NYU

He's detailing just why it might be possible John Kerry could lose. ::Usually, a President in wartime doesn't have his term disrupted, so this bodes well for Bush. This is more of a sweeping statement of U.S. political history rather than this particular election. ::The last time an incumbent was beaten - George Bush Sr. - the approval rating was only 33%. Right now, Bush Jr. is at a 49% rating. This could be trouble. ::The level of economic pain we are feeling today is not usually indicative of the incumbent President being defeated. There is a lot of speculation in there about what COULD keep Kerry from winning the election. It's not pessimistic so much as it is realistic. These are the facts, and it's silly not to look at them for what they are. Nowhere in that article does it read Mellman is conceding defeat, saying that he assuredly thinks Bush is going to win the election. Nowhere does it say that Kerry is a lock to lose, while Bush is guaranteed to win. Read it over again if you don't believe me. You can't say to skip over the last paragraph when the entire point of the piece IS reaffirmed with that last passage. Despite all the trouble Kerry could face when it comes to Bush and his incumbent advantages, he still expects to be smiling Wednesday morning. Just because Mellman isn't using blind optimism doesn't mean he doesn't expect his candidate to win. You're simply attributing words to him that he didn't even write.

Well, you certainly missed the message of that article.

SD VS RAW EARLY IN WALMART'S? No. In fact, I just wasted my time going over there, only to be told they're not receiving the game until November 4th. Funny thing is that I don't even want the game too much anymore anyway.

Which is odd, because the story of the match turned out to be Hunter actually focusing on Shawn's knee. Knee injuries such as a torn meniscus can be very limiting as to what you can pull off in the ring and what you can't. Despite the fact that Michaels and Hunter have faced each other so many times before, Shawn's knee injury throws a new factor into the match that severely restricts the action going on in the ring. They need to account for Shawn's limitations beforehand, so as to assure that: a) Nothing goes wrong in the ring with a guy that already is one bad back bump away from retirement AND b) They can try to have the best match possible, with the knowledge that Shawn is having trouble with the simplest things - like walking. I see nothing wrong with the two planning out their match ahead of time.

I honestly don't know, so I thought I'd ask. What are Badnarik's policies? If elected, how would he make the country better? And just why is he a better alternative to either Bush or Kerry? I personally know a few people that have voted or are planning to vote for Nader/Cobb/Badnarik, but they're not exactly sure why. Throwing your vote away on a party that has no chance of winning seems silly, especially if you don't even know where the candidate stands on important issues. I'm hoping you can help me better understand the mind process behind voting a third party candidate - specifically Badnarik - with a better reason than "He's not Bush or Kerry." I genuinely do want to know.

I doubt Bush would have any idea who Grover Cleveland is upon first glance. Other than that, cute.

Can't we just line up millions of people along the northern border of Florida, arm them with axes, and have them chop away at the land until Florida separates from the country and floats into the sea? Is there a more inept state in this entire country?

Complain about the results?

I predict the Toothless Wonder will soon replace Randy Orton as the TSM Sex Object. "Oh my god, did you see that Greco-Roman shove? What technique! And what wonderfully defined pectoral muscles too! *SWOON*"

NO SNITSKY!! NOT ON THE FLIMSY PLASTIC SIGN!!

*The camera show Lita sitting solemnly on a table in the locker room. Molly and Gail Kim walk by her, stifling a laugh as they cross. Lita looks down sadly, but then looks up to the sky* I'm tho lonely I'm tho lonely Tho lonely Tho lonely and thadly alone There's no one Justh me only Although my huthband raped me, For the futhure, we hath plans But with my lithp, no one underthandth Seemth no one takes my feelingth theriously. And tho I'm lonely A lithle lonely Poor lithle me There's nobody I can relath to Although my love Matt Hardy is thill alive It'th kinda scary That the writers forgoth A phone call to him, I dare not thry. I really mith the feeling of Kane holding my thit Anth my evil baby making me fat I wath gonna be a mother, why did Thnitsky take that from me? For now, I'm thust lonely Lithle lonely, poor lithle me I'm tho lonely I'm tho lonely *The camera focuses on a melancholy Lita as we fade into a commercial*

Excellent Pay-Per-View with an amazing ending. Detailed feedback later. Promise.

EDIT: Disregard this. PFL added the Drek/Panther match in for me.

Is my match considered to be important?

To me, being open-minded means listening to the other person's opinion and trying to understand where they're coming from. It doesn't mean allowing your opinion to be changed by this person - just making sure to give them your attention and listen to what they have to say. Perhaps we just go to two completely different colleges with two completely different mindframes, but I have not seen any Conservative here get faced with being spit upon or screamed at on campus. I'm not saying it doesn't happen anywhere, but for a New York college - where the population is overwhelmingly liberal - I haven't seen it. Republicans do face ribbing for their position - there might even be people like myself who want to argue with them - but I haven't seen anyone get completely ostracized and shit upon for their own political beliefs. I'm sure there's an asshole here or there, but it's not too much more than what everyone else has to deal with. I don't think I'm being naive at all. From my own personal experience, I have seen it to be if you debate people in an intelligent, well-spoken manner - you will not face shit for it. Czech, the "free thinker" you mentioned is obviously an asshole, so don't bother with him. The issue you might face is that, instead of showing the positive qualities of the Republican party, you choose to tear down the Democratic one. That's where you run into problems, like the person who's dad lost their job because of outsourcing. I'm not saying I don't do my fair share of tearing down the Bush administration, but if these are people who you do care somewhat about, then you need to be as respectful of them as possible. Don't tear down their political beliefs if you don't have to, because it will only lead to trouble.

See - HOPEFULLY that's not the kind of attitude Czech has. The argument has come full-circle.

That is absolute horseshit. From my own personal experiences, it's not. If you start throwing out wild insults to people and, instead of refuting their points politely, choose to just scream louder - you're going to be looked at as a raving lunatic AND people will just simply not want to listen to what you have to say. Why should you do your best to understand what this person is trying to get across if he chooses to hurl insults at you in the same token? There's no point. Better hope that bigolsmitty doesn't mention that he supports Michael Moore. Otherwise, it will be time for your claws to come out. Mike, the fact is that you are very rarely polite with people. If you want to say that this is because nearly every liberal here posts intellectual drivel, so be it. But there's been numerous times where a discussion between you and I has dissolved into you just throwing out random insults and hoping one of them will stick. I've seen you do the same thing with Tyler as well. Unfortunately, I don't have a time machine to see if this is true or not. All I have is the earliest posts available - from August 9th, 2003 where you insulted Howard Dean and patronized Tyler by asking if he believes in Santa as well when he posted about Dean's health care plan. Unfortunately, I can't be everywhere at once. I saw what Stranger posted and, no, I don't agree with many of those points. Some of it is just the typical anti-Bush garbage that some liberals like to spout. There are more reasons to dislike Bush than the invalid, tired responses that Stranger posted. How's that? When it comes to discussing the elections, I dread seeing you getting ready to post anything, because, many times, it's either going to be: a) An anti-Kerry comment......b) An anti-Edwards comment......c) An insult against a Liberal poster. Again, many times, you're actually very good at using facts to back up your opinion. But people - myself included - are just less likely to even want to read your posts and deal with you because ridiculous insults are just around the corner.

Yeah.... Popick, my match will be in sometime tonight. Damn Daylight Savings Time!

As a general rule DO NOT talk to someone who describes themself as this. They'll be your worst enemy if you don't conform to their worldview. Free-thinking as in: "Accepts people's opinions, even if it differs from their own, as long as they back it up. They don't immediately shut themselves away from that person's thoughts, but they at least listen to what this person has to say with a clear mind." Many people I've met so far in my university have this kind of free-thinking attitude. Even if their minds aren't changed by the person's opinion, at least they take the time to listen to what they have to say.

Because if you're nice and friendly about it, people are more willing to accept your opinions without trying to shout you down. Your major problem here is that you're an asshole to any liberal that tries to talk about the negative points of re-electing George W. Bush. This really does make people less likely to want to read your posts because, in between some of the good points you make, there's a whole bunch of garbage scattered throughout as well. It's practically impossible for any liberal to have a polite conversation with you, because you're basically screaming for the opportunity to rip them apart with insults. I certainly hope that the way you act on TSM is NOT the way you act in real life, away from the computer. Because if it is, then I'm sure there are people that roll your eyes when it comes time for Mike to discuss politics once again. I'm hoping Czech doesn't fall into the same trap with his friends.

I'm currently in college. And that's not true. I certainly consider myself to be an avid Kerry-supporter and, for the most part, chiefly liberal. One of my closest friends here is a passionate Bush-supporter. My roommate is also a Conservative, and spends a fair portion of his time looking at the electoral vote predictors, hoping that Bush will be able to pull out the election. So far, I've gotten into some pretty good debates with each of them. The war on terror, stem cell research, Bush's Christian leanings, you name it. Despite the fact that I don't agree with reelecting Bush, I like that they're able to get their opinions across in a clear, respectful manner. Although I don't agree with them, I like that they're able to back up their opinions without being assholes about it, and that's all I ask. I go to a school that can be considered to be a liberal university. There's been a few groups I've spent time with where the majority of us are liberals, with one or two conservatives thrown in. We may argue about the election and wonder why these Republicans lean the way they do, but as long as they can explain their position, they really don't face any scrutiny. If their sole reason for supporting Bush is the sweeping reason "I vote Bush because he can get those terrorists", or they choose to prove their opinion by mocking the opinions of liberals, it's possible they may get outcast. Czech, you just need to look at what kind of Conservative you are. Most free-thinking people will be able to accept your political views as long as you can express them in the proper manner. If you don't, then you have to expect receiving these reactions from people - especially in such an overwhelmingly heated time.

It might just be the way you get across your point. When you're arguing with your friends about the election, do you have an arrogant attitude about it? Do you preach the values of reelecting Bush rather than the negative qualities of Kerry? Do you at least listen to the opinion of the other person, or do you just roll your eyes and add a sarcastic comment? Do you make wide sweeping statements about the entire Democratic Party and any liberal that supports them, without taking into account the feelings of your friends when you're trying to argue with them? In other words, despite your Conservative leanings, are you at least respectful of your liberal friends? Or are you Mike? The main thing is: Hopefully, you at least explain to these people why you support George Bush. If you give off this feeling that you're doing it simply to be different - and to antagonize those that CAN vote and choose to vote for Kerry - then you have to be ready to face some kind of backlash.

Yeah, the review isn't looking too good. Taken from GameFAQs, this is a basic rundown of the IGN Review. WWE Smackdown vs Raw Presentation - 8 Graphics - 9 Sound - 7 Gameplay - 8.5 Lasting Appeal - 8 OVERALL = 8.4 in camparison with...... WWE Here Comes the Pain Presentation - 9.5 Graphics - 8.5 Sound - 7 Gameplay - 9 Lasting Appeal - 9 OVERALL = 9.1 Ok now lets look a little deeper. After reading the article, its pretty much everything we expected, with a few exceptions...ACCORDING to IGN............ Good + Graphics are the best EVER in a wrestling game + Face/Heel system + Better weight detection and damage + reversals/breakups in submission + mini games + Licensed music in game + entrance music + more CAW options + CAB and CAPPV + Parking lot brawl is fun Bad - Roster is missing the jobbers - Online is too simple - A.I. is still stupid - licensed music is overdue(?!?!) - there are a few weight glitches - Career mode seems more linear - voice over and commentary are not top quality - only one backstage - no Cruiser, wemons, or tag titles in season And two other negatives I've heard which are pretty awful: 1) There is only alternate attire for two characters in the game - John Cena and someone else I'm not sure of yet. 2) You CAN NOT change the rosters of Raw and Smackdown before Season Mode starts. ...... Assuming all this is true, I just have no idea why THQ would take such a step back this year. Just terrible...

Well, no. You're a terrible poster. I really have no opinion on this ordeal either way.

Well, that doesn't seem very fair. It's almost as if Hunter's Torn Quad is a nasty, passionate Republican - and Loss is a fellow Republican, willing to support him no matter what.