SuperJerk

It's true, it's true. Also, we spent an average of twenty minutes a week in Astronomy 1 listening to how Rush Limbaugh was a "short-sighted ignoramus" among other things. I didn't know we were talking about Astronomy class. I assumed you were getting your info on the government from PoliSci or history teachers. My reason for disputing your info as being the result of a "liberal bias", rather than just a lack of attention on your part, is that there's no liberal conspiracy to withold information from students. I'm amused by the idea that you think you're so well informed that you can so easily dismiss liberalism as a product of misinformation, as if you know something the liberals do not, and if only they knew what you know, they'd turn conservative. Conservatism is "on the upswing" not because people are just now learning the "truth", but because popular ideology shifts left and right periodically over long numbers of years. Historians generally believe that American history undergoes cycles. I'm actually quite good at presenting multiple points of view on various topics.

I didn't understand five fucking words of that. I washoping for some actualstats, rather than a formula. Back up and explain why women and blacks voting changes why lower taxes help the economy.

Moving him to Smackdown would help the product more than turning him heel would, IMO. I don't think the fans could buy him as a heel anymore for some reason.

I've never heard of anyone blaming the lighting before.

That pic is about 12 kinds of wrong.

Nova invented being worth something. Shoulda seen THAT ONE coming...

He came back as heel during his brief run in the NWO. Of course, the fans cheered the shit out of him anyways. (I think the plan was to have NWO heel HBK wrestle face HHH at Summerslam, until the whole "Nash destroyed his leg and so we mercy-killed the NWO" thing happened. So they kept HHH jumping to Raw and just changed the face/heel dynamic, which ended up working out better anyways.)

Those of us who like getting laid. Once you get married that's really no longer an issue.

Triple H couldn't draw money if he was a designer for the US Treasury.

Some people will see anything.

The simple matter is that Ebert believes the man is innocent for reasons other than what the reporter is implying (that he's a good cook). The fact that Ebert believes the man is innocent also negates the implication that the reporter thinks he's giving a "thumbs up" to terrorism.

Or MAYBE you just weren't listening very well. I'll thank you not to insult my profession just to keep from looking like you don't know what you're talking about. The debt did go down while Clinton was president, just not very much.

The Avengers and the X-Men get together to try and decide what to do with the Scarlet Witch, following the Avenger's "Disassembled" bag of suck where the Scarlet's Witch's subconcious mind destroyed the Avengers, killing Vision, Ant-Man and Hawkeye in the process (and also killing any chance of me buying an Avenger's book ever again).

Booker is married to her? Really? I'm guessing that was sarcasm...

They should've postponed it until RVD was healthy.

Does selling tons of merchandise constitute not drawing money? Kind of like how an entire arena chanting "R...V...D" constitutes Rob Van Dam not "connecting" with fans. That Triple H sure has a great mind of the business.

I picked up a copy of "Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith" graphic novel today. There's no big surprises, since the plot was leaked months ago. The way the plot is laid out makes Anakin's turn seem logical, and of course, the irony of the fact that the reason he turned (to prevent Padme's death), caused the very thing he was trying to prevent. Given Obi-Wan's distaste for blasters, General Grievous's death seems rather odd...then again, I guess Obi-Wan pulling a blaster is the last thing you'd expect to happen. I'm curious to see how Qui-Gon's conversation with Yoda will play out in the actual film, as here it was too brief and didn't really explain much. That's kind of the problem with comic adaptations, they're usually brief and some changes can be made to the film at the last minute that don't get included in the print adaptations. No mention of who "Sifo-Dias" was, although my theory has always been that it was just another name used by Sidious, since he was orchestrating the entire Clone War and had the ability to easily impersonate a Jedi if he needed to. There's alot of explanation missing, although I'm sure most people should be smart enough to figure things out themselves (even if there's people out there who haven't figured out that Palpatine was Sidious all along). Also, I have a hard time believing it took them from the end of this story until A NEW HOPE to get the Death Star built. Maybe they were already working on the second before the first one was destroyed. In the graphic novel, Obi-Wan utters the line: "The Sith now rule the galaxy as they did before the Republic." Kind of makes me wish they'd make an Episode Zero, showing the original downfall of the Sith. Knowing the definite story really increased my appreciation for the prequels as a whole, as the story really does fit together well. And, best of all, I never saw Jar Jar once.

Because there are already laws for assualt that will punish the guy just as if he had attacked the victim for his money. Why does it matter if he beat the shit out of him because he was Jewish? It's still a crime, and just as inexcuseable if the motive had been robbery. The reason for the assault is irrelevant, regardless of whatever thoughts or motive the attacker had--it's still a crime we have a law for and the punishment will be handed out accordingly. I can't argue with this.

Mancow lost the KC market a few years ago, but when I listened to him he was basically a right-wing Howard Stern. He could be entertaining when talking about pop culture, but the second he starts on about politics he turns into Sean Hannity.

IIRC, he wasn't. Remember in EpI when all those astrodroids were trying to fix Queen Amidala's ship as it made its getaway? I believe a couple of them that were destroyed were fairly identical to R2 but I'd have to check the movie again to be sure. *slaps himself in forehead* Of course this is the answer. But still, Uncle Owen should have at least done a double take when C-3PO introduced himself in STAR WARS. Sure, he didn't look the same (gold coverings), but he sounded the same and had the same name. (Of course the real answer is that George Lucas didn't decided Anakin built C3PO until he was writing Episode 1.)

Judge Russell G. Clark. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.168...icle_detail.asp http://www.amren.com/9512issue/9512issue.html Man, how did I miss THIS the first time? Your criticism that sometimes judges overstep their authority is valid, but I'd also like to point out that his power was not left completely unchecked. Many of Clark's decisions were overturned before the case was given to another judge who ended the case in 2003. That does not excuse his assumption of the power of taxation, however. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...ews/6524022.htm

Fair enough. Democracy is not perfect. Believing that democracy is not 100% reliable is not the same as supporting authoritarianism. There are just some things that public opinion has no jurisdiction over. It's a form of murder. Murder is a state level crime. The federal government only prosecutes murder cases if it involves federal employees. Thus, even if partial-birth abortion was murder, the federal government has no jurisdiction in outlawing it. No, using a felony to defend a non-existant right is not a defense. I never said anything about committing fraud with your info, though. I just asked if it was okay to publish your private information. What other people do with it has nothing to do with me. I'm curious to know how far your disbelief in a right to privacy goes. Would you object to someone publishing the most intimate details of your life, if the right to privacy does not actually exist?

Arguing who has the best radio show between Rush, Stern, and Mancow is like trying to decide which of the 3 Stooges was the smartest. You know what sucks about drive time radio? The fact that just because these three idiots can make millions at it, every radio station feels like they need to counter-program with idiotic talk shows of their own. Thus, instead of getting to listen to new music on my way to work, I have to listen to an idiot DJ ramble on about nothing in a vain attempt to be entertaining. Fortunately, Limbaugh's on at a time when there's no chance I'll have a radio turned on.

Yes it does. Segregation was legal for over a half a century until the Supreme Court changed its mind. The Court, like it or not, can be WRONG and has been SPECTACULARLY wrong many times in the past. But that's not what you said. You said they couldn't make something legal, which they clearly can. YES! I've said, all along, this should've been left to the voters in the individual states to make the decision. That would've led to the issue being MUCH less heated than it is. -=Mike The are somethings, in my view, that supercede democracy. People's rights certainly supercede democracy, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. Those rights cannot be violated by majority rule. According to the Court, the right to privacy is one of those rights. The 9th Amendment clearly states that not every right is enumerated in the Constitution itself, so the argument that the right to privacy cannot exist because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is invalid. I'm curious, though, if you believe in the 10th Amendment so much, by what authority does the federal government have to institute a nation-wide ban on partial birth abortion? edit: Almost forgot about this... Pointing out that fraud is one of the reasons for privacy rights does in no way invalidate the right to privacy.

Yes it does. Segregation was legal for over a half a century until the Supreme Court changed its mind. Then I suppose if it was the will of the people to make abortions legal, you'd be okay with it?