborhood security — are things that Jefferson Davis believed in," Lott said of the GOP's presidential agenda in 1984. During that interview, Lott also explained his opposition in 1983 to making the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. "I would vote for eliminating some of the ones we already have, as a matter of fact. Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving. I just think it was basically wrong," he said. Oran T. Smith, former managing editor of Southern Partisan and an expert on Southern Republicans, said Lott is not a racist but a man who revels in his Mississippi heritage. "I think he's a Southerner who likes to celebrate his Southerness," Smith said. In 1979, Lott received the Jefferson Davis Medal from the United Daughters of the Confederacy for his successful effort to have the president of the Confederacy's citizenship restored. Lott attended a 1980 rally for Ronald Reagan in Jackson that featured remarks from Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. After Thurmond spoke to more than 1,000 people present, Lott said, "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." Those 1980 comments echoed similar remarks Lott made last week at a 100th birthday party for Thurmond, who ran for president in 1948 as a Dixiecrat on a segregationist platform. "I want to say this about my state," Lott said last week. "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." Barrett, the National Movement's attorney, said Wednesday he is angry Lott apologized for those remarks. "He did not stand up for Mississippi," Barrett said. In 1981, when Lott was a House member, the Mississippi lawmaker intervened at the U.S Supreme Court to defend the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in South Carolina. The IRS had moved to deny that status because the university banned interracial dating among students. Lott argued the First Amendment protected the school's right to ban interracial dating because it was based on religious beliefs. "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Lott wrote. Still, Marty Wiseman, head of the Stennis Institute at Mississippi State University, said Lott is motivated by his passion for his home state's history and his political ideology, not racism. "Trent Lott's personal philosophy has been ultraconservative," Wiseman said. "Race has never entered into it." -------------------------------------- Again, my intent is not to turn this into a Trent Lott-bashing thread. It's just to show that history seems to dictate more was behind his Strum Thurmond comment than "being nice on his birthday." And I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but I don't think it's fair to complain that the two should face the same scrutiny when their comments were not near equally offensive.

Well, making a joke about an Indian guy working at a gas station is much different then basically saying a guy becoming president would have been the best thing for this country, when that guy's main issue was keeping segregation. It would have been the best thing for this country if blacks were separated from whites?! Huh?! It appears, according to Trent Lott, it would. Lott's comment was 10 times more offensive than Hillary's was. Not to mention Lott was the Senate MAJORITY LEADER, not just a plain Senator, when he was making these racially offensive remarks. I just don't think it's fair to compare these two comments. Yes, Hillary's comment was insensitive, and it's for the best that she apologized for it. But to compare it to Trent Lott's comment and say she should face the same treatment is pretty ridiculous. Ah yes, the whole putting words in someone's mouth. Give it a rest. He was trying to flatter an old man at his birthday party, there wasn't any racial stuff meant. Bush Calls Lott's Comments Offensive WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday sharply rebuked incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for comments that some have called racist, saying any suggestion that segregation was acceptable is "offensive and it is wrong." Bush's comments, delivered to a mixed-race audience in Philadelphia, came one day after Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said he would not give up his leadership post, despite the furor over his remarks. "Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country," Bush said to loud applause. "He has apologized and rightly so. Every day that our nation was segregated was a day our nation was unfaithful to our founding ideals." A spokesman for Lott said the senator agreed with the president that his comments were wrong and reiterated his regret at having said them. Lott later called the president and the two had what aides described as a positive conversation. The president did not call for Lott to step down, but other conservatives say Lott must offer a fuller explanation of his comments, despite his apology. "On their face, the recent comments of Sen. Trent Lott are offensive, repugnant and inimical to what the Republican Party stands for," said William Bennett, a noted conservative author and education secretary during the Reagan administration. Bennett suggested that Lott's explanations about what he meant when he praised segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign have been inadequate. "If Senator Lott can provide a satisfactory explanation for his statement, this entire episode should be forgotten," Bennett said in a statement released Thursday. "If he cannot, he needs to step down as the Senate majority leader." The president's strong statement suggests that Lott has failed to quell the controversy over his comments, which some conservatives complain have opened the GOP to charges of racial bigotry. On Thursday, the Congressional Black Caucus -- comprised of black Democratic lawmakers -- released a statement calling for a "formal censure of Sen. Lott's racist remarks." Two Democratic senators -- John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin -- have called on Lott to resign his leadership post, but there has been no such call from any GOP senator. Several, in fact, have risen to Lott's defense, saying his apology should put the matter to rest. But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said Lott should have a "full-blown press conference" to address the controversy. Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. -- President Bush "I have known Trent Lott for 20 years," McCain told CNN. "I don't believe he's racist. But he must proactively send a message to his colleagues in the Senate and the American people that he is absolutely opposed to any segregation in any form and racism in any form and discrimination in any form." The comment in question was delivered one week ago during a 100th birthday party for the retiring Thurmond -- a party that often resembled a roast of the South Carolina Republican. Lott noted that in Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, whose centerpiece was opposition to integration, Mississippi was one of four Thurmond carried. "We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either," Lott said. That line initially drew little fire, but the criticism grew this week and intensified with a report of a similar comment he made at a 1980 campaign rally for Ronald Reagan in Mississippi. His comments followed a speech by Thurmond, who praised the platform that would soon put Reagan in the White House. "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today," Lott was quoted as saying of Thurmond in a November 3, 1980, article in The Clarion-Ledger, a Jackson newspaper. Another past incident also may come back to haunt Lott. Time magazine has reported that Lott vigorously opposed desegregating his fraternity when he was a student at the University of Mississippi in the 1960s. (Full story) Lott's comments have led two Democratic senators to call for him to give up his leadership post. Lott granted two phone interviews Wednesday during which he apologized repeatedly for the more recent comment, calling it "terrible." In neither case, Lott insisted, did he mean to endorse Thurmond's since-discarded segregationist views. Instead, Lott said, he meant to praise Thurmond's stance on defense, law enforcement and economic development. "This was a mistake of the head or of the mouth, not of the heart," he said in a call to one radio talk show, reprising a line first used in 1984 by civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who was criticized at the time for describing New York City as "Hymietown," a comment many took as anti-Semitic. Jackson has blasted Lott for his recent comment. Kerry -- who is exploring a possible 2004 bid for the White House -- became the first senator to call on Lott to resign his leadership post with a statement Wednesday. Feingold did the same Thursday. The Wall Street Journal and the Family Research Council, a conservative group, have also criticized Lott for his comments, saying he has hurt Republican efforts to reach out to minorities. Lott said Wednesday night that he hoped he could be judged in the full context of his career, which he said has included support of historically black colleges and universities. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, called Lott a "good leader" but suggested that Lott address civil rights groups to "speak out openly about" the controversy. Credit: CNN.com -------------------------------------------- You can't say those weren't his intentions with that remark, especially since he had a history of doing such racially offensive things. Not once, but TWICE, saying things turned into a mess without Strum Thurmond, who was strongly FOR segregation.....being against desegregation in his college fraternity.....Trent Lott had a reputation as being someone against integration. Yes, it could have changed over the years, but evidence doesn't seem to point to that. If you look at his history, and what he has had a habit of doing, how could you say there was absolutely no racial intent behind his Thurmond comment? Now again, how could you compare his comment at Strum's birthday party, backed by those actions he once committed before, against Hillary making a "joke" about an Indian guy working at a gas station. Their comments on two WAY different offensive levels, so it's silly to complain that Lott was punished but Hillary won't be because she's not a Republican.

Well, making a joke about an Indian guy working at a gas station is much different then basically saying a guy becoming president would have been the best thing for this country, when that guy's main issue was keeping segregation. It would have been the best thing for this country if blacks were separated from whites?! Huh?! It appears, according to Trent Lott, it would. Lott's comment was 10 times more offensive than Hillary's was. Not to mention Lott was the Senate MAJORITY LEADER, not just a plain Senator, when he was making these racially offensive remarks. I just don't think it's fair to compare these two comments. Yes, Hillary's comment was insensitive, and it's for the best that she apologized for it. But to compare it to Trent Lott's comment and say she should face the same treatment is pretty ridiculous.

Why am I the only one at this ANTI-Establishment meeting? And dude, where the fuck is the punch and pie? Very disappointing....

Wasn't Nermal always male? I think he just had a feminine voice but he was still a male - like Tweety.

I don't want to pull a Rush Limbaugh here or anything, but Booker T is on that Raw list for one reason. It's because he's black. If you look at the 19 other people on that list, only one other person is black.....and he's only half (The Rock, if you're not sure ). I'm sure Vince doesn't want to get negative publicity or complaints from stockholders that 19 of his top 20 wrestlers are basically white, so he thought it would be more convenient to just put another African-American wrestler onto the list. It's not like it's a huge deal or anything, but it explains why Booker T would be on the list rather than someone else that has been shoved down our throats. It looks just to be a race-relations move so Vince can avoid a possible racist accusation down the line.

Hell-In-A-Cell between Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker. It had me on the edge of my seat for nearly 30 minutes, and has to be the best cage type match I've ever seen.

I think it may be that HHH, Shawn Michaels, Goldberg, Booker T, and Kane all didn't wrestle tonight.....Jericho was stuck in a meaningless tag match....too many pointless matches (Richards/Test? Dupree/Spike?).....plus the fact that, storyline wise, the show just wasn't too entertaining at all. But then again, we did see Mae Young. So I suppose we broke even.

My answer to the egotistical, self-absorbed internet message board "gods", is simply known as: "The ANTI-Establishment~!". Are you one of those posters in the shadows that feel they are "good enough" for some stupid, stuck up internet message board cliq, but others stick up there noses and say you're not in their league? You know the ones. Are you sick of the ones who talk down to others like they are worthless? Sick of pompous posters who contribute nothing to this board, but are "accepted" just because they are "established"? What is established mean anyways? You've been more of a loser than others here and have spent countless hours on this and many other boards dribbling out the same shit day in and day out? Blah. Join me. Join The ANTI-Establishment~! ............okay, sure.

Nah. She looks like Jazz.

say welcome to the Orton Sheriff, guys!!!! Yeah, man. ORTON SUCKS!!! Stupid heat vacuum!!

....what the fuck are you talking about? Are you some kind of robot that just repeats that phrase over and over? People stopped talking about Suckbag a little while ago. Hopefully, you'll catch up.

Wow, who's coffee did Test piss in? Losing to Steven Richards 3 times in a row?!

JR: Call the match?! By gawd, what a stupid comment to make! Now let's talk about them Sooners! COACH, WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR ANNOUNCING?! Coach: And Hurricane climbs the... JR: BOOMER SOONER ! PROFESSIONAL, MY ASS! GO OKLAHOMA!

JR: Oklahoma wasn't embarrassed! They were a good team! A GOOD TEAM! *Vince McMahon speaking in JR's ear*: JR, talk about the match. JR: You don't know what you're talking about ! KERFLABB....OKLAHOMA.....DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE GAME?! *Vince*: JR.....the match.... JR: BOOMER SOONER. Y'ALL DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COACH, BECAUSE YOU'RE BLACK! GO WATCH BASKETBALL! *Vince*: ......aw shit.

I actually thought about this in class for a little while today instead of actually paying attention. While traveling into the future may be possible, traveling into the past may be as well - but changing things would not be. Just like in A Christmas Carol: Scrooge was able to see into the past, but no matter what he did, he couldn't change a thing. I think, if one traveled into the past, he could LOOK at the things going on, yet could not communicate with anybody or move anything. Once again, if we're using the forum here as an example. If one enters a locked thread, they can see what was said before. Yet, they can not comment on it and can not have an effect on the future of the thread. In the past, one can enter it and actually observe what's happening. But they can not have an effect on it. It's as if they're not even there. At least that's my opinion on time travel into the past. As for John Titor, it's a hoax. But it's a very good hoax. Jeez, I never thought of that. If there IS a John Titor somewhere, I'm sure he gets at least a couple of calls a day from obsessed people. It must suck to be getting these freaky calls, especially if you had nothing to do with the plot. Now I have serious wonders if a John Titor actually exists in Florida, or anywhere else in America.

Damn, that is HARSH. I hope your mom made it up to you because that is an awful thing to do to your 6 or 7 year old son. Seriously. And yeah, it was about time for B2K to break up so they could all attempt solo careers and fail at it. I don't know if I'd go as far to say that they were worse than all those boy bands, but I was never a fan of them. Oh well, let's hope for Good Charlotte next.

Well, no, that was 2003. In 2002, they decided to have the Undertaker have a months-long feud with a 53-year-old man, instead of possibly bringing someone new like Maven onto a higher level.

I agree with the first point. Especially after the VERY anti-climactic ending of the Royal Rumble last year. We have Shawn Michaels at #1 and Jericho at #2, along with a few other Main Eventers thrown in later on, and Brock winds up winning after drawing #29. If a face is going to win the Royal Rumble, they should have to struggle a little to do it - and the bookers should at least make sure there's PROPER competition in the ring. It was an obvious conclusion Brock would win as soon as he got into the ring. They really need to change stupid things like that. I remember feeling a little underwhelmed after the Rumble last year, so I hope it won't repeat itself again. And as for the other point, eh, the Rumble still has the ability to surprise. When people saw the Undertaker come in with a relatively early number in 2002, I'm sure many thought he was going to do some major damage and remain until near the very end. Then he wound up being eliminated by Maven. The Rumble's not ALWAYS predictable - it just feels that way.

Not me. It's nice that you did all that research though.

Why are you assuming HHH will beat, let alone bury Benoit? Sure you can use the defense of Booker/HHH at Mania 19 this year, but I really don't think they'd do that again. WWE-Built Superstar vs. WCW-Built Superstar at the biggest WWE show EVER. You just need to use history to know how the result of that would go. So the same would go for Brock vs. Benoit, accordinging to your theory, correct? Yes. Even then, I don't think they would let Benoit win. I'll believe it when I see it. But the Booker T/HHH match from WM XIX.....and the HBK/Jericho match from WM XIX.....and the HHH/Jericho match from WM XVIII......and the Hogan/Rock match from WM XVIII (I know Hogan's old, but still....)......and the Hall/Austin match from WM XVIII......history just seems to dictate that the WCW guy will always lose to the WWE guy at WrestleMania. Sad but true. So why does everyone want to see Brock/Benoit again if Benoit's just going to lose? Does it really matter if he wrestles Brock or HHH if he's going to lose in the end (according to the WCW vs. WWF theory)? Nope. But hope can make people delirious sometimes. How many times have I been psyched for a possible RVD title win?