SuperJerk

Mole..really..do you know the difference between CRT and Projection..it doesnt seem like it. ??????? The TV in question is a projection, and even if he didn't read CRT, the picture is clearly of a projection style tv. RCA makes CRT-based projection screen TVs.

I can't really argue with any of that. As soon as Bond , I knew that and it was just a question of how much longer to get to the end of the movie. Everything after felt like a drag after the amazing beginning and middle of the film.

Exactly. There are dozens of other worthy villains out there. Using Magneto for the fourth movie would just cream of laziness. Magneto's story is done. Bring on Sinister, or Apocalypse, or the Hellfire Club. That'd rock. My only fear would be they'd cast Jessica Simpson as Emma Frost.

That's quite an age gap.

So how does Emma's guilt trip fit into all this? And the Breakworld guy?

I didn't get exactly what happened. All I understood was that Emma's guilt made her create illusion villians. How Casandra Nova and the alien guy fit into it, I have no idea.

Yeah. They recently established that Clark Kent has been Superman for 12 years (or 13...I don't remember exactly). I'd think Bruce Wayne should have been Batman for about 11 or so. Thus, Batman should be about 36. I don't have a problem with the rest.

I'm not buying the "Bruce Wayne became Batman when he was 19 years old bit. I guess he's trying to mentally preserve the idea that Batman is only 30 years old, but that's a completely unnecessary limitation to put on the character. I don't know if the classic "Batman: Year 1" is still considered canon, but he was 25 in that.

Mole..really..do you know the difference between CRT and Projection..it doesnt seem like it. ???????

This article from "The New Republic" hits the nail on the head... http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061120&s=chait112006

I can't agree with you on that, but I respect the fact that you are planning to vote your conscience. The only wasted vote is the one you don't cast.

No, its just that the line I bolded made everything else you had to say about Bayh irrelevant. And I'm not buying this idea that because Pres. Bush was wrong to send troops to Iraq, its wrong for anyone to be for military action ever again. By the way, unlike a certain frontrunner, Bayh has actually said Iraq was a mistake. So...who do you prefer? Bayh or Hillary? Because once people realize how young and inexperienced Obama is, those are pretty much going to be your choices.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611200003 Let's look at the positives here. He made no mention of pork chops, watermelon, rap music, or malt liquor.

Other than the sheer inappropriateness of having a comedy show on a news network, I'm not sure what they're going for here. I'm curious to know what kinds of things they'll be making fun of on a conservative-leaning comedy show. People who oppose the Iraq War? Poor people? Muslims? Gays?

So you've got nothing. Got it.

The JSA has retired more times than the Who.

Evan Bayh is actually qualified to be president. He has both governed a large state and gotten bills passed through the Congress. John Edwards just kind of waundered into the Senate one day, made some pretty speeches, and started running for president.

While Stewart is obviously a Democrat, the Daily Show takes shots at both sides.

Oh, please, God, no...

I disagree because I think while with a senate campaign specific legislation is looked at, with a presidential campaign, "big ideas" are looked at. Most people are more interested in what you're going to do as the president than how you voted as 1 of 100 senators.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/11/20/rel29b.pdf Latest CNN poll.

I'll ignore your loaded question and try to address the real point you're trying to make. Like most Americans, Bayh changed his position on Iraq when he learned the truth. So long as he takes a clear position, he should be able to avoid looking the way Kerry did on this issue. Since there's a shortage of members of Congress who voted against the war running for president, I don't see anyone gaining an advantage by bringing this up.

All of this might be true, and you obvously know more about the bill than I do, but I don't think it will have much of an impact on the 2008 campaign.

I have an idea that might save us both headaches and hours of our lives. We need some kind of code for "I still don't agree with you, but in the interest of expediting the conversation and not repeating ourselves much longer, I propose we table this aspect of the discussion and move back to more relevant matters." Yeah, I know this sounds weird coming from me, but there's that old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."