bobobrazil1984

I thought the folks here might find this page entertaining... http://www.johntitor.com Back in the beginning of November of 2000, a guy began posting on a board that he was a time traveller from 2036, telling this story about how there was a civil war, etc, and his mission was to... well, best read the archives of his posts on that site, it'll all do a better job of explaining. Anyways, it sounds like bull, but the guy was at least very consistent and seemed really intelligent (talking in depth about subjects like PHysics and such). He also made several general predictions, including ones about Mad Cow outbreaks in the US, that there would be a security/civil liberties conflict in the United States, eventually leading to some kind of civil war in 2004/2005, among lots of other stuff. It was all detailed enough to the point where its still being talked about today on TT bboards. Nah I dont realy believe that he was a time traveller (lol), but it was kind of creepy to see him talk about some of the stuff he did, because before 9/11, a lot of stuff seemed inconceivable to many of us. At the very least, its an entertaining story and one of the most well-thought out hoaxes ever made Oh yeah, and he has photos and schematics of his "time machine."

an average rating for an average show. Look, back when the product was good (and I mean *good*, as these days when a WWE show inches up past mediocre, people somehow think its good. i think people forgot how good RAW could be, a few weeks ago I popped in a tape of some random RAW from 2000... kept my attention much more than the current product)... back when the product was good, they drew good ratings even during MNF. and back when Survivor and Friends were going nuts against each other on the SD front.

Just so we're clear... these are ILLEGAL immigrants, ones who snuck into the country right? ... ... Ok. This seems like an oddly non-Bush stance.

Good episode... but the subplots (the "drama" at CTU, and the Wayne Palmer affair) are quite lame. I remember when the Palmer storylines (like in S1) would kick ass... lets give him something good to do. But Jack, as always, is the fuckin man! He fooled the entire country, the president, the Salazars, all of CTU, and fucked Hector's girl, and is now gonna get some payback on Nina. THE MAN!!!

What's so bad about Morder? The towns they attacked were harboring terrorists, and Minas Tirith was an imminent threat to Morder. They were just defending themselves!

Well, one thing I remember (... possibly the only thing I remember as it pertains to the economy) hearing from Dean repeatedly, is that he wants to pump a lot of money into small businesses, (rather than big corporations.. the implication being, all that tax cut money that went to these big companies would go here instead??), and help them grow, because growing small businesses create more jobs. There was also a stat about how 70 percent of the jobs in the US were from small businesses. The vague thing here (at least for me who hasnt really researched it) is what necessarily constitutes a small from big business, but I think i can sort of approximate that myself. having seen some small businesses grow (my brothers' two businesses) I can say that when they do it right, within a relatively short growth period, a small business CAN practically triple or quadruple its workforce, in a very short time. That is pretty much all I really know about Dean's economy plan, but I'll be honest, when I first heard it, it appealed to me, since I will most likely be more involved with smaller businesses as opposed to corporations (I'm a senior in the University now) by the time 2005 begins.

was this ad a part of the Bush in 60 seconds contest? I *had* heard about that. ie, normal people made ads and sent them in? It's kind of a shame, because I went to the stie and looked at some other videos that people made and submitted, and had to admit there were some creative and funny ones (i like the ones with little kids "what i would do as president"), but now they are all going to be screwed thanks to them putting up the hitler ad. Great job MoveOn *rolls eyes*

Exactly.. there's where Dean's support is coming from. That pretty much summed up what I was trying to say with my long rambling post up above. If you take off the politics ideolague glasses, its blatantly obvious wehre his support is coming from (again I dont think it will lead him to a big victory), but I've actually thought for many years that somebody needed to d something like this to take off.

what makes you think ordinary people would be turned off by a candidate who lost his temper and kicked the ass of a opponent? They'd be able to relate. take off the 'politics' glasses for a second... he'd the stone cold of politics and instantly appeal to the massive "politics-suck" non-voting MAJORITY. So in conclusion... Howard Dean needs to kick Lieberman in the gut and stunner him the next time Lieberman brings up the Saddam safer quote. EDIT: on a less joking note, I feel kinda left out, everybody skipped right over my post and went on to argue with each other

It's because he's (Dean) tapped into the anti-politics backlash people. The type of people who just dont like politics in general, and the types who probably felt disenfranchised enough that they didnt even vote for either Bush or Gore. They see him as sort of the 'rebel against Washington,' and see all the negative stuff as coming from "traditional Washington." I mean if Dean doesn't get the D nomination, what's left? Everybody else is just a ... well a usual politician.. The people who don't understand why Dean gets the support he does... are the people who look at the situation through the same "POLITICS" glasses that they've looked at all elections and such matters. The other thing is, I think the current situation is a lot different than elections past. In this post 9/11 world, we've become a lot more divisive. There amount of "middle ground" people has really evaporated down to a smaller contingent. Even in the biggest partisan heyday of Clinton and Bush Sr, I dont remember there being as clear a de-lineation as there is now. Even during the ugliest partisan ramblings when the whole sex scandals were happening, the largest group were the ones who just didnt give a fuck other than as entertainment. Mainly because of the terorism and Iraq things... its either a) I support Bush and what he's doing, and b) I don't (not that I'm saying there are no people in the between, but I think they are far less, thanks to 9/11, and thus the past "traditional" ideas of winning elections isn't going to work). SO, while I DON'T think Dean is going to win, I dont necessarily think that a D candidate has to skew to the center (like Clinton did) as they had to do in almost all the previous elections. As a matter of fact, I'd venture a left-er candidate will do better than a centrist. I honestly think Lieberman would do worse than Dean against Bush, because of the divisiveness in the country, he'd lose half of his possible voter turnout to Bush. People these days for the most part dont want "somebody" in the middle. I believe we've become so partisan divided that its going to be an either/or thing. I mean, the people opposed to Bush see him as this fascist-in-the-making thats leading us to global ruin and police states... the people supporting him see the left as commie socialist anti-americans <insert buzzword>... these are ordinary people saying things like this, everybody's moving to an extreme. The right thinks: "the very survival of our country is at stake... they will let Osama walk all over us!" The left thinks: "the very survival of our country is at stake... Bush will crack down on all our liberties and squash dissent!" 9/11 and the events afterwards changed everything, INCLUDING politics. ie: they see him as a kind of Paul Heyman, with W Bush as Vince McMahon, and thus are able to overlook his negative extremist qualities, because of the way he energizes *them* Edit: there's also something to be said for a "difference" perception. When you look at Dean talk (for a period of time, more than just a soundbyte on CNN), there's just... something different about the way he talks and its apparent when you're watching all the guys standing there, i'm not saying its good or bad, but there's something.. different in his voice patterns, the way he says long 'sound bite' sentances, letting his voice dip and not take breaths. He's got a kind of "flirting with danger against traditional Washington" appeal, this all sort of ties in above.

^ it's generally thought, from what I've read, that if its a hoax, it would have to be a physicist or someone equally as "smart", since some of his physics theory (when describing how his "time machine" works) have turned out to be true. I've also read that he actually predicted some "new" physics developments (between March of 2001 which was his last post and now), but I cant really verify that, since I haven't really gone searching for that particular topic (I was more interested in the social/government parts of the story). One thing is for sure, this wasn't some 16 year old "l33t h4x0r" Maybe some dude working on expiremental physics wanted to do a social expirement? the internal consistancy is what really seems to throw some people off.

Whoops, I realized this might not be the right forum... if not, please move to the appropriate one. It wasn't really a "current event", so I wasn't sure where to put it...

You say that as if its some sort of hypocritical statement when it's not. It's perfectly acceptable to: A) Say that a country is allowed to "dissent" and disagree wtih US Policy. then B) NOt defend and indeed criticize said country for denying their own personal peoples freedom of religion. The first is alright and the 2nd is not. There's no contradiciton here... it makes perfect sense. Now, maybe in the case of France, its bad, but eh, its the French, whaddaya expect Only according to PFLPB logic (Popular Front for the LIberation of Partisan Bullshit, now with the use of both hands!!!) would it be hypocritical to look at both cases specifically and criticize or defend based on the actual issues instead of what country/party/ideology is involved.

well... since you dont have or want kazaa... it's either bittorrent, or buy it.

I dont know, I thik HIlary has a shot. Most Americans really dont care too much about politics, jsut who sounds the best, and has name recognition and occasionally your party. It will depend more on who runs for the Republican party. If its Dick Cheney or Colin Powell or John McCain or something then Hilary has a fight. If its someone "new" (someone whose name is not recognizable to the public) then Hilary has a much better chance.

I got that from http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3731/a...ature_3731.html btw.. an oldie (Sept 5, 2001), but a goodie. Anyways, I like Morrison's work and Whedon's work, so I'm looking forward to seeing what Whedon will do on New X-Men. He is excellent at fun ensembles. Buffy really reminded me a LOT of the classic Claremont years of X-Men in the way it handled the multiple characters and the arcs and the interpersonal relationships, amongst very out-there-comic-booky premise (actually claremeont is a professed huge buffy fan as well).

It has to do with the God push they're giving to him, I assume. if he was just an upper midcard heel, there probably wouldn't be that much problem.

Heh... is that movie (um, the passion... not kill christ) actuall Gibson's third movie??? (that he directed.. i know he did braveheart, what else?)

Best Movie Return of the King Best Male Performance In A Film Sean Astin (ROTK) - Best Female Performance In A Film Claire Danes (T3) - Breakthrough Actor Of 2003 Orlando Bloom (I know he's been in the other two LOTR movies, but this year he really broke out with rotk and pirates both doing mega business, and getting hoards of teenage girls to spontaneuously burst into orgasm at the very sight of him) - Breakthrough Actress Of 2003 The female lead in Pirates. I dont recall her name. - Best Director Peter Jackson - Best Comedic Performance In A Film Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean) - Best Action Film Terminator 3 Bonus: - Guilty Pleasure Freddy v Jason - Worst Movie Of The Year (NOTE: If it's going to be Gigli, make sure you've seen it) Bad Boys 2 (keep in mind I usually avoid watching movies which look really bad) - Best Sequel X2 - Biggest LetDown Matrix Revolutions

Terminator 3 being very entertaining was a huge surprise. Obviously it wasn't a fucking classic like T2, but frankly, it was the most fun I had in any movie this year which didnt have the initials ROTK or X2. Pirates was also a fun surprise, as i didnt really know what to expect.

Well, his current supporters will vote for him, the hope seems to be to energize more non-voters to the point where they will vote for him. I read this recent article where Dean is saying if someone else gets nominated, the whole 'surge of people re-energized at the grassroots level' are not going to vote for the other Dems and just stay home. I think that gives a little insight on to the type of people the Dean campaign is really trying to pick up. It's an attempt to build them up as Dean-ocrats rather than "Democrats." Despite all the hee hawing from people (who all seem to be people very involved in the normal way of politics), I do think its pretty daring, and as i said before, if someone can build on it, 08 or 12 could be a banner year for *somebody*. Or maybe not if everybody just reverts back to politics as usual edit: My impression is, the WAY DEAN sees it (not me), is that they see the majority of people who DO NOT VOTE no matter what... so trying to lean back to center in a genearl election, isn't going to do get these guys up off their couches, from his POV. He wants that non-voting majority. He seems to have confidence that he can energize them the way he did his current supporters. I aint so sure.. anyways, I'm not so much arguing why Dean is going to win or anythign (I dont) but moreso what I think they are thinking.

You know, it almost sounds like Kerry is running against Dean for the Democratic ticket and is losing, and is thus saying Dean has no chance? Anyways, Dean's comments that Kerry is referring to will not hurt Dean. Dean's support comes primarily from the "We hate Politics the way they are usually done" sector. He's managed to stage his campaign, in terms of the grassroots style it has gained momentum, as "Howard Dean vs. Politics." He's trying to tie into the "Politics Backlash." You know,t he kind of people who instantly assumes most politicians, regardless of left or right, are lying their asses off the moment they open their mouth. (now obviously Dean si as much a politician as anyone else, but I'm just referring to the way his campaign is presented and seen among his supporters). Attacks from the political sector, no matter how True they could be, will be seen as... well attacks from teh political sector. I think that he'll do a good job of reaching thsoe anti-politics people (you know, the majority of the citizens, that don't vote), but it wont be enough. Someone who can build on Dean's tactics though, and do it right, will be able to roll to a 08 or 12 victory. Count on it.

how bout makin some dvds of the star wars trilogy?

He's obviously guilty, so where's the harm in having a public trial? Frankly, I'd love to be a part of that jury, to vote him guilty. The fact that we actually have trials is one of the things that makes american much better than those other countries. The trial would be over in five minutes anyways... drag in his LT that they caught in Pakistan... show the video(s) from al jazeera and that other video of him bragging about it... some of the other supposedly secret stuff that we have... wham, bam thank you maam. Done and guilty. I mean jesus people, overreact much?

I really like Monica Belluci's breasts.