SuperJerk

I read on CNN that the Schindlers were claiming that Terri got up this morning and cooked everybody breakfast, but as soon as she went to drink the orange juice that she'd squeezed herself, police officers stormed the room and hand-cuffed her saying she if drank it then she would be violating the court order. Okay, not really, but this is about what her family's crazy stories are coming to.

Every once in a while, someone on this board comes up with an idea that is far better than anything the WWE's currently doing. And by "once in a while", I mean about 4-5 times a week.

Anyone else think this year's HOF class is over-crowded?

Smackdown's Rochelle Loewen Raw's Candice Michelle How could you POSSIBLY get those two confused?

Even Yoda agrees.

Nah, that's not true. It helped solidify Owen Hart after his win over Bret at ManiaX, Kurt Angle who was still in his rookie year and got to brag about winning four matches in one night along with all his other accomplishments, and HHH, who finally started being taken seriously around that time, which lay the groundwork for his accociation with HBK being accepted by the fans. Nothing against Owen, because he was an amazing wrestler and very talented, but his career never really took off to the point where he was ever considered a credible main eventer. His going over Bret at WM10 did more for him than his KOTR win did. Winning KOTR didn't do shit for HHH, and the only thing winning KOTR did for Brock was give them an excuse to give him a title shot at Summerslam so The Rock could put him over.

If high school kids really knew anything, they wouldn't still be in high school. Speaking as someone who actually pays taxes, and doesn't live off of their parents, I'm wondering why you even care.

It dropped PRECIPITOUSLY after welfare reform was passed (which, again, using the logic that "welfare helped alleviate poverty" should be an impossibility). You're so full of crap. All you have to do to disprove that bullshit excuse of yours is to look at the chart. It was already dropping just as PRECIPITOUSLY before welfare reform was passed. During the 1990s, the slope of decline is never more steep than it was from 1993-1995, which was BEFORE welfare reform in 1996. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf As of 2003, it was still increasing. Who knows how high it will ultimately get before decreasing again? My argument was that the business cycle alleviates and increases poverty, not welfare. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET OR DO I NEED TO START EXPLAINING WITH CRAYONS????? Is green an easy color for you to understand? Business cycles are alternating periods of expansion and contraction in economic activity. Business cycles are divisible by four subperiods: (1) peak or boom, (2) a recession or contraction, (3) a depression of trough, and (4) a recovery or expansion. Recent recessions have included periods during the late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s. Unemployment, a term used to describe a lack of jobs, rises when national output declines. Unemployment causes a decrease in income for people who are unemployed, leading to increased instances of poverty. It also creates demand for government services such as welfare. Therefore, you can see a direct correlation between periods of recession and period of increased numbers of people on welfare. For example, the periods of time I previously mentioned as being times of recession (the very late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s) are also marked by increased numbers of people in conditions of poverty. You can see this by directly comparing periods of recession with increases in poverty over the last 40 years by using the chart I provided, which has the periods of recession marked in dark blue. Let me also demonstrate the correlation between the business cycle and poverty rates by looking at the opposite: periods of economic expansion and lowered poverty. Times of economic expansion in the last 40 years have also closely reflected decreases in poverty rates. The mid to late 1960s, the early 1970s, mid to late 1980s, and the mid to late 1990s are marked by both economic expansion and lower poverty rates. I believe these two separate sets of statistical information behave to similarly to not be closely related. When you take into consideration that the effects of a declining economy (decrease in the number of good paying jobs) are also the reasons why people could be poor, the two phenomena appear to be not just related, but a direct result of cause and effect. I have other colors if you still don't get it.

On the one hand, I like the idea of having a way to get a potential main eventer over without resorting to throwing a Wordl title on them. On the other hand, the only person who's career that winning KOTR ever really helped was Steve Austin.

Indeed. Keep him away from McCool though. She's the only Diva Search loser even remotely worth a crap.

It could also be the increased social acceptability of sexual promiscuity. Again, nothing to do with welfare. Except the poverty rate post-welfare reform during the most recent recession was STILL lower than the poverty rate on welfare reform at any point since the late 1970's. It was a solid 2-3% lower than it was during the last recession WITH welfare as the old system. Nice try. Welfare made poverty worse. Your graph, like it or not, PROVES my point. The most recent recession's poverty rate was significantly lower than the PREVIOUS two recessions (1980-2 and 1991). And that is WITHOUT welfare. What you're also failing to consider is that not all recessions equal in severity, and thus would have differing effects on the exact numbers of the poverty rate. Welfare reform CAN NOT be the cause of the decreased poverty rate in the 1990s because poverty rates started going down in the 1990s BEFORE welfare reform was passed in 1996. How can one thing cause something that happened before it, Mike? I'd really like to know. Look again if you don't believe me: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf I don't know if you noticed this or not, but according to that chart POVERTY IS ON THE RISE AGAIN (starting in 2000). Those years correspond almost EXACTLY with changes in the business cycle. Seriously, recessions increase the poverty rate, and prosperity decreases the poverty rate. Duh. This explains a few things about you. Well gosh, now I'm just darn curious to know what that meant. You're not the only one...

Well said.

^ ^

Amen. Didn't VH1 vote it the best album ever, or something?

You can honestly say that in a world where Ashlee Simpson has a recording contract? My own take on the song is that its a bit too repetitious, but enjoyable.

Because the sheer awesomeness of the idea couldn't be conveyed into words adequate enough to properly convey its sheer awesomeness. Or nobody thought of it.

All that symbolism is just adding weight to my belief that the Bible is mostly a work of fiction.

They definitely need to have MORE interpromotional matches at WM. Then use the draft to continue the feuds into the summer.

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/...s.ap/index.html My opinion of John Warner just increased dramatically.

Good response. Thanks for getting the conversation back on track. Something I remember from college was that no matter how much I disagreed with a professor's opinion (I was a Republican until about 1998, by the way), he or she always seemed to give evidence to back it up. That's something a lot of students can't say.

Funny how no one seems to care about the victims of this crime, meanwhile the vegetable woman in Florida gets around-the-clock coverage. Sad.

Was the media even there for the initial raid on the compound? Sure, they were there for the second raid, but they'd already been camped out for weeks at that point. As I stated earlier, that would have created a situation in which the government would be passing up the chance to apprehend both accomplices and evidence. Excuse the hell out of me for sticking up for our nation's law enforcement agencies.

^No, not the dreaded "Independent Study"!^ My stepdad didn't fight in Vietnam just so a bunch of liberal A-rabs could take an insideous course like that! Irrelevant, since welfare reform did not end welfare altogether. Besides, the chart clearly shows that poverty rates went UP AND DOWN between the 1960s and 1996, not that it was being inflated for years as you claim. Now, let me share another interesting piece of reasoning that'll surely blow everyone's minds: Remember that poverty graph I linked to earlier? Well, it does happen to show something which I doubt many are willing to admit: Poverty rates follow the business cycle. Therefore, welfare has probably had no real impact on them whatsoever. Poverty rates went down after the "removal" of welfare because of the business cycle, and poverty rates went up after Bush took office because of the business cycle! Mike, I never once attempted to argue that the Great Society cured poverty. Your attempts to prove that I'm wrong because of this are therefore completely irrelevant. Your overall tendency is to assign positions to me which I do not hold, and this is just another example. You can not prove I'm wrong about things that I never said. You know that I support welfare, but you are incorrect about my reasons for doing so. I did disprove your belief that welfare made poverty dramatically worse. Mike, if you'd actually listen to what I have to say, instead of projecting your ideas about what you think liberals believe onto me, you might learn something.

Please explain why Jesus died for our sins. I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation.

I've been thumbing through that report Mike posted for the last couple of minute and have yet to find any indication it actually proves what he says it does. Mike, if you can provide a page number where they actually say something meaningful, can you share it with those of us who don't feel like slogging through 54 pages of two political science professors wacking each other off? edit: Found it...its on the pages labelled 23-26. They basically say that they can come to no clear conclusion. Mike strikes out again.