SuperJerk

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.

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?

The opportunity cost is that the money is used to create jobs in the public sector rather than the private sector. I'm not arguing for socialism here or anything, but I also don't believe that the private sector is the utopia of efficiency and job creation that libertarian economists make it out to be. Consider how low taxes were and how unregulated the economy was before the New Deal. It didn't stop recessions and depressions from still happening. Is the fear of putting yourself in a higher tax bracket really enough to keep people from trying to become rich? I doubt it. edit: That's not to say that I'm not open to looking at data that supports the theory (as opposed to the anecdotal stuff people usually give me), but I have yet to see any that was convincing.

I think he's just trying to argue that he doesn't care. Mike's premises shift so much its hard to tell sometimes exactly what it is he's proposing.

They didn't admit that the right doesn't exist, they admitted it wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. WHAT YOU'RE FORGETTING is that the 9th Amendment exists specifically so not every right needed to be laid out in the Constitution. How about we create two Americas? One where people have a right to privacy, and one where people do not have a right to privacy. Which one do you really want to live in? If you truly believe you have no right to privacy, then would you mind if I posted your social security number, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers? I didn't think so. No, not out of thin air.

I don't think I have ever once heard a non-religious argument against abortion. While I'm sure such arguments exist (ex: medical complications), I've yet to hear any from pro-lifers I know, and I've been on both sides of the debate Most anti-abortion people may be religious, but being religious doesn't make you automatically pro-life. And being non-religious doesn't automatically make you pro-choice. The two things simply are NOT the same.

More quotes from the Roe decision.

^Exactly.^ You think they don't know about all that already? Jesus, everybody's abortion position is only flaunted for all the media to see every election round. The people overwhelmingly support the banning of partial birth abortions. Do you think forbidding judges from outlawing it will play well? What the fuck are you talking about? Judges don't have the power to outlaw partial birth abortion. This entire argument is a red herring. Umm, they can EASILY rule in cases that bans on partial birth abortions are perfectly legal and Constitutional. But that's not what you said. Ruling "in cases that bans on partial birth abortions are perfectly legal and Constitutional" isn't the same thing as "forbidding judges from outlawing it". In order for the partial birth abortion bans to be considered Constitutional, they would need to still be allowed in cases where it is "necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother" (quoted from the Roe v. Wade decision).