Jobber of the Week

And then maybe we'll have some definitive numbers, and we'll see how people will react. I firmly believe that "rich" will be pretty rich, though. Bill O'Reilly goes on about how the Dems want to raise his taxes, but we're not even talking Bill O'Reilly rich (and he is pretty wealthy.) We're talking the top 1%, insanely rich wealthy. Most Dems agree the rich are getting a free ride right now anyway. As Warren Buffet put it, "there's class warfare in this country, and my class is winning."

Now, now, let's be realistic. Don't hold me to everything "the left" has said. Exactly how much control did Gore have over the highs, or the lows, of Clinton's very controversial legacy. More specifically, what abilities did he have in the case of arms sales? Pushing the worst of the Clinton times onto Gore was the most obvious, and most commonly relied upon, embellishment in right-wing attack ads in 2000.

I don't think so. After Ken, Martha, and others, the middle class' view of the upper crust is at a low for recent times. Republicans would be outraged, of course, it goes against their M.O. Dems and swings will notice it as the same old bullshit party attack we've always seen.

What powers did the VP have in this situation? Mostly he just opens and closes Congress and presides over joint sessions.

Now you're just doing party shit-flinging. I just simply answered what you previously said. Yes, with a fair amount of KONTEXT-AWAY it could sound like bad news to middle America. Taken in proper context, most of middle America wouldn't give a shit.

Cmon, Mike. It's an near-anonymous smear ad. Even you're admitting that it's pinning Clinton's issues on Gore.

Ditto.

Yes, and the readers will really care because she wants to raise Barbara Streisand's taxes. Again, these are the same people the Right claims are so wealthy that they're way out-of-touch with the rest of America. I don't think the GOP will be able to shed any tears for them, or convince anyone else to. If Hillary was saying this to a bunch of mid-class workers, that'd be different.

I dunno Mike, but... Have you checked out these people's website? I wouldn't consider that ad one of "the finest accountability ads in the industry." Not to mention that when you start resorting to nuclear doomsaying to endorse a candidate in today's age, and in yesterday's pre-terrorwar days, you're getting pretty crazy.

Maybe in inproper context. But she's talking to the "liberal elite," who are plenty wealthy. There's millions upon millions of votes that don't care about their taxes going up.

No, I'm going to say that someone in the organization, as Vyce said, royally fucked it up.

Wow, this will really boost recruitment numbers among the volunteers.

Vyce, this is where I'm getting. I do not agree with you that people should be barred from certain jobs after they've done their time. But, ACT's hiring process said some of these people shouldn't have been hired. I'm now trying to figure out why Mike wants to bitch about all of ACT like they endorsed it and not simply say they should kick out whoever broke the rules, which to me is a logical method of reaction. My suspicion is that the reason Mike wants to call everyone in ACT a sick asshole, instead of whoever broke the rules, is because of the political connection. And if he's going to do that, he could at least be open about it.

There was rules against it. An employee (singular or plural) broke the rules. Why the hell not blame whoever it was that broke their own stated rules?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...NYT02/405290697 They're trying. I know the group that has filed suit against Moore for his film is a right-leaning 527. Traditionally, though, when it comes to the really dirty tactics, the right has just relied on crazies.

Hmmm. I hate the local metro, but it's not because of your usual "fuck the police" cries of race and age discrimination. The problem here is that they're terribly ineffective. I live right between two stops signs and alongside a north/south road in a bed & breakfast city where there's almost no other way than the one (crowded) 101 freeway to get north to south. That means people use it as an international speedway. I wouldn't even mind THAT except that the neighbor across the street is a huge Harley-Davidson fanatic and has a whole bunch of modified motorcycles that cause so much noise that if I can't hear them because I'm playing headphones even louder, I can still feel it on the far other side of the house. Is *ANYBODY* getting ticket for any of this? No, of course not, are you stupid? And the police doesn't want to do anything to hinder speed, of course, since they run up and down the street with the sirens on. You might think they're responding to an emergency, but then you live here for a week and become less foolish. They're just going to and from lunch, because they run up and down the street with the sirens at the exact same time every single weekday, like clockwork. That said, I shouldn't be complaining THAT much about the accelleration, since I have a nice collection of high-speed persuit videos. I used to enjoy "World's Wildest Police Chases," but after realizing they almost never show a video where the police doesn't get their man, stopped caring. Plus, that announcer and his crap about "THIS BOY THOUGHT HE COULD ESCAPE FROM THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW BUT NOW HE'S DOING HARD TIME" is like the police equivelant of those anti-smoking ads that practically dare you to smoke. Someone's going to go violent on Johnny Law someday because of that asshole.

You wanna know how to make stuff like thid receede, while still giving Iraqis confidence that their new government works? I don't know what the situation will be, but we quickly need a point where the Iraq government tells the US military to back off, and the US does just that. We're no longer the occupying power here. We need to look like that. We can still get rid of Al-Qaeda as they show up but at least then we'll have less Iraqi insurgents (whatever that means) on our backs. The reason Iraqis have been turning against us is almost assuedly because they've been feeling very powerless lately. A scenario where the government can display powers of moderation over our operations will make it look less like we're running the show, and make people happier because they finally "won" a conflict.

I believe Kazaa had sued Google into basically gimping any searches for Kazaa Lite. Link still needed.

No, no, no. Besides, Eric S would probably see the thread where we all laughed at him for being a 40 year old internet columnist and throw a fit. If it came down to it, I'd much rather have Mike than Monroe. It's aboslutely impossible to have a convo with anyone whose beliefs are founded on kookoo theories that you're some sort of Stalinist. Plus Mike can be pretty smart when he wants to be. The more he starts flaming people, though, the less informative content comes through.

Oh yes it fucking does. What the hell happened to personal responsibility? I'll throw your question back at you, what if it was a conservative 527 that did this? You don't want to blame the individual, you'd rather blame the group and then just tell us that they're very, very, very close to the Kerry campaign without any real anecdotal evidence on that one. This way we can bring the thread closer to saying that John Kerry Supports Grandma-rapists, which is what the goal has been since page one.

Alright then, fair enough. I still maintain that we don't even know if there was any sex crimes involved in that situation, but anyway. It's not that I think it's not a bad idea if people endanger children and that others should do it, what I'm trying to say is just because made a bad idea and raped someone 20 years ago, doesn't make them incapable of handling information or money. Of course I have a lot less inherant tolerance for someone who raped someone underage if they're more than a few years older than the other person, we all do. Still doesn't change much in the effect that ex-cons have been doing similar work for a long time, and nobody cared because there was no politics involved.

Remember that a lot of guys who have been in the business before a certain point hold a grudge on the current tell-all situation it's in today. You can't deny that being an informed fan and knowing what's in the dirtsheets doesn't make the show a smidge less fun.

I'd support having multiple "big" parties if I could. It'll be a long time, but we may see one yet. If a whole voting bloc with a good number of people felt they were being ignored on both sides, you could get a third party started. However, I've seen quite a bit of this the past few times: Nader: I think I'm going to run. Democrats: OFF WITH HIS HEAD! D-Candidate: Nononononononono, don't run! Republicans: Run, Ralph, run! > Nader: Well, you know, maybe I won't run... D-Candidate: *whew* Nader: But I'll feel less like running if D-Candidate takes this position, and this position, and this one... D-Candidate: But moderates are uncomfortable with this stuff.... Nader: I FEEL AN ACHIN' IN MY BONES, I GOTTA RUN! D-Candidate: Okay, okay, you got it. And then, like a choose your own adventure, either the Dem refuses and Nader runs, or the Dem takes the baggage and Nader runs.

Here's what happened. Letterman was eating at a restaurant with some friends. He finds out that halfway through the meal that Oprah was at the same restaurant with some of her friends. So as he leaves, he tells the waiter to give the tab to Oprah because the meal was on her. Except it wasn't. Oprah is stuck paying Dave's bill. This turns into a bunch of goofyness where Dave is asking Oprah to come on his show, and started buying space to have "OPRAH CALL DAVE" on billboards and signs and crap. It just spiraled on from there when Oprah didn't find it very funny.

"Polls show John Kerry ahead of George W Bush by a (insert number ,usually 4-7) point lead, but with Ralph Nader added in a 3 man race, Kerry's lead drops to (small number, usually about 2) points." The problem with these polls is it would never be a strict three man race. The polls operate on the assumption Nader will have as much advertising, word of mouth, and generally will be able to get out there as much as much as the two major candidates. Anyone with a sense of reality knows he won't. I agree with both NCM and Tyler. Nader didn't cost the 2000 debacle, but he was obviously trying to get Kerry to support his platform more by threatening to run again.