Jobber of the Week

-Linda also commented that the McMahon family won’t be appearing on television as much.

Rock Promos = $$$$$$$

Uhm, no. The Goodbye chants are there. Goldberg Sucks is there. You can hear "Boring" quite clearly although in one scene it merges into a Goldberg chant. As well as a ton of booing. I'd say it's still quite the trainwreck, although just not crashing into the station and out the other side. But most of that is probably because of hindsight. But the audio just seems generally screwy. If this goes onto Disc 2 then I'm upset, but so far it's not THAT bad on headphones. It really hates plan ol' 2-speaker TVs though. I know the show wasn't filmed in 5.1, but I was curious of their use of it on the DVD fucked the audio.

Most TV's nowadays give you choices: * Just stretch it out left and right. This is what you're talking about, it makes everyone look fat, and it just doesn't look good. The main reason for this mode is to stretch out widescreen images sent over a regular signal. Most Xbox games on a widescreen TV first appear as a really skinny and ugly looking full-screen image until you use the stretch mode, and then they look as they should. * Zoom into the center, and lose space on the top and the bottom until the sides fill the TV. A decent enough mode for CNN and other channels (you can actually eradicate those scrolling newsticker bars at the bottom of the screen. Bwahaha, YES!) but not all that useful. * Some TVs have a mode that zooms in a little bit and then stretches things just a little bit on the sides. This does a VERY good job of making the room fill the picture and look like it was made for widescreen, while still keeping what the camera is focused on at the proper size.

I don't see how it hurts minorities, but it does strike a blow against the fifth amendment.

HBO is pan & scanning their fucking WIDESCREEN CHANNEL. I don't know why, but goddamnit that's getting out of control. I should just go back to DVDs at that rate.

*sigh* Okay, one last time. The minimum wage should be adjusted as to the price of necessary goods to have a decent life as an American citizen, understandng that stuff like basic food and shelter is a necessity. What in the hell is wrong with that statement to you guys?

Keith mentioned at some point that WWE was banned from calling things "violent" anymore because of the amount of violence that gets blamed from wrestling, or network censors, or something like that. So it was like they just looked at the script, crossed out "violent" and wrote "physically intense." It was common to hear JR scream about how physically intense a match is. And that just sounds odd and was certainly no replacement for using good ol' violence. INTENSITY really took off after that point.

I have been kicked in the junk before, as well as taken thrown projectiles in the junk from young children who thought it was funny.. I would gladly do it again to avoid such a fate. Unless we're in my time zone instead of his time zone. Then I'd be asleep all day and not really have to deal with him.

Goldberg's problem was that Kane was being gimped by Shane McMahon most of the title reign. It would have helped if we could have had some sort of Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object match between Goldberg and Kane, who were both selling for guys (most notably Non-Wrestler Steve Austin) but still coming out looking strong at the end. All the talent at the time was considered to be on SmackDown. Goldberg/Lesnar turned out to be a complete mis-fire. In my own opinion, they should have gone for Goldberg vs Taker at WM XX. 'Berg and Brim-Hat Taker are the most dominantly-booked characters of both WCW and WWF, and Taker putting away Goldberg would have made his re-entrance strong while still giving Goldberg a credible looking exit when his contract ran out after the show. The only appeal to Lesnar vs Goldberg was that it was supposed to be Champion Vs Champion, until Lesnar dropped to Eddie and everything got messed up. And beating Lesnar and then disappearing for no reason whatsoever was just stupid.

I'd say it's more like Savage. Both could make a good point possibly as long as it stays away from the usual subjects they like to spew crap about. Moore's thoughts on how white people are overwhelmingly racist and building a nation that runs scared from black people is downright offensive to me.

Goddamn, I am a happy boy. 1) HHH didn't job. Why the hell he even sold so much was beyond me when he doesn't even sell that much for guys like Booker T. 2) "Eugene Sucks" signs in the crowd. OH YES MY BROTHERS, I AM NOT ALONE! Kill it! Kill it! Kill it!

It's rare that I find myself wanting to see HHH squash an opponent. But it happened during Goldberg's stay and it's happening again. Cmon, Trips! USE YOUR POWER OF THE BOOK!

You're half way to a Cold Prickly, young man. Even if the rest of the movie is garbage, driving around in an ice cream truck around national landmarks while reading the Patriot Act out of a megaphone is greatness personified. Reminds me of the Homobile or whatever it was he was bothering Phelps with.

Boy, are you set in the old thinking. It does, but it sets it by the value of life's necessities. Food, water, shelter. These are the core reasons why people will do ANY job, universally. You seem to think it's okay if a person is paid so little that they can't afford to have a fixed address. Now that's not being fair to your country or your people. The reason the Americans cost more is because they have to pay for so much more, including the hospital bill when the illegal that took the job injures himself. This would do absolutely nothing to help immigration, as people who came here legally would be punished so the people who jumped the border could work for cheap with the public taxpayer funding his benefits for him. Admit it, there's a line here that should not be crossed, even in the name of "what the work is worth." We have to protect our nation's interests somehow. If not it's economy, it's borders, and your answer supports more illegal immigration. That's a different issue and, amusingly enough, because of economic factors. Namely that it costs a lot less to live in a third-world country than in a one as costly as it is to live here just by taxes alone. Most people above the dead-end job line are making above the minimum wage. This doesn't affect the guy making $50,000 a year as long as he's still making his $50,000. Before illegals became the new work standard, you could. You yourself said that a job is worth whatever you can pay someone to do it, but appearantly that only works when pricing down. If you can't get anyone to do the work for less than $5.25 an hour, then isn't it actually worth $5.25 an hour?

Gee, I guess we should pay people who make clothes wages from 1925, then. STUFF. COSTS. MORE. Economic factors can indicate what someone should be paid more than "the value of work," which appearantly is always set by the bosses. Unless everyone from CEOs to the guy who makes blue jeans should be paid what they were paid when the first generation of people who made a living from that were paid eras ago. Which doesn't help anyone. That's what the work is worth. Like it or not, the MARKET dictates wages. Man, I feel like Stephen Joseph here. But how is the work worth less? BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO SHOULD NOT EVEN BE A FACTOR. Hiring illegal workers who you don't have to provide benefits for because they snuck in and don't want the government to know, is not a legitimate excuse to reduce wages. They shouldn't even have these jobs in the first place! They should be wherever they came from. Most low-end go-nowhere jobs these days involve running cash registers and stocking a store. The only place I imagine you might see a price increase is fast food. Yes, I'm sure training illegals on how to pick food in the fields is expensive. So then what's with the hiring of the illegals, who don't need these benefits? Mike, what you don't seem to understand is that work is already worth more when it's own worth isn't enough to make a living. Nobody wants to have a job that takes all their time AND doesn't give them enough money to own a stable life with food and a roof over their head. Because of the fact that the pay, by it's worth, isn't enough to keep someone alive, nobody would take it if they were simply paid on "what the work is worth." BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THAT DOES? That makes the work worth more! So rather than complaining that people are being paid more than what their work is worth, you should realize that people are being paid more BECAUSE nobody would do the work if they weren't.

As a guy who wants to see this gimmick bite the dust, I will greatly enjoy the HHH/Eugene match. Oh, Nick? As I used to say before I went to cable, "IT'S TIME TO BE UPSTAAAAAGED!" Enjoy the midcard, hon.

Follow the money. You'll find that the UK and Iran are pretty close because of oil. So I doubt they're in any immediate danger. I'm pretty suprised that three military ships could be manned by eight people, though.

I hereby support that someone put this album up for serving and that we all download it.

Whoa, what a coincidence. I was just about to post that I'd use it to run you down.

Why should it be? Why should companies be forced to pay increasingly MORE money for a job that CLEARLY is not WORTH the minimum wage? -=Mike Because the prices of stuff have gone up? I don't know about you on the East Coast, Mike, but over here in California, I'm TIRED of the illegals getting more and more work because the only price the bosses are willing to pay is the absolute cheapest. You know how they say the illegals are only doing jobs no citizen would want to do? That's just not true. Some time ago, all that work in the fields used to be done by second-generation latino Americans, and they did get enough money to make ends meet. Then, at the beginning of one season, people were told they had to work for the lower price the illegals do if they want to keep their job. That money wasn't enough to make a living. And so now the illegals do that work. Americans, even low-end ones, shouldn't be having to fight to survive even on a low end job. I don't mind the illegals having to struggle to keep their finances together because they shouldn't even be here in the first place. If wages remain too low to make an acceptable living in the US, then people who live in the US won't want that job, and the illegals and their friends will win again.

You made it sound like if Kerry doesn't 100% outlaw all outsourcing, then he shouldn't be talking about it. Nobody is going to make outsourcing illegal for obvious reasons.

You have no proof whatsoever of that. Mainly because they haven't even cared enough to check for civilian casualties.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't really affect that much on the skill-based jobs end. Most of those people are paid more than the minimum wage already. Most the minimum wage layoffs are around the high-schooler wage slave lackey jobs (i.e. the kid at McDonalds or the Target checker.) People who craft clothes in America would demand more than the minimum wage even if it didn't existed. People with skills would not want to work at that price. The only people who want to work at the current minimum wage are the aforementioned kids scraping up money for a video game and some DVDs, so why would someone who makes jeans want to work for less? In those other countries, the people there usually have no choice.

Ahahaha. I saw the TV version of that same rant (or a very similar rant inspired by the same 2% figure) on his show a few days ago.