Danville_Wrestling

I totally agree that Michael Cole needs to go, but I don't see it happening. I think that the commentary teams in the WWE today are absolutley terrible. I can stand Tazz and I think the Coach is a breath of fresh air on Raw, but JR acts like its 1998 and his freaking out at everything act has grown stale. Meanwhile, Jerry Lawler doesn't even try to a heel anymore (although he'll agree with Coach on various things, but nothing more than that) and just acts like he's creaming his pants when a diva comes out. His 'puppies' act needs to be eliminated as well. I just believe that the commentary teams aren't trying to put anyone over on commentary, bury workers by saying that they have no chance at beating certain wrestlers, etc. and it hurts the product because fans have no reason to sit through a match. I miss the days when WWE commentators tried to add a plotline to every match so that you knew it meant something, but hell we don't even get the old "a win will move them up the rankings" argument anymore. With all of this said, though, Cole isn't going anywhere. Who would they replace him with? I wouldn't mind Vince going back on commentary, but that's not possible with him still being a storyline character, so who knows.

I'm quickly becoming excited about TNA. I'll definitely be watching when they start on Spike for an alternative to the crap WWE is putting out and if they bring in some new blood, put on more great matches, and get greater exposure this could be the beginning of something great. I say explore the video game idea for the reasons mentioned above. Getting TNA out there with a video game, action figures, DVDs, and other merchandise can create the impression that they are the next big alternative to WWE and could attract some fans that way. Also, if this video game is less arcadic like the entire series of Smackdown! games have been (getting away from the N64 model I loved) I'll definitely pick it up, but if it's got some crappy gameplay like Legends of Wrestling or Background Wrestling that's absolutley terrible. It seems as if TNA has some people in charge that know that they may not challenge WWE right out of the gate and know that it's going to be a slow process to become #1. That's the kind of management a wrestling company that wants to make a run @ WWE needs to have because baby steps can build a good product and a loyal fan base.

I was marking for IRS when I heard on the WWF Mania show hosted by Todd Pettengill at the time that he was going to be in the preliminary match against Vega to see who would replace Ramon. When IRS was elimated, though, I was marking big for Bob Holly, but he got eliminated in the MOTN (at a whopping **1/2) to the Roadie. When we hit the semi-finals, though I knew it was gonna be a long night. Wasn't Razor supposed to job to Mabel in the finals? Seems ridiculous since he had to lose the 1994 KOTR final as well. It's funny that the WWF took one of the stronger KOTR tournaments (as far as workers being pushed is concerned with The Undertaker being unbeatable in '95, Michaels making a return, Kama being programmed as strong versus the Undertaker, I regarded Roadie as a threat b/c of Jarrett, Ramon being in a big feud with Jarrett, and Yokozuna just being a monster) and turned it into a lump of crap.

When all of this ends (and who knows when that will be) this is going to turn into an ambulance chaser's dream. Your going to have TONS of class action wrongful death lawsuits all over the place and we, the taxpayer, are going to get to foot the bill. How swell. Thanks NO for being complete idiots and screwing up what should've been planned out YEARS AGO.

Damn good promo there, I've never seen/heard it before, though. Anderson is definitely underrated on promos and wrestling wise b/c he was always second fiddle to Flair. However, this ranks as one of the best promos I've ever seen. I'd suggest Hogan's crazy WM IV promo as well or Roberts WM VI promo. Roberts' is awesome (surprise, surprise) and Hogan's is like "WTF?!?"

Of course HHH is going to be a 98 or somewhere at 95 or above. Wasn't he a 97 in the Smackdown vs. Raw game? I remember I matched him up with Bret Hart and Bret dominated most of the match, but HHH hit about four moves, hit a Pedigree, and the damage to Bret was so great that he got the pin. I was like "WHAT THE HELL!?!"

1-Steiner Brothers 2-Legion of Doom 3-The Miracle Violence Connection 4-The Hart Foundation 5-The Brainbusters 6-Demolition 7-The Midnight Express 8-The British Bulldogs 9-The Eliminators 10-Harlem Heat 11-The New Age Outlaws 12-Money Incorporated 13-Strike Force 14-The Quebecers 15-Edge & Christian 16-The Hollywood Blondes

It's just the same crap we get from the WWE when HHH makes a hiatus from the squared circle and the lame duck Spike shows don't help (especially now that Spike is airing TNA commercials which irks the McMahon's). Angle definitely isn't winning the strap @ Unforgiven and even if he did he wouldn't be headlining the show b/c HHH is making his "monumental" return that everyone has been dieing to see....right?....right? Sort of like Dangerous A said on the radio show, no one has talked about being excited about HHH returning yet.

If the housing bubble in the United States crashes that would be terrible news for the economy. We're looking @ losing at least 8% of GDP growth over the next three years if it happens (as has been quoted by various economists) + a terrible recession. What we're seeing is something like Japan experienced where they had a massive bubble and property prices have plunged some 40% in the last fourteen years. Over the last thirty years economists say that there have been over twenty housing bubbles worldwide and all but one of them ended in a recession. The United States hasn't experienced one yet so I guess this is our turn. With that said, though, if this bubble bursts before 2006 or 2008 it could have HUGE political ramifications due to the economy.

So what is going to happen to the NO sports franchises this year if the city is being shut off? Seems like NO is a warzone.

What about Gerard Butler? He was in Phantom of the Opera as the Phantom, but I've seen him cast in other films and he's a good character. He's got the Scottish accent bit going, but he has the "Bond" look. Jude Law would never work b/c he wouldn't want to be typecast as a "Bond" guy. I'm sure he'd want some more diverse roles than Bond movies. Just my two cents, though.

The hype for the Marlins is big b/c even though their roster may not be the greatest, if they get their pitching to lock in they can be a major threat. Also, the Marlins have NEVER lost a playoff series the two times they have made the playoffs (1997 and 2003) so that is always a storyline people play up. By the way, I'm pissed as hell that my Red Sox couldn't beat the freakin' Tigers after leading 6-0 and the Yankees rallied after a botched double-play ball to beat the Royals with a boatload of runs to close the gap in the AL East yet again. Additionally, here we are with a month left in the season and the Atlanta freakin' Braves are still kicking ass with a 3 1/2 game lead in the NL East. Tons of experts continue to preach their doom and picked them to finish no better than third in the division, but there they are leading the pack. I'm really becoming a fan of these guys, but I know they'll be gone quick in the playoffs most likely.

Can't we just edit out the released superstars anyway? I don't see what the hassle is in regards to that. Just change their appearance and moveset and BOOM! new roster. I'll be interested to see what legends are in the game. I imagine Hogan, Bret, Snuka, old school Undertaker, masked Kane, and Piper are all locks (b/c Snuka & Piper always sneak into every game).

I'd totally vote for a Warner-Richardson combo. They both seem to be pretty straight up guys and I'd trust them to run the country. HOWEVER, there is a problem with your electoral math. You need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. In the event of a 269-268 split there might be a bit of a Constitutional crisis because the Supreme Court would likely have to rule whether a president could be elected with a majority of electoral votes as opposed to the 270 total. If the Supreme Court ruled that 269 wasn't enough electoral votes to win the presidency (which depending on its political slant of strict constructionists is possible) then the election would get thrown into the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824 (the whole John Q. Adams-Andrew Jackson-Henry Clay fiasco) with each state delegation receiving one vote. Thus, if the GOP still had control of the House after the 2008 elections they could elect their guy. That could be pretty nasty. However, the Senate would vote for the vice-president so it's possible you could end up with a crazy John McCain (if he got the nomination)-Bill Richardson administration. Sort of like John Adams-Thomas Jefferson back in 1798 before a 12th amendment to the constitution was passed. Good ol' politics! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Problem with my math? I said colorado goes Democrat, which gets them over the 269 hump <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oops, my bad. I just looked at your total of 269-268 and didn't see your arguement about Colorado.

JR: Hey Rock, do you think it's a good strategy to leave the ring for this match? Rock: Do you think it's a good strategy to wear that cowboy hat? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I remember I died laughing at this segment. Nice to see good ol' Rock put JR in his place when JR tried to be a smart ass. The Rock promo from WM 18 w/Coach is one of my favorites and the Royal Rumble 2000 promo was great too.

That Bret-Hakushi match better be on the DVD. I believe that match was in Louisville, Kentucky and I couldn't convince my dad to get tickets for it at the time. Helluva match.

Now THAT's some funny stuff right there. I also don't know why they chose the ridiculous 1994 Royal Rumble casket match over the 1994 Survivor Series match. After all, why wouldn't the WWE want to embarass Jeff Jarrett more by allowing all the buyers to see Chuck Norris knock him on his ass?

I thought Leyla was a lock to win the competition, but I refused to vote in it so I have no right to complain, right? Anyway, is this going to be the SAME storyline year after year when it comes to the divas? There will be a competition, then a winner crowned, then a jealous locker room, and THEN a feud with whoever the women's champion is close to or at WrestleMania? I hope Trish comes back and beats the holy hell out of Ashley. Better yet, just have Trish come back as a heel manager so she doesn't have to mess with all of these other wannabe 'divas.' I think the managerial position is a lost art in wrestling and everyone knows Trish could help out some of those guys who suck on the microphone.

I'm a UK fan and nothing made me happier than eliminating Huggins from the NCAA tournament and giving him yet another 2nd round loss. I guess I'll feel bad about not getting to pick Cincy to get eliminated in the first or second round of my brackets anymore, but to their credit they may have won the national title in Kenyon Martin's last season there if he hadn't broken his leg in the conference tournament.

Point well taken above about the Smoking Gunns. That title change was a BIG shock to me since Owen/Yokozuna dominated them @ WM 11 and In Your House 1. I'm not a big fan of the Nasty Boys match from WM 7, but the Demolition match from SummerSlam 1990 is awesome. I think there should be some tag matches on the DVD, but should they include the Rockers-Hart Foundation match with the "phantom" title change?

I'd totally vote for a Warner-Richardson combo. They both seem to be pretty straight up guys and I'd trust them to run the country. HOWEVER, there is a problem with your electoral math. You need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. In the event of a 269-268 split there might be a bit of a Constitutional crisis because the Supreme Court would likely have to rule whether a president could be elected with a majority of electoral votes as opposed to the 270 total. If the Supreme Court ruled that 269 wasn't enough electoral votes to win the presidency (which depending on its political slant of strict constructionists is possible) then the election would get thrown into the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824 (the whole John Q. Adams-Andrew Jackson-Henry Clay fiasco) with each state delegation receiving one vote. Thus, if the GOP still had control of the House after the 2008 elections they could elect their guy. That could be pretty nasty. However, the Senate would vote for the vice-president so it's possible you could end up with a crazy John McCain (if he got the nomination)-Bill Richardson administration. Sort of like John Adams-Thomas Jefferson back in 1798 before a 12th amendment to the constitution was passed. Good ol' politics!

I liked Yokozuna more as a tag team wrestler with Owen Hart b/c I thought he had an even greater presence. Owen would go in, get the crap kicked out of him, and then tag Yokozuna and the crowd would groan b/c Yokozuna would basically dominate the other team single handedly. By the way, why didn't the WWE put the titles on the Allied Powers (Bulldog & Luger) at In Your House 2? I thought they were a given to win the belts as they were the only team to me that was credible for defeating Yoko/Owen.

LOL, how does he intend on being able to do that? It's not like you can just smuggle in natural gas over the border (although with the state of our borders to the south you can probably do a lot of things without people noticing these days).

Good point made above about her 2004 DNC speech. I didn't comment on it b/c I figured I was bias when I saw it (since I don't like Hillary, anyway). Good to know someone agreed with me. Dole was a terrible candidate in 1996, wasn't he? I digress. Yes, I respect the comment that Hillary can probably fend off a unified onslaught in the primaries (probably due to her fundraising capabilities), but it may still weaken her "war chest" to some degree. Anyone remember her comments about Gandhi working at a gas station that were made last year? With increased media attention something like that could be DEATH in a presidential race, but with Hillary being a Democrat it may not be as bad as if a Republican said it. Eh, who knows. Aside from the regular arguements, though, about her connecting ability/fundraising, I think a feeling of "patronage" may come back to bite her. I think I said somewhere earlier in this thread that by 2008 we'll have been living in a country that would've been run by a Bush or a Clinton for a total of TWENTY YEARS (nearly my entire life interestingly enough). I think Americans might have a hard time voting to go Bush 41-Bill Clinton-George W.-Hillary and possibly end up with another Clinton dynasty. Add Jeb Bush to the mix by 2012 or 2016 and I could be pulling my hair out. My biggest thing against Hillary is that I simply don't trust her (and I trusted Bill until the whole Lewinsky thing). I have no clue what she stands for on a lot of key issues either b/c she confuses me on flops to the center. All I know is she cares about "women and children" and healthcare, but her healthcare plan was so badly advised and put together that she couldn't get it through a Democratically controlled Congress (which Dick Morris says cost the Dems the 1994 midterms). It just seems to me that she's running more on reputation than anything else and that can be a little scary, but alas Americans can be a fickle people @ the polls (if they even go at all). However, all of this aside Hillary could win in 2008 b/c the GOP can't seem to get a message established right now and have no clue who will run. Guiliani can't play outside of the Northeast so he shouldn't get the nomination, Frist is too much like Al Gore on the stump, Cheney has health problems and isn't that charismatic (although he is experienced and might be pressured to run), Santorum is too conservative, McCain is a good choice versus Hillary but won't survive the primaries unless the GOP experiences an internal revolt, etc. Sort of troubling when you think about it. Either way, I expect a NASTY campaign in 2008, probably one of the worst in years, BUT I HOPE that we have a clear winner that everyone can be content with so we don't have a polarized country of legal challenges, recounts, etc. where people try to paint the winner as being illegitimate (ex. Dems this past time after Bush won Ohio by over 100,000 votes). *Prays*

It's just the risk you take when you install democracy in a country. We can't rig the outcome (and we shouldn't try either) so it's just like rolling the dice and see what happens. Most pundits knew, though, that an Iraq run by the Shites was going to be a friend of Iran so I'm not surprised. I think a problem with this constitution as opposed to our own is that it's a constitution that address what Iraq will look like "someday" (i.e. tolerance, ethnic equality, etc.) whereas our constitution focused on present normalcies and left it at that. Granted, we had to fight a civil war to get the Reconstruction amendments into the constitution to make those of black heritage citizens instead of property and give them the right ot vote and we had many political upheavals to warrant other amendments as well. However, we allowed history to play it's course and opened the constitution up for change to correct instances that may come up in the future (which we did with slavery, prohibition, two-term presidencies, presidential succession, senators elected directly by voters not indirectly by state legislatures, etc.) Therefore, a problem I have with this constitution is that your telling the people "hey let's become a democratic paradise overnight" which doesn't sit well for stability and it's totally not realistic. This is why I think when you change governments and are pushing for a more equal sharing of power it has to happen WITHIN countries rather than by outside influence (Bismarck's building of the modern German state can be used as an example there). Simply put, NGOs and the U.S. State Department aren't the kind of people I'd like telling me how to write a constitution and make things work. Finally, I'm getting a little tired of the Sunnis griping. I understand that if they aren't included it's going to spark a lot of unrest and possibly a civil war, BUT they had their chance to participate in elections for the constitutional assembly. As such, they rejected their chance to participate which causes them to now see a constitution they don't like. It's also very hard for them to come to terms with losing all their privileges they had when the Baathists ran the country, so I imagine they aren't going to be happy however things happen to go for them. However, this is like a catch-22 whichever way you want to look at it for an exclusive or inclusive standpoint, so who knows what's going to happen. I say a civil war is going to be the only option for national unity, but that's just me being pessimistic.