SuperJerk

I notice it has "The Late Mr. Kent", perhaps my favorite episode of the series. Definitely a must buy.

http://factcheck.org/article348.html#

This sounds convoluted as hell. So is there any real connection to "Crisis on Infinite Earths" rather than the rip-off title?

Is it just me, or does he never really explain what was so great about Valentine? He gave a really left-handed compliment to Valentine, put Steamboat over big time, then told us that Valentine was better. Really not very convincing.

Certainly a logical explanation for quite a few things.

Anybody else watching "The Daily Show" this week? Funny, funny stuff.

Someone needs to post the pic of his son dancing during the inital nomination.

I'm sure he was capable of waiting 7 minutes before being escorted out of the room by his staff.

I just did a Google search of my own on "Richard L.Johnston" and "University of Mississippi Medical Center", and got 1 result: http://www.che.msstate.edu/alumni/electron..._Newsletter.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/15/katrina.response/index.html

This article is bullshit. For a medical doctor, there seems to be an unusually high amount of poor writing mechanics and dreadful spelling. The man graduated from medical school. That requires some fundamental understanding of how to write. This makes no sense. The guy was at the Astrodome. In Texas. Does he thinks they brought the corpses with them from New Orleans? Let me point out this guy doesn't seem to understand this was after they'd had to put up with hellish conditions for 6 days in New Orleans. And, WTF? "BUM HEAVEN"? As if these people were Great Depression-era migrants hopping box cars to travel west. Was he surprised they didn't carry sticks with hankchiefs tied to the end to hold their few possessions? "I'm sorry...I know you lost your home, your family, and your possessions, but I absolutely refuse to give you any food or water until you say 'please' and 'thank you.'" What a dick.

Is THAT what this is about? You're still wrong, but I think I can explain why and maybe persuade you why you're reasoning is flawed. Here is what you are failing to consider: He wasn't being elected straight from the Congress to the Presidency. He hadn't represented TN in the Senate for 8 years at that point. 8 years as a nationally elected figure did a lot to disconnect Gore from TN voters' concerns. He was no longer "one of them", he was a Washington insider, and had been the VP for a President who by 2000 had become EXTREMELY unpopular in TN (although Clinton did carry TN in both 1992 and 1996). This is similar to how Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 election without winning NJ because he had already been president for 4 years at that point. So, to answer your question, how bad is someone who fails to win their home state? Not bad at all, if the reason is because the state's political make-up drastically changed since the last time you ran for statewide election.

DVDs melt before they'll catch on fire. Oh, wait...you meant make a copy of it. My bad.

Thank you for your opinion. Please post again when you actually have some facts or logic to back your argument up with. Saying implies he is still attempting to become president, since you used the present tense. Since there is no election currently going on, I assumed you meant he was making a future attempt. The confusion was probably mine, but when you abuse simple articles like "the" and "of" it is easy to get the incorrect meaning from your poorly worded sentence. You should have said: Not winning your home state is a complete death wish for anyone who has tried to win the presidency. It would still be an ignorant comment, but at least your meaning would have been more clear. And for the last fucking time, you don't need to win your home state to win the election. WE NOW RETURN TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED HURRICANE KATRINA DISCUSSION, ALREADY IN PROGRESS... http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatr...=1123495&page=1

So, um...still no idea about what the story is actually about?

I'll take this thing a little farther back. 1924: Coolidge - VP/incumbent 1920: Harding - Senator 1912/1916: Wilson, governor 1908: Taft, VP 1904: Roosevelt, incumbent/VP 1896/1900: McKinley, governor 1884/1892: Cleveland, governor 1888: Harrison, Senator 1880: Garfield, US House 1876: Hayes, Governor 1868/1872: Grant, general 1860/1864: Lincoln, US House 1856: Buchanan, Sec. of State 1852: Pierce, Senator 1848: Taylor, general 1844: Polk, Speaker of the House 1840: Harrison, Senator 1836: Van Buren, VP 1828/1832: Jackson, Senator 1824: JQ Adams, Sec. of State 1816/1820: Monroe, Sec. of WAR! 1808/1812: Madison, Sec. of State 1800/1804: Jefferson, VP 1796: J. Adams, VP 1789/92: Washington, general You have to go back over 100 years to see people go straight from Congress to the White House on a regular basis. Thus, Czech's right, the legislature isn't a presidential farm team...although the Congress spawns a lot of Vice Presidents. I'm not making a damn list, though. Also note that getting reelected in the 19th century was nearly impossible, thus Lincoln and Jackson looking even more impressive by comparison.

Colin Powell or Al Gore.

What were we talking about, though? Were we talking about "Al Gore should have won the 2000 election"? Or were we talking about Al Gore's future political viability? Hint: It was the second one. You went off on a rant about how he was dead politically because he didn't win TN in 2000 ("How can one man win president if he can't carry his own HOME state," you said), which I've already proven is a total bullshit argument. You don't need to win your home state to win a presidential election. It has been done before.

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hardly see what's gone on so far as "going to war". It's more like the Senators eyeing a 2008 run are doing some grandstanding to get face time in the press. This has been fairly tame as far as congressional hearings go. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kennedy's not running for anything in 2008. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah but it's Ted Kennedy, what did you expect? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I expect him to vehemently oppose any person ever nominated by a Republican for anything, ever, but I'm just saying he's not doing it because he's running.

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hardly see what's gone on so far as "going to war". It's more like the Senators eyeing a 2008 run are doing some grandstanding to get face time in the press. This has been fairly tame as far as congressional hearings go. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kennedy's not running for anything in 2008.

The 1950 California election for US Senate was a text-book example of a smear campaign. And it wasn't Helen Gahagan doing the smearing, either.

Look at how he won his Senate seat and tell me if you still think that.

Fuck Tennessee. Gore's inability to win the popular vote of his home state is trumped by his ability to win the popular vote of the rest of the country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uh, no, see, 'cause winning the popular vote doesn't mean winning the election. Winning his home state would have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't say he won the election. I said winning the popular vote of the entire nation, whether it wins you the presidential election or not, is a bigger accomplishment than winning your home state. Congratulations on COMPLETELY missing the point of the discussion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/ If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

Considering how much control TV networks have over other programming (i.e. sitcoms, dramas, newscasts), its not too much of a stretch to think they'd be able to tell WWE what matches they'd prefer to see on their network.