Jobber of the Week

I'm still not seeing the "other" screen used for anything but minimaps, which is disappointing and dull.

Starcade was cancelled several weeks ago because the people on their forum were becoming harder than hell to deal with, flaming and screaming and shouting about how the show was just too old. Bastages. Now I see more episodes of "Filter" than ever. And they should have dumped shit like Thunderbirds. Come on already.

Fallon is okay, and the rest of the cast never has anything bad to say about him. I know he gets a bit of a bad rep because everyone's girlfriends think he's really cute, but this is a bit much.

I don't remember politicians pandering to NAMBLA.

There was none when he realized that the set painters were union.

...that's because I said individual users of the newsgroups. If the charges are serious enough, the ISP won't risk a lawsuit against THEM by refusing to divulge individual user's informatioon. If they went through the trouble of contacting webmasters who host media, as well as filing lawsuits against eBay users who illegally sell dubbed copies of their shows, they'll ask ISP's to divulge information on those who infringe on their copyrights. No, you seem to not understand. The newsgroup services intentionally go out of their way to not give out your privacy, unless a court orders them to. I don't think WWE is interested enough in this shit to actually go to court. They are sending letters saying they might go to court because they know most people will see that and fold immediately. And more and more providers go up all the time. Even the RIAA and MPAA have not bothered to go after newsgroups. I don't think they'll be shut down, ever. It's not like BitTorrent or Kazaa where your IP address is sitting there for all to see. And even in those cases, most ISPs just forward a "We received a complaint, stop sharing those files" letters to their customer and don't follow up on it unless it happens again. WWE can't afford the time or money to sit and go after individual users RIAA style. Again, this letter is just a big scary threat because they know the user will simply stop instead of challenge it.

No, you really can't shut down newsgroups. Most posters use another service to post other than their ISP, and those are reluctant to give up user information unelss the WWE is really serious enough to go to court to have the address pulled. I doubt they are, and that this is just intimidation. I expect to see Orlando Jordan become WWE Champion before they can successfully go after newsgroups.

Okay, first, this is basically saying Drudge is liberal. heh. I think the point is proved right there. And Stephen, while what you say about Fox might be true, it doesn't mean that their tactics is good journalism. see also: the overly aggressive interview. Anyway, I used to watch Fox daily when it first launched, back then I had no clue about media bias. It was alright, though I was really too young to be interested in the news to that level and just stopped eventually. Some years later, I was reading a review of MSNBC that claimed it walked the line somewhere between CNN's left and Fox's right bias. Keeping that in mind, I went back when Clinton was leaving office and holding a speech just out of the blue one day and the host was checking to see if anyone had anything nice to say about the situation, and everybody kind of burst into chuckles because nobody at the table had anything positive to say about Clinton. Then someone started talking about "the people who believe in this man" like he's a cult leader or something. I think I went back to non-news from there. Fox was ok, but the propaganda ramped up a lot higher once W started running, I think. Keep in mind I never watched O'Reilly or anything at that time, so I had no opinion of that.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG966IMLD1.DTL

Okay, so after a bleeding heart supe judge nearly overturned the will of the voter, and a bunch of lawyers filed suit on behalf of some homeless women to temporarily hault it, San Francisco finally began the program of "Care Not Cash" yesterday. Basically what this means over the course of the rest of the year, more homeless people will be seeing their welfare checks drastically cut and will be offered shelter instead. Too compassionate for it's own good, San Fran has been doling out checks to homeless on welfare that's some of the largest around. Instead of getting the homeless people using the money to get off the street and reduce the amount of them, the number of homeless in the city has exploded, as homeless from other cities have been making the trek to SF, as life under a box or a cart in San Francisco is a lot more financially lucrative than doing so in the surrounding cities. "Care Not Cash" is supposed to be the first step in correcting this problem. Although the city will still be paying money per homeless person, the homeless will mostly be given an oppertunity to come out of the streets, instead of freely being handed hundreds of dollars to spend on whatever they desire. But will it work? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG386FDDH1.DTL So, is this a better welfare system? My own opinion is it won't get homeless people on their feet by itself, but hopefully it'll keep the tide of out-of-city hobos from rushing in.

I didn't say I respected Regan then either. Appearantly, it's impossible to say that Reagan did something right that I probably wouldn't have LOVED back then but understand now. But there's sharp contrasts between how Reagan operated and how Bush operated, perhaps not when it comes to dealing with other countries, but certainly when it comes to dealing with the American people.

UK DVDs have a different region code. If you have a region-free player, or a DVD drive in your PC, there won't be a problem.

So we should have gone after bin-Laden earlier? Fine. That doesn't mean we should become interventionists in regional conflits that have been sparring on since before our era, exception for Israel-Palestine since it involves an ally (although to be honest, Israel has everything they need to wipe out the opposing side now anyway). Are you so dim that you don't see the problem in that? That spreads paranoia, that causes America to get attacked MORE by other countries because in their mind if they didn't do it first than we'd just go after them first instead. Yes, and we shouldn't be. See a few paragraphs up. That's not "the entire left", that's fucking America. That's human nature to be oriented toward's one's own self, or in this case, one's country, and not spend our labor and our lives and our money on land and religious disputes on the other side of the globe that have been going on for 100+ years. You're crippling yourself by thinking this is simply left/right. My Dad's been voting Republican since before I've been alive, aside from 92 when he voted Perot. He doesn't discuss politics much, he doesn't attend rallies, he doesn't even feel comfortable talking about political subjects with friends, neighbors, or even us. He grew up watching the Cold War and Vietnam and while he doesn't see Vietnam in the Iraq war like "the entire left" does, even HE's not voting for Bush out of anger of the Iraq situation (actually leaving the ballot blank, since he won't vote for Kerry either.) This isn't left vs right. This is Americans vs an administration that thinks it can set all the rules it likes without having to answer to anyone or anything. I support having a larger supply of firearms than the other guy. I support storing and the necessary use of nuclear weapons, though I don't approve scaling nuclears down to the point that they can be used as conventional non-WMD warfare. If you're going to go to war with someone, you'd better be prepared to nuke them. If you're not ready to use nukes, then you shouldn't go to war with them. I've carped about Reagan in previous threads here. I'm just saying I don't see him as entirely bad. Same with Bush Sr, who was a pretty good President aside from his opinion on Athiests. I have little to say good about Bush Jr other than the Do Not Call list. He's definitely in the top 5 of my list of Worst Presidents.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2003EDT0838.DTL You know, they really do work hard to perpetuate the negative reaction and stereotype they receive.

No. If 9/11 showed anything, it was doing nothing. It was quite a fluke though, nothing else in the history of terror attacks has ever been done on that scale, and even Osama himself was shocked that it worked. Go ahead and say Clinton should have done more, but don't say that excuses doing stuff to people only because they CAN attack us. Because almost anyone CAN. Nazi Germany was one country instead of a dozen or so, and hasn't been in the middle of fighting for centuries. Bush will lose it if he doesn't have any plan to make the war stop by November. Almost nobody likes to hear this shit about how the War On Terror will be America's calling card for the next several decades and how it will be taxing our nation's burden for a long time to come. That's not the sign of a man with a plan. That's the sign of a man who's just going to wage war for however many terms until someone comes in and replaces him. It's a close race, but it could turn more easily based on Bush's Iraq performance than it could on taxes or Kerry's voting record. This war will soon cost a quarter of what the entirety of Vietnam cost. Oh hell no. An arms race and mutually assured destruction is an expensive but ultimately final way to solve any conflict. It worked. Unfortunately, the Russians didn't pin their death and destruction on God, which is the case here. God makes people do funny things, like call bluff and talk about virgins when faced with annihilation I was in goddamn diapers or grade school, don't ask me to excuse "the left" of the 1980s. I'm was just saying GOOD THINGS that Reagan did, and you're coming back to me with no reason about all the resistance he had doing it, or something. I can't own any responsibility for that. Holy hell.

LOL. The Bush Doctrine could be what causes this country to be stuck in endless battle for 50+ years. Going after the guys that bloodied our noses is fine, but when he went into Iraq he pretty much made the US a player in Middle East affairs, which is the most brutal and most unforgiving political scene on the planet. What we need for a democratic Middle East first is a President that might not be loved universally, but is mostly liked by those in America outside of the close party circles. Heck, even *I* can say nice things about Reagan, even if I disagreed with how he handled this or that. The second thing is that we need a President who's honest, which is going to be hard to find with these constant races between the two guys who pander the most out of any particular group. Reagan won because he said he'd put an end to the whole thing, and he did. AFAIC, Bush is Evil Mirror Universe Reagan. Ronnie would let you know what he's going to do, how much he's going to need for it, and then go do it. Bush keeps secrets, told us he was going after Al-Qaeda and wound up in Iraq, and keeps escalating the cost as things deviate more and more away from the plan. Let's not even compare spending records. Hah.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html Hmm... You're also either with us, or against us, unless you provide enough oil that you're vital to us, in which case you can make exceptions and the President will be closer and more open to you than Colin Powell.

Exactly. The partisans were ready and waiting, energized by the Rush Limbaugh rants, but the normal, not-really-into-politics people who vote only because "it's your duty" really weren't with them. That's the question the Democrats will find out this November. I'm pretty sure the average Joe Democrats out there have figured out why Bush is bad for them, which is why it's so close.

I think it's similar to the arguement of who ended the Cold War (Reagan only or Reagan and everybody else)

I wish cable could get LinkTV, they have a program called Mosaic that's a bunch of news broadcasts from the Middle East overdubbed into English. Say what you will about bias (though some Arab channels have been pretty well-balanced in the prisoner case), but seeing images of bloodied bodies on the ground, regardless of whether or not they did something to provoke it (and they usually do), is a more realistic sight than most of the US stuff, which makes war look like a paintball game. However, you really need to moderate yourself when it comes to seeing stuff like that, too.

Actually, the ruling is oriented around the UK. They could have just gone ahead and not blurred the old logo in North America and not release anything with the logo in the UK, but the UK fans are drawing more and making more cash than North America with the current business downturn.

I have the entire show (One Night Only) in MPEG format if anyone cares. I'd rather not sit and package the whole thing for you guys, but it sounds like Undertaker/Hart got cut out of north america and maybe there's some other good matches?

Yesterday someone on Fox paraded around their opinion poll which said that the economy was most important on people's minds, that they thought Bush would handle the economy better than Kerry, and then the host through out there that we should blame Bill Clinton for what's happening on Bush's watch. Typical Fox. But the best part was that poll that showed that people were more concerned with the economy than anything else: "Security" and Iraq were labeled as two different issues. Put together, they actually outnumbered the economy. Just another way how Fox tweaks their polls.

The point of the whole ad debate is he's "undermined the war on terror" about as much as Cheney did in that administration. Guess who's now Mr. War On Terror now? (here's a hint: Halliburon.) Admittedly, this rebuttal doesn't make a very good 15sec soundbyte, which is why the public will never find out, so I'm not bitching about the ad's effectiveness. I'm bitching because it intentionally misleads. And what happened to those destroyed towers American flag raising coffin of firefighter being carried out adverts he was running before? Regardless of whether it was a good move or not to put the footage in, that was actually positive advertising in terms of boasting his record and talking about himself instead of Kerry. And no, the incumbent doesn't need to just sit and throw mud. He can, but that's pretty poor performing among voters. He COULD actually talk about what he plans to do if elected again, beyond hydrogen cars in 2000-whenever. Coming up with something more long term. I mean, hey, I'm more than happy if Bush just wants to fling shit until November. Eventually it hurts him, and it certainly doesn't avoid the "Vote me 'cuz I'm not him" element.

Regardless, there is way too much amateur Photoshopping going on in this thread. Let ol' Jobber make you a Bash poster to be proud of: There. Now don't that feel good?