Danville_Wrestling

Yea, I've heard that this happened because Samu didn't want to drop the belts to IRS & Bam Bam who he didn't consider to be a "real tag team" despite the fact that IRS & Bigelow had teamed up for over a month prior to SummerSlam in anticipation for that match. Bam Bam just got screwed time and again when he came back to the WWF, especially in '94 and '95, where he was supposedly promised a title run for jobbing to LT and jobbed with Tatanka to the 1-2-3 Kid/Bob Holly (which really made no sense) @ the '95 Rumble in the finals of the tag tournament.

I was actually pretty shocked as a young mark that the Allied Powers didn't beat Owen and Yokozuna for the belts @ IYH 2. I thought for sure they would be the team to get the belts away from them as I felt the Owen/Yoko team was unstoppable. I was just VERY puzzled when I tuned in the next night on RAW and found out that they didn't win the titles.

Whoops. My comment should have said WITHOUT HHH.

To be honest, I loved Vince on commentary and wish he'd go back to doing it. Of course, that's probably because I grew up as a fan with Vince on commentary in the mid-1990s so he became the standard for what I associate commentators with.

First time I'll be watching RAW since last May. Looking forward to seeing it with HHH and see what Mike Adamle is all about.

I think this is a good week for the McCain campaign overall. For the first time in the campaign they seem to be dictating the pace and for all the press slamming the Paris Hilton ad, it got a ton of free play, which McCain desperately needs at this point. The one thing McCain can hold up his head about is that he is keeping the race close nationally, when Obama really should have a stronger lead. However, McCain still falls behind in polls in key states like PA, VA, MI, OH, and FL, which is why I really believe Romney is his only VP choice. That said, I don't really put any stock into poll numbers, at least until after the conventions are finished. By this time the issues and the VPs will have been picked and voters perceptions of things they consider important (the war on terrorism and the economy) will be locked in [which played against Bush Sr. in 1992]. I think that the first debate is going to be VERY interesting and has the potential to shape this race, much like in 2000 where Gore's coughs and temperament during the first debate with Bush lost him critical support among swing voters. I think going into the first debate Obama will have a lot of pressure on him because he will be seen as the more convincing speaker and I have to admit that I was not heavily impressed by Obama's debating skills in the Democratic primaries. It seems that when he is not on a prepared speech script that he can babble or stumble like anyone else who has trouble speaking extemporaneously and that might play into McCain's hands (if he doesn't have a Reagan 1984 type performance where he is forgetting names, facts, etc.).

I agree and have him quote his movie lines again in promos. The Goldust character lost an edge when it quit reciting lines from famous/obscure films at the beginning of promos...I always marked for that.

Snuff hit it on the head. America is built for the car/methods of personal transportation. A massive public transit system really won't work in the U.S. and if it was attempted it would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Yea, I don't believe Obama's economic plan amounts to a significant raise in taxes. Under his plan, the Bush tax cuts for lower/middle income Americans would stay and he would increase taxes on the 2% of Americans making over $250,000a year. The Tax Policy Centre suggests that this would raise about $800 billion. Obama also wants to extend the Earned Income Tax credit (which makes sense) but deciding to get rid of payroll taxes on those making under $50,000 a year doesn't make much sense if you want to balance the federal coffers. All told, Obama's taxes would make the federal tax rate about 18.5% (when the U.S. average is about 18%). The only part of the Obama plan I'm skittish about is his idea of increasing the Social Security payroll tax to shore up the system on those making over $250,000 a year. If he were to double it to 12.4%, according to the Economist, that would mean a marginal tax rate of over 50% for this bracket, and economists will tell you that while that might shore up federal revenues in the short-term it could depress economic ingenuity/incentives in the long-term (although 50% is still less than the high marginal tax rates after World War II so the economic damage might not be as much long-term as you typically find with marginal tax rates). I'm not surprised McCain won't rule out a payroll tax increase snuff, simply because he wants to pander to the elderly crowd that their Social Security will be safe. Dealing with the older generation is going to become a headache for middle aged and younger workers alike in about 10 years because as these people retire and the federal budget gets squeezed more and more we will all be faced with a choice: raise taxes or cut the benefits in these programs. Due to the fact that the elderly vote in larger numbers (and demographics will give them an edge) I have to say that our tax rate could become suffocating. It's definitely the biggest long-term dilemma America faces politically but no one wants to talk about in each election cycle, and the politicians that do such as Ron Paul, just get called wackos and no one listens to them.

Bad news for the GOP today in terms of Senate races as Ted Stevens gets indicted. However, the GOP does have some hope that he won't even make it out of the primary or will withdraw meaning that they can field a different candidate.

I believe it was the Arizona Diamondbacks in the 1999 season when they first made the playoffs. Edit: It looks like that's correct. The 1999 Arizona team went 100-62, a 35 game turnaround from 65-97 in 1998. The second biggest was 34 1/2 games by the 1903 NY Giants who went from 48-88 in 1902 to 84-55 in 1903.

Fine, I grant that (and recognize that some tax breaks given to oil companies don't need to exist) but if those federal subsidies did not exist it could have very negative ramifications on the economy. Without certain tax provisions (which work both ways in terms of sales taxes, etc.) the U.S. economy, built on road systems and cars, could suffer massive financial damage. I suppose you could destroy everything to build new, but it definitely would not be pretty. Hence, the gradual adjustment I pointed out several posts ago. I mean if you think gas prices are bad now wait till we up gas taxes to the point where people will love the day when $3-4 gas was the norm.

Interesting since I never listen to Glen Beck and hate his show. I'm just an independent conservative who believes in free markets/free trade.

Yea, I'm interested in what happens to Griffey after this season. I don't see him staying in Cincinnati, but I don't know where he could go after that. I know there will be buyers on the free agent market, but I suppose it would depend on what they offered in terms of playing time because Griffey still wants to play the outfield and is not content to sit around as a DH.

So does this mean that you are advocating complete federal control of the oil companies (i.e. nationalization)? The whole argument I am making is in terms of supply and demand. Currently our supply isn't high enough and as India/China grow those supplies become harder to get. With more supply on the market, the price is bound to fall because people will know they don't have to pay "x" amount for the oil they are getting. The oil companies don't have to lower prices on their own, the market would work and force them to do so. Now, I'm not saying its a simply solution in the price game because if you want gas prices to fall BUILD SOME NEW REFINERIES! We haven't build a new refinery in the U.S. since 1974, which is absolutley ridiculous based on the growth rate in population and economically we've experienced since that time. We have a bottleneck on the supply front for gas and THAT is really where anyone who wants to solve the high prices dilemma needs to start looking. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised to hear some blowhard come out next year in Congress arguing for a "right to gas" and trying to push through a price cap on the gasoline...which will inevitable lead to shortages and it'll be the gas lines all over again. That'll show the oil companies!

I don't disagree with you here, but to the average "middle American" voter being told that they are going to have to pay a ton for gas is not fun (especially in tough economic times like now when incomes are already stretched), especially when they are getting the impression from Congress that the GOP is trying to increase supply and the Democrats are not. Voters I talk to on both sides of the aisle are getting the feeling that we are beholding too much to the environmental lobby on nuclear power and oil/coal and are saying that they are reconsidering voting Democratic this November. The biggest thing that hurts the argument that the high prices are a good thing is that there is nothing in the IMMEDIATE future to replace them. So Americans are asking themselves "just how long/how much are we going to have to suffer to live in this great, big beautiful tomorrow politicians who do not want offshore drilling are talking about?" I think that's an effective turn on the argument for the GOP to use. I think we need to increase the supply of energy but also look into the alternatives we can use (more nuke power plants, electric cars, wind power, etc.) One way would be to use the royalties from opening up pockets of offshore drilling to go to alternative energy research. I think Rep. Nick Lampson, a Democratic out of TX (who has a high probability of losing his House seat), has written up a compromise energy bill for the House to consider in this regard. Like it or not, our economy will still need fossil fuels for the next several decades and while there will be costs, we have to have a long term vision to making the cost of those fossil fuels reasonable while also preparing for an economy that will not use fossil fuels down the road. It's a tricky balancing act for sure, because if oil prices plummet people will simply want to jump off the alternatives train, but we have to do the best we can in that regard.

Hey Dandy, as the resident Reds expert do you foresee the team trading off any veteran talent as the trade deadline approaches? Seems to me as if the season is lost after the recent 4-6 homestand, capped by that awful 11-0 loss to the Rockies last night.

I don't really see it as a big deal. It's in the oil companies best interests to back candidates that increase their bottom line and so now that McCain seemed like the candidate to favor more drilling it only makes sense that those oil interests back him. On another note, I think Mitch McConnell will be safe in the Senate race here in Kentucky. His Democratic opponent, Bruce Lunsford is being ravaged over his gas tax policy in the state in recent TV ads and mailings. The Lunsford campaign has released a new commercial quoting the left-leaning Lexington Herald Leader who said the attacks were not valid and then saying that Mitch McConnell has taken in over $3 million from energy companies. Then the commercial somehow makes the comparison between those contributions (which they say led to oil company tax breaks) and high gas prices......uh yeah. The ad just seemed very defensive to me and did nothing to refute the charges McConnell made in his ads. If the election here in KY hinges on energy I have to think that McConnell will win it. I just think the high gas prices/energy debate has been a godsend to GOP candidates and might mitigate some of the disaster they expect to see on election night based on the mood of the country on energy as well as recent polling data in regards to drilling/nuclear power.

The biggest one that stands out to me is Aladdin for the SNES. I love that game but can practically beat it with my eyes closed. Double Dragon and the Final Fight series games are another.

Are there any live streams of preliminary rounds for the PGA? My local cable provider doesn't carry the Golf Channel so I'm shut out of all the action for first/second rounds. Just wondering if such streams existed.

Yea I agree with the analysis of Norman most likely missing the cut @ Oakland Hills. I know if I lived in the area I'd try to get a hold of a ticket to see him for the first two rounds but with the limited amount of practice he does (which he admits to on ESPN.com) I think the PGA should have just withheld the invite and given it to a younger golfer who might be able to compete at a higher level. I think he'll struggle at the Masters next year as well (unless conditions get nasty) simply because of the distance that has been added to that course. However, if Norman is in contention next year @ Augusta he'll get louder reactions than @ the Open simply because the same fans show up to that tournament year in and year out and would love to see him make another run at a green jacket. I think Norman should play a few more PGA events, though, before the FedEx Cup because he currently sits 140th (top 144 make it) and could make the field. Nevertheless, coming from that far back to win the thing is a statistical improbability....sorta why I don't like the system. I also 100% echo the comments on Wie. When I was reading my local paper and saw the AP story on this I was like "excuse me"? To play Devil's advocate, I can understand why the Reno-Tahoe Open did it because it will be one of the weaker fields on tour due to a WGC event that is going on that same week so they needed something to draw in the ticket sales. So the move has a strictly financial aspect as far as I'm concerned. Wie would be better off playing in the LPGA's feeder school for a year just to hone her game and get back on track. Maybe she could finally win a few tournaments there and regroup. It's quite sad to see what she's become as I think its more of her parents fault. And on another note, I am sick of hearing radio hosts blast the British Open as being boring because Tiger wasn't there and complaining about the scorecard problem with Wie and how its a stupid rule. This analysis from casual golf fans just pisses me off. I am also still contemplating purchasing tickets for the Ryder Cup through an online broker since I lost a lottery last fall to get a hold of two tickets for Saturday at Valhalla. It would cost me upwards of $400 but I feel its a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the Ryder Cup in Kentucky.

In other Norman news, the PGA has given him an invitation to the PGA Championship next month. Norman said he'll decide within the next 24 hours or so whether to accept.

Well Norman winning would have been a great feel good story, but we all knew the blowup round was coming sooner or later. It's just the heartbreak I have become familiar with as a fan of the Shark. So congrats to Padraig on the repeat (which sort of dilutes the arguments that Tiger wasn't in the field). The silver lining in all of this: with his T-3 finish, Norman will receive an invite back to Augusta for the first time since 2002.

Go Greg! As a longtime Norman fan I can't believe he's on top of the leaderboard but its great seeing him back in contention at a major championship. Fighting off Harrington tomorrow is going to be incredibly difficult, but at least this time Norman goes into the final round with significantly lowered expectations than the 1990s. I'll be glued to my TV for the final round coverage tomorrow hoping to watch the unthinkable happen.

I'm back as the Minnesota Vikings...hopefully will have a better run than last season.