SuperJerk

The elitist board. Enter at your own risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_re_us/us_obit_kemp Jack Kemp was the epitome of everything I once believed in politically. I voted for him for VP in 1996, and I really think people with his since of honor and decency are an endangered species in politics.

(This is both my contribution to the topic and my reaction to the above.)

I am wondering what part of that criteria would explain why you guys would want to keep Xavier Cromartie out. I said before that elitism isn't always a bad thing, because there's situations where being selective is warranted, but the picking and choosing that I've seen, coupled with comments made by people who post over there, is leading me to believe no real criteria for exclusion has been except juvenile whims of a bunch of guys who are abusing the tiny amount of power they've somehow acquired.

Let's be fair, here...I think I was the first one to throw the "elitist" term around. That might be a misnomer, though, considering there's not real definition of "elite" that the other board's membership (based on who isn't posting here anymore) might fit into. Maybe the rationale that very few are being discriminated against might be easier to swallow if some objective criteria for exclusion was established. Just unpopularity is a shitty criteria. For instance, MikeSC broke every rule TSM had, but when he was finally banned, so many people were pissed to see him kicked off, The Pit grew an instant brigade of members. He was an asshole to everyone at every opportunity, but there was a group of people he was popular with. Based on the subjective criteria mentioned already, he might very well be the kind of poster you guys are looking for.

The whole thing only lasted 5 episodes, didn't it? I remember really liking it until the cop-out ending.

Supposedly there are 3 alternate post-credit endings which will be shown at different theaters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508968/ This doesn't have as much impact as if one of the conservatives retiring, since you'll basically just be replacing one liberal-tilting justice with another, but it will be interesting to see who the president picks to replace him.

Tom DeLay was on Hardball today defending how the Republicans handled this fiasco. Reminded me of all the good time we had in this thread. *sigh*

That was fun. Some of you guys were fucking eerily accurate.

I was assuming the reason you linked to the Politico column was because you agreed with it. His point seemed to be more partisan spin than objective media criticism. Sorry if I was being unfair.

Um...that study YOU JUST CITED says that Obama's positive coverage is 42%. Sure, it is higher than Bush or Clinton got, but 42% isn't an overall positive number. Since it is higher than Bush, it must be a liberal media conspiracy, though, right?

Maybe they are in production order?

I'm so stealing using that.