Jobber of the Week

Whoops. Wrong thread.

I'm close to that size but just an inactive overweight guy. A 135lb guy pretty much kicked me into the wall in a struggle once. But he's also a tall skinny guy, over 6' tall and with really strong legs as he does regular outdoor sports. I doubt many women who weight 135 would be doing the same thing. The other thing was, if this weight was MUSCLE, there's be no justification to it whatsoever. I have very little muscle for the aforementioned lack of exercise. I know Spare Tire Steve Austin isn't a musclebound stud, but there's no reason for a guy big enough to bodyslam people for a living to be hitting women.

If it's Raw guys, then substitute Test for Billy Gunn.

Leo always looked to me like he irritated everyone else. He seemed to be more into the broadcasting and putting on a show than being into the computers. Which probably explains why 7 out of every 10 questions he took was either easy or "email us and we'll give you more detailed information." Now, Patrick Norton, on the other hand, looks like your company's IT guy, sounds like it, and usually looks ready to roll his eyes at Leo's antics. Best thing I can say about Leo is that he's been doing it since he and Soledad O'Brian hosted The Site on MSNBC (ZD/TechTV crammed into a one hour show, part of the MSNBC launch lineup.)

Sorry, if I don't READ DA INSIDER NEWZ for your approval. I don't claim to have any part of it other than watch 5 hours of TV each week. Yes, only 5.

Well, it's not good public relations, that's for sure. It's just plain stupid to make lighthearted jabs at a serious issue that is your responsibility. It belittles it and gives the audience the impression that you're not serious about it. Why don't you see that it puts a negative light on the search for WMD's? It probably would have been better for him to just sit there and insist there were WMDs somewhere for the rest of his term than go ahead and MAKE FUN OF IT. If you won't admit that it's bad taste to make a joke over a mistake that PEOPLE DIED OVER, then at least admit it's a bad idea for your own reputation when you're left holding the bag for it.

My only complaints with the discredit of Clarke is how people who do it will agree wholeheartedly with his previous comments. He's either a lying sack of shit or he's not. Get over it and stop trying to maneuver into some sort of position where he was an honest man when talking about how Clinton was a total bumfuck when it came to terrorism but is now lying when he says the same about Bush.

First Goldberg, then Austin. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, this could be a good year.

Hulk Hogan has always been the same crappy wrestler. But one of his characters had so much appeal with the marks that he could work it for 7 years and nobody cared. I think I figured out why so many of us (myself included) like this character: 1) It's grounded in reality. Bradshaw really does appear on Fox News, he really did write a book (even if WWE had to publish it for him.) People like angles grounded in reality, because the only way kayfabe can exist in this industry now is to play off reality. 2) It's old-school. Really. The cocky-assed heel with a lot of money who tells crowds how much better he is than everyone is always over, especially with that Texas oil baron kind of gig they have going for him right now. The "pretentious high-culture rich heel" bit has been done to death in WWE because of Vince McMahon. But it's been a long time since we had a country guy who sold out and went big city. But that wasn't an uncommon idea in the old territorial days.

Ahahaha he counts Ready To Rumble.

We thought he knew what he was getting into in WWE, too. Especially when from Day One their site had an "interview" with HHH where he specifically mentioned that there would be no 100-match streaks because "we don't have a talent pool deep enough to do that kind of thing." That was like the calm before the storm. Everybody saw it coming but him.

Huh? What do you mean? I like the idea of how he goes on about wanting to not be beaten up but has plans to wrestle in Japan. Oh, Billy-boy, you're going to be so wrong.

They're filming in Edmonton? If this movie ended with Bret storming the set and putting Goldberg in a legit Sharpshooter, fading to black with him tapping and struggling, it would be a lock for Best Picture.

I don't understand the point of being a smark. I mean, they know we exist because we post on the internet and they claim we're being outrageous, so it doesn't mean anything more if they meet one in real life than see one on a message board. What I would do however would wound EVERYONE'S pride and strike a balance between mark and smark. What I would do is to keep asking where Brock Lesnar is and talk about how all these guys are losers and Brock Lesnar whipped their asses. This not only doesn't immediately reveal you as some kind of bitter smark, but also wounds their pride quite a bit. The only exception is if Steve Austin was there, in which case I would not be able to resist asking why he keeps going over everyone on the roster with his wrestling career on hold.

That received flack and disapproval from a lot of Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, who's both far left (huge gun control advocate) and a pretty influential figure among voters in state politics. The Democrats are not rallying around the San Francisco Mayor the way the GOP rallies around Bush. Sorry.

Why? No matter how much those people on the streets want to sit and shout about "not my President" or whatever, he, Bush, *IS* the President. I dont see what's so hard to grasp about that.

I'm not saying you're being an attack dog. It probably wouldn't be too inaccurate sometimes if I did, but my point is that, if I just go ahead and take the NRO (which has a history of right wing politically, as does Fox, as does Weekly Standard, as does others) this is just another sign of Clarke saying one thing and then saying a complete 180. Okay, fine, but why doesn't that go in the already established Clarke thread? Because this time he said something you agree with. You may not notice it yourself, Mike, but I've noticed a subtle flow of posts coming in as new topics just because it's something that agrees with you. Like, why couldn't all those "Not saying anything but..." threads of Kerry flip-flops or goofs in seperate threads? I'm not criticizing you, I'm not even telling you to tone down your posting or anything because I think on any other week we probably post the same amount of stuff, I'm just asking you to take a look at the first page of topics or so and see if there's a topic for it. We technically could have had five different Clarke topics by now for each little revelation about his credibility, but that's cluttered.

-=Mike Interesting. But is that somehow less partisan than what Clarke's done? I don't mind the image that Clarke is out to get the Bush Admin for sour grapes, but nobody sees the politics in realeasing an interview transcript with reporters while he's doing his testimony, or in this. But hey, I'll give them a chance, because maybe he did say something different then. We'll see.

It'll find out what happened, which we really ought to know, and possibly prevent it from happening again. Cute attempt at hypocracy there, but I never said anything about being too stiff.

I need an MP3. I used to listen occasionally to him before he got replaced with the likes of Matt Drudge and Michael Savage. That disappoints me, because he actually admitted at one point that he was wrong, which blew me away because those guys named above, Hannity, Rush etc never do that. I remember when a gay-oriented talk program I was listening to invited him on without telling him what it was for a game of "let's ambush the right-winger." He handled the whole thing calmly and when asked why the social right are constantly trying to fight gays, responded with "I'm going to say something you'll never hear out of those other radio hosts: I don't know." He's supposedly a real asshole off-air, but I generally don't care about those kinds of things.

Well at least Sting can wrestle.

Roar. Stuff like Robot Wars and Anime Unleashed was stuff that didn't belong on TechTV in the first place. It's going to be amusing to see G4's hair-gel and "WHOA THIS IS TOTALLY PHAT, BRAH!" overeager personalities clash with TechTV's "35 year old with a beer gut" nerds.

And if I were him, I would have premiered a new BarneyCam movie or something. Don't actually make light that you went and INVADED A COUNTRY because intelligence, even worldwide intelligence, was wrong. You should be angry that happened. You should be trying to get to the root of that and find out how it occured. You shouldn't be making a joke out of it.

This makes everything he says suspect, true. Yet, some how, saying there was an Iraq/Sep11 link warrants it's own thread and is quite possibly the truth. Whatever.

Maybe I spoke too strongly, but what I'm trying to say is that the general public tends to move together like a herd of sheep, all going in the same direction even if each individual is not well-informed of where they're going. Sometimes, they are so ill-informed they probably should not be allowed to make the decision (see that interracial marriage poing someone made earlier, the same is true for interracial schools as well.) Nice, so not only do ignore a piece of checks and balances (court reviewal, interpretation, and decision) but you do so by making me sound like the condescending one, all the while being mocking and insulting at the same time. A hat trick, good for you. Why do we elect representatives, anyway? Because they represent us and vote on issues for us. We do not sit and run phone-in polls on each and every issue like renaming a Post Office in Arkansas. I'm sure there's been many times an issue has come up where an issue, either big or as small as naming a Post Office, where a representative has voted differently than the majority of their constituency. These things happen, they're a result of a nation where not each and every thing is decided and finalized by us all sitting around checking a YES or NO box on everything.