SuperJerk

Yes, its easier for the vast majority men to get into good enough physical condition to do the job, but that doesn't mean that all women can't do it.

Every once in a while Buttplu--I mean Colmes will grow a pair and stand up for his side. Of course, I have to admit, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that journalists should even take sides. Wait---Colmes isn't really a trained journalist, is he? I know Hannity isn't. And this is why I hate Fox News. They hand over huge blocks of time to journalists who aren't even really journalists. edit: ...

My favorite line: Aside from the abuse of quotation marks, I find it very belittling that she'd refer to the rigorous combat training American soldiers (the best in the world, mind you) as "a few weeks of 'warrior' training". The football metaphors was particularly idiotic, since there are major differences between armed combat and the sport of football. For one thing, soldiers for the most part, are not physically ramming their bodies into their enemies in an attempt to stall their forward movement. Maybe someone who is described as the president of the "Center for Military Readiness" might have heard of this little invention called GUNS. Perhaps the writer is not aware that troops no longer rush at each other with swords and shields? I'm not denying that armed combat is a physically grueling activity, but modern weapons and long distances negate most of the physical advantages being a male gives you in this environment.

How the hell do you take THAT out of context? Also, ...

Right, and what political leader doesn't do that? Yes, runaway spending is a bipartisan problem. Sometimes increasing government spending IS needed, but its gotten out of hand since "We're going to increase the budget for it" became the automatic answer to every question asked (as in any presidential debate since 1984).

There was zero publicity for this DVD because...?

Slapnuts! swore off the CE folder in disgust a day or so MikeSC was banned.

True conservatives are people who want things to stay the same. I'd argue that most Republicans aren't conservatives, but reactionaries. Libertarians think individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. Although I'm not clear on the philosophical justification, libertarians are generally against the government accumulating huge debts. That's pretty close to what Kotz was advocating. Its a pretty attractive philosophy, but my general disagreement with it is that it allows too much economic injustice to occur. Liberalism (in the current sense of the word) is a philospohy much more fitting with my personal values, although it gets a bad rep because too many liberal leaders think you can solve problems by throwing money at them.

That explains it.

Highly doubtful. Imagine how bad the first 3 must have been.

You mean libertarians?

I remember one of the first things they told us when we got to Boot Camp was "who must disclose this information, even if your recruiter told you not to" in regards to various questions they were asking. Never Again Volunteer Yourself Was this before the Iraq War? Maybe he got a 0 score on the ASVAB.

Rush Limbaugh could turn a picture of a baby kitten into an attack on Democrats.

????????????????????

I'm glad somebody besides me thinks so. The entire plot falls apart the second it is given any thought. How did he get past the inpenetrable security that the 12 members of Danny's team had to construct an elaborate ruse to get around (but not really)? By break-dancing! Horrible, horrible movie.

Star Wars may have supernatural elements to it, but it still fits into the broad definition of the science ficiton genre. I find your opinion that Babylon 5 is somehow more scientifically based than Star Trek to be...flawed. A few years back there was a A&E documentary called "The Science of Star Trek" in which they explained how many of the things were based on actual scientific theory. The technobabble was written by actual paid science consultants, and while it only exists to servie the plot, to call it "science fantasy" is really inaccurate. "Farscape" or "Babylon 5", with their supernatural elements, would be much better served with that title. ______________________ Peter David had an interesting reply to this Card piece on his blog: credit: http://www.peterdavid.net/

Those matches are IN ADDITION TO what's on the cover. Fucking better be. WWE could release Savage/Steamboat by itself with no extras and charge $34.95 and I'd still buy it. The only other place I know of this being released was on a WCW Greatest Matches tape from 1999 or 2000 (the other 3 matches on the tape were Hogan vs. Sting, a Cactus Jack vs. Vader, and the NWO match from the 96 Bash). The premise of the tape was the fans voted on the matches via the internet. And they voted for Sting vs. Hogan. Soak that in, folks.

I think the person who did the write up might just have their head up their ass. They wanted her to be that shitty ON PURPOSE? Generally, when you do 4 takes of something, its to make it LESS shitty.

Well...6 months (or even longer) kind of makes sense. The hyperdrive didn't work, so it'd take them a while to get from Hoth to Bespin.

Like they still aren't? Bush does seem to be taking them away from their small government fixation.

Bread and circuses.

Whoever was flying that plane is GONNA GET IT...

I'd find this comment personally offensive, if I had a soul.

from LOP Four takes?

I think local news is particularly guilty of this. Local channel don't know what's going to happen, obviously, so they have to spike ratings by advertising big exposes on controversial topics and make every medical study sound like they've discovered the latest health episdemic, make every story on the economy sound like the next depression is just around the corner, and every allegation against a celebrity sound like the trial of the century. Local news makes me sick.