RavishingRickRudo

Well I'll B damned.

I will be severely disappointed now if the WWE doesn't capitalize on this. *blames Prez*

Sadly, it appears that Randy has lost all of his sensibility. As showed on RAW, trying to turn Ric Flair was a major mistake, as it was something Shawn Michaels tried and it back fired. It appears Sensible Randy Orton just became Typical Gullible Dumbass Babyface Randy Orton.

He can have his own clothing line. "B" Commercial starts with a car cruising along the edge of a cliff. We see Dave Batista driving, the wind blowing in his face. He is decked out in a tan 3 piece suit, white shirt, and matching sunglasses. The music is a blend of opera, techno, and rock. A gentle voice whispers "B". Dave narrates: "B... B the one who takes control. B the one who lives on the edge." A bright light flashes and now we see Batista walking through a night club. He is now wearing a velvet 3 piece and matching shades. Completely oblivious to all the sexy ladies shaking their hips and wetting their lips at him. "B the one who stands out in the crowd. B the one who is on everyones mind." The room darkens and as it lights up we see Dave coming home, a black 3 piece this time, his sunglasses already off. He walks into the bathroom where he sees his special lady giving their daughter a bath. "B responsible. B a man." Dave smiles and we close out with him and his family laughing and playing. The whisper now says "B Everything" and the Batista logo appears on the screen.

Aren't I enough?

http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/index.html Here is the official ABC website. Watching the "Meet the Characters" section, it gives you some extra tidbits about some of their characters which I'd call spoilerish. On their messageboard, I'm "LostinTransubstantiation", but I haven't posted as-of-yet.

I think Teddy Long may have the worst collection of Tshirts in human history.

I was about to write something sarcastic about how I would "so buy this shirt", but I just can't do it. I can't even fake interest. It's a really bad shirt.

I miss the Curry RAW Fashion reports

I like Samantha Bee. Colbert rocks. But the turnover rate for their reporters is nuts.

Ontario is soooo the West.

The rationale of focusing on the Republican party more than the Democrats is because "they (Reps) control the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court", so when the Republicans fail to do something, they really have no one to blame but themselves. With the more power they have, the more responsibility they have to use it properly. I inferred what they meant by the quote, but generally it's because the Republicans control politics, and they're a political news parody show.

I was just hoping everyone would overlook that and forget about it ever being said. Hogan in 2002 is a perfect example of someone being incredibly over in the arena and actually bringing in less fans.

AusPride, that's certainly an interesting idea to keep in mind (especially if working from an international dual show standpoint as was offered by Promoter). However, I think that would dilute the Wrestlemania brand by having 2 big cards.

Hartfan, you forget to total in entrances, celebrations, promos, video packages. And almost every dream match should go over 10 minutes, because who dreams of short matches? (13 minutes generally is considered the minimum length of great matches, I believe.) Don't see this as criticism, I just think in general people don't keep things like this in mind when booking. If you can't understand the whats and whys and hows of your booking, how can you understand someone elses?

Bush's strengths were that he seemed less memorized and more from the heart than Kerry, and did a good job reiterating his positions and avoided some really loaded questions I would have agreed with you up to a point. Bush went beyond the point where "reinteration" in hopes of the final impression being "freedom" "winnning" for him, and "diversion" "mixed messages" for Kerry, became "I'm lost, let's go back to these talking points where I'm safe..." and that, for me, was the final impression. In 2000 GWB did a much better job of doing that against Gore, where the impression of "morals" won out. His weaknesses were his style of answering made him seem unsure or unprepared, in the pauses and stuttering. His closing statement was excellent though. Agreed. It actually seemed like he didn't care about 99% of the debate and just focused on the Closing Statement, figuring that the last impression was the only important one. It's a pretty sound theory, at least focusing on the Closing Statement is, but I think he needed more in the body of the debate. Kerry's strengths were that he looked very confident, he spoke without the pauses and akwardness of Bush and kept Bush on the defensive with some direct shots. Kerry actually had me going "OH!", like he was on Jerry Springer. That surprised me because I expected him to go the Gore route and not want to appear like a bully. He managed to balance that pretty well. His weakness was all style and no substance. He was quick to criticize Bush, but never really explained his own plans for things. What he did explain was either unrealistic and just plain wrong. I don't think he had much style, I thought Bush did better with his eye movement and hand gestures (when he was talking confidently) and came off a lil more personable than JK - but he didn't come off as personable as I thought he would. I think the only time he really "shined" in that regard, was the story about the wife, and then about the twins and talking about JK. I'll be honest, and I'm not afraid to say, that I don't follow politics. I pass over it, keep up with the themes and trends, but I think it's all bullshit anyways. I like debates though. I looked at both of them as objectively as I could, and gave them points for impressing me. To make me believe their bullshit. And they do that through speaking confidently and conveying their message in a reputable manner (Kerry citing the Generals who support him was a great move). I think, and a lot of people do, it's (debates) the best time to look at the candidates. Why? Because it's the time where they show who can bullshit best. Who can come off the best. And if the other guy can't catch you on your bullshit, then they're worse and you're better. That's why I hated Gores performance in 00, he didn't do ANYTHING to push Bush. To call him on things. And Bush continued to push the moral button and rest on his personable nature. He didn't come close to doing that tonight. He couldn't even bullshit.

Probably 15 at the max. Figure Wrestlemania 20 had 12, but fucking stuck so many people in those it seemed like 30 matches. *head explodes* On a dream card, which basically means every match is a dream match, you'd allow *15* of them? I'd barely allow 10, and would prefer 8. How much time would you give each of these matches? Do you think anything less than 10 minutes for each (and at some points, 20 minutes minimum) would do? Plus promos, maybe some hype vids, time to milk the crowd during the entrances (and the entrances themselves), the card would be a marathon to get through for the fans, especially considering their involvement in each match. I'm lookin at at least 6 hours. They'd be dead by the main draw.

This is a riot! Mike, Bush did poorly. He looked LOST at so many points during the debate (I've got at least 6) and almost broke down at one point when trying to explain his exit strategy of Iraq. Kerry didn't give a point-by-point assessment of how he was going to do it, but he at least appeared to have a focused, directed approach to handling the situation. Bush did not and he's the fucking president. All of your points are meaningless Mike, do you want to know why? BECAUSE BUSH DIDN'T MAKE THEM. This is the concept of a debate. It was Bush vs. Kerry, not Kerry vs. Mike, and certainly not Kerry vs. Mike with-plenty-of-time-to-come-up-with-answers-and-counter-points-and-explain-them. In this context. In this debate. Kerry blew Bush out of the water. Whatever result that has on the election is for time to decide, but as of right now, he looked good and Bush looked bad. Get this around your head, thinking about it, maybe sleep on it, and then come back and chat.

No, ya don't. This is your original comment: ...... Adding to that, You don't have to talk about what you said before it, even the idea of rationalizing what he did as part of "character" is ridiculous, and the sort of apologetic nonsense that has been spreading about here recently. "They aren't his strength" is like calling a fat kid "husky". And you know what, in that locker room, Bradshaw *is* one of the more "reputable" ones on politics. Val Venis would have been better had GWB been truly a conservative president, but Bradshaw was probably the locker rooms best possible representative (and the locker room has a republican majority).

I so wanna say bad things right now that would probably get me a warning. On an unrelated note - how many matches should be on a dream card?

I think Kerry was way more aggressive than Gore was in 2000. FOR YOU and basically every person already pro-Bush. Kerry may not have blown you and whatever points you have very conveniently and very accessibly with you at the moment and with plenty of time to look over (aka a non-debate format) but he blew BUSH out of the water. Which is what I said. You have continually ignored Bushes poor performance since I have been in this thread, aka, the other half of the debate, where you have not only given Kerry double standards, but we're getting up into the Quadriple standards territory. If you'd like, I could happily go point-by-point with every idiotic thing he said. -=Mike The point you're missing here, Mike, is that Bush didn't and couldn't. Kerry blew him out of the water.

Free will and fate are independant of each other. Free Will is dictated to us by our present and our past, aka our circumstances. God created our circumstances. And for Prayer and Church, I'll throw out Mathew 6:5 for discussion.

Rudo, I don't care if you have 10 pages of notes. Your analysis is just plain bad. Having LOTS of bad stats to back up your bad analysis does not make your bad analysis less bad. -=Mike Irony again! Kerry was MUCH more fluid in speaking, much more confident, much more poised, he counter attacked and attacked with much more ferocity than Bush, he had much better 'one-liners', he showed more focused points and direction than Bush. I went in not thinking much about either guy. Kerry looked much, much better than Bush here. Meanwhile, you hold Kerry to incredible scrutiny while letting Bush of the hook. Who's analysis is bad here?

This is absolutely hilarious. Bush did a _bad_ job debating. The guy had so many flubs and dumbfoudned looks that it honestly look like he came unprepared. Kerry showed up game and he made Bush look even worse. Holy Irony Batman. I had 5 pages of notes regarding almost everthing they said. Is that scientific method? No. Can I at least refer to something specific and have actual reasoning for why I think Kerry blew GW out of the water? Yes. I love how some folks here are trying to spin this as GWB could have came out dressed as Bin Ladin humping the American flag and if Kerry didn't state everything about his plan 100% perfectly, it's considered a loss for the Democrats. Jesus fucking Christ, this place is nuts.

I think Kerry blew Bush out of the water. And this is from someone who thought Kerry would _lose_ in the debates. He was much more aggressive than I thought he'd be, which he needed to do. Bush looked silly at times.