SuperJerk

Nitpicking is something you only start doing after you've seen it 3 or 4 times...which only seems to reinforce your "get a life" thesis.

We still don't know everything that happened at Abu Ghraib prison. A lot of the photographs are not being released. Many of those released from Guantanamo Bay (and why would they be released if they were guilty of being terrorists?) have accused the government of torturing them. The fact that the U.S. government argued that people detained at Guantanamo were legally outside of the U.S. and did not have the Constitutional rights (so much for the idea that people's rights are given to them "by their creator") that they would have if they were held on U.S. territory indicates that something unusual is going on there.

INCREDIBLE HULK #82 $2.99 UNCANNY X-MEN #460 $2.50 Anybody got the story on what NEW TEEN TITANS WHO IS DONNA TROY TP is?

That's an...interesting...way of evaluating films you got there.

Same thing happened to me when I rented Chinatown. The only movies in the AFI's top ten that I've never seen are On the Waterfront and Singing in the Rain.

I thought Firefly fans got dicked around, but they've got nuthin' on the way Fox treated Futurama fans.

Lita = EdgeHead

I'm definitely on the "torture is wrong" side. Inhumane and pointless. How do you know the information you're getting is accurate? Maybe the fucker is just telling you what you want to hear so you'll stop torturing him.

I'll admit I missed your point, CheesalaIsGood. Then give them a fair trial, and then put them in jail or execute them.

Source? I thought they were SUSPECTS--meaning we don't know if they're actually guilty or not. If they're terrorists, then what acts of terrorism have they committed? If they are terrorists supporters, what have they actually done to support terrorism? Examples?

$1.99 is still too much for "Batman and Robin".

I don't get your reasoning at all. I'm not saying your wrong, but it'd be nice if those who think Amnesty International is full of crap to enlighten the rest of us who apparently don't have the same information as you to give us more to go on than "they're worthless" and "they're bad because they ask for donations".

But it did somehow translate into what smarks who pretty much hate the product now call 'the Good ol days'. Which confuses me, because like you said, most of it was crap, a lot more then now at least, and yet people praise this era. There were a lot of rough spots, of course with high spots, like Austin storylines, Rock storylines, etc. but then you look at the rest of the card during these same times and its like WTF? Because back then it was new and exciting. They did all that stuff that seemed cool at the time, but it seems dumb now because they've recycled it 100+ times since then. Top face vs. evil owner, for example, put WWE back on the map. Now it seems dumb because after it was successful with Austin, they then tried variations of it with Rock, Mankind, Undertaker, Austin again, Triple H, Angle, Cena, and Batista. Surprise heel turns, run-ins, and worked-shoots have all gone from being cool ideas to recycled garbage due to overuse.

I've been waiting 28 pages for someone to say that.

????? Asking for money invalidates being against torture?????

If anyone on E! ever said this, they were probably talking about American Idol.

I just can't buy that quote as legit.

This is definitely a case of Lucas leaving things ambiguous just to FUCK WITH OUR FRAGILE FANBOY MINDS.

That's way too much rationalizing to include HHH as the reason for the ratings. Maybe it had nothing to do with him? I think the reason the rating was good last week was because people wanted to see who won the tournament, but it was bad this week because everyone assumed Edge had no chance of winning (and they were right), so there was no excitement over watching a match with a foregone conclusion.

I posted this because I found it ridicules they think being on NBC more would've helped their album sales enough. Besides, does NBC owe anyone time on their network? Was NBC neglegent in some way by not letting them appear? Can they actually show that not being on NBC had any impact on them? This case is so full of holes its not funny.

Since it was Darth Plaigus who had the power to influence midichlorians to create life, then it would have had to been Darth Plaigus that created Anakin, not Sidious.

If Shaak Ti was suposed to be played by Bai Ling (Ling Bai?), than according to IMDB, all of her scenes were cut when she decided to pose nude for Playboy. I forgot what role Bai Ling had She was just an extra. Some people are making way too big a deal about this. Except I wasn't kidding.

We already have another. Its called MTV....and it sucks.

credit: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...5E10431,00.html This reminds of the time Jenny McCarthy sued her book publisher when the book she wrote didn't sell.

No - USA Network is only giving WWE 4 hours of programming each week. 2 hours - RAW 1 hour - WWE Tonight (recap) 1 hour - ECW That's how I assume it will work. Except ECW isn't getting a new TV show.