SuperJerk

I'm enjoying this new "You never know what's going to happen next" approach they've been using for the last month.

I thought of that, but didn't want to fan the flames of this rumor. Because we still don't really know if he'll actually be backstage or not.

You're hung up on the word "fundamental"? No, I agree its not a "fundamental" right, although I'm not aware of any hierarchy of rights. Abortion, in my opinion, falls within other rights which would be more likely be considered "fundamental". As far as you not caring whether abortion is legal or not...it would seem that there are several statements you made earlier in this thread that make it seem like you did. And if you have some explanation of the term "strict constructionist" that varies from what I've been saying it means, please share. I know you've been saying you're not one, but your anti-abortion argument sure made it sound like you're one to me.

Yeah, I see you're point. I think the Unforgiven match probably should have been on the Benoit DVD, since he won it. The whole reason for including the RR2003 match on a Benoit disk (besides the quality of it) would be the standing ovation he got...which wasn't even included on the DVD. I'd rather them put the WMX7 match on a Kurt DVD than Unforgiven, since Kurt won the WMX7 match.

If Matt said he was in love with the TNA product, then we'd KNOW he's lying.

I guess stuff like "kike", "cracker", "wetback" & "gook" are just words too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Words are only offensive if you let them be. Once people quit getting offended by racial slurs, people who are trying to offend you will quit using them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you basically saying it's ok to disrespect people based on race & culture? Excuse me for having some dignity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, you missed my point. If someone were to say "All black people are lazy and dumb" or "Islam is a death cult", then I'd get offended. They're actually trying to make an argument that all people in a group have some deragatory characteristic. Calling someone a name, though, is just someone intentionally using a word to piss you off because they know that word will piss you off. Calling someone a name requires no thought other than "I'm just going to call him this because it'll piss him off".

It wouldn't surprise me if that pro-TNA shit he posted was a swerve.

Hey, I just realized I'm arguing with Tom Cruise. "You don't know the history of the Supreme Court...I do! Do you even know the history of Strict Constructionists? You're glib!" Dude, just because I disagree with your interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. It just means that I agree with what's actually been established by the Supreme Court, and you don't. Quit stating your opinions like they're facts. Abortion is legal. Get over it.

But it doesn't HAVE to cover everything. You lack the ability to notice ambiguity. Just because it isn't there doesn't mean it's necessarily still covered by the 9th Amendment, lest everything would be a fundamental right. I already covered this when I explained WHY abortion should be (and is) a right. No, it doesn't specifically mention any of those things. YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT is that something has to be specifically mentioned for it to be true. I seem to know it well enough to be consistently pointing out the inherit contradictions, don't I? I thought we were talking about abortion.

Its not like the 1971 film was an I, Robot-level adaptation. It got 95% of the book right.

You make no sense. Then learn how to read. Here's another try for you: I mentioned Section 8, Article One because said I was arguing against the STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST VIEWPOINT. I wasn't attempting to use that particular clause to justify the legalization of abortion. But it doesn't confirm it's existance at all, either. It doesn't HAVE to name everything. The 10th Amendment never mentions abortion. And according to you, the Constitution has to specifically mention something in order for it to be valid. Your own logic disproves your argument. edit: It simply isn't rational to presume that something you can't even prove is a person not only has rights, but is entitled to the legal protection of a person.

Is Congress deciding this? Is any of this a Congresional Decision? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was actually an argument against the Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution, fool. That has EVERYTHING to do with the Congress. The 9th Amendment specifically says that a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist. Because a state cannot prove that life begins at conception, and a woman has a right to privacy and control of her own body, then she should also have a right to an abortion.

If it wasn't a right, then it wouldn't be legal. You're actually arguing that its SHOULN'T BE a right. But it is a right, because the Supreme Court ruled that is part of a woman's right to privacy, and that the government wasn't qualified to determine when life begins.

You're arguing from a Strict Constructionist viewpoint that the federal government can only do what is specifically identified by the Constitution. This viewpoint often completely ignores Section 8, Article One, as well as the 9th Amendment. Fortunately, you're not the one who gets to decide.

No, they didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._Re...Health_Services You SAY I don't know what I'm talking about. AND YET... Abortion is legal. Strange how that works, isn't it? Then why are you trying to argue it should be legislated otherwise? YOU. DON'T. MAKE. SENSE.

I guess stuff like "kike", "cracker", "wetback" & "gook" are just words too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Words are only offensive if you let them be. Once people quit getting offended by racial slurs, people who are trying to offend you will quit using them.

Ah, yes. The old "only the parts of the constitution that can be twisted to my point of view count" argument. I'm not impressed. None of those cases you cited overturned the Roe decision. Here's what the actual Roe v. Wade decision had to say on the subject: Also Wow. So it really doesn't have to be true to be made law. And that, I think, is where a lot of people get the heebie-jeebies about letting states decide possible life and death matters. Or government at all, but at least the higher governments appeal to a larger variety of constituents. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Except Justice is wrong, JOTW. The Court didn't say what he's claiming. That language that said that "life begins at conception" was in the preamble, and the Supreme Court said was that it does not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble. In other words, they ignored it. In other words: the Supreme Court DID NOT uphold that life begins at conception. If you don't believe me, please note that abortion is still legal in Missouri.

Every week, box office numbers have been down a small percentage below the corresponding week last year. (The only reason I care about how much money a movie makes is because it determines what kinds of movies will get made in the future.)

Here's a fun little article from a few years back: http://slate.msn.com/id/2058066/

I guess they're not allowed to smoke pot since they'll be on camera the whole time.

I checked, and you are correct. "Batman and Robin" was the lowest grossing of the 5 movies.

In other words, most people won't care. I feel sorry for the theater workers who will have to keep explaining to people the movie's not called "Willie Wonka". Dumb Customer: I don't see the times for "Willie Wonka". Theater Employee: It's called "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Dumb Customer: But I wanna see "Willie Wonka!" Repeat 100,00 times.

Indeed.

That's all I needed to know, right there.

Well, they *did* get the title right, this time. I'm not aware that the 1971 was all that different than the book though.