Jobber of the Week

Not just civil unions for gay people. Civil unions for EVERYONE.

Me watched a friend play, and it sucked. But hey, at least the ninja hero and shoot a blast of lightning out of his arse. That has to count for something.

That's just the OVW Curse, bps.

It was a rhetorical question, after all. I haven't heard of a politician that also supports that, at least not one that I've been eligible to vote for.

No Way Out was a small arena, but I got seats right next to the floor for about $45-$50 a piece. The only problem was it was only elevated a couple inches from the floor, so I was pretty much sitting on the floor with the bonus of security guys and other people walking in front of me. I dare say some people who paid less actually got more, since they were elevated and could see Brock & Eddy's matwork. To give you an idea, here's the room from where I was sitting at NWO: Now, big stadium shows (such as this year's SummerSlam, if it takes place at SkyDome after all) is an exception. I paid more for WM19 tickets, about $70 a piece, I think, and I again wound up being in the row right in front of the floor, right over the Mariners dugout. It was elevated over the field/floor, but I was also sitting far away. About as far away as you'd get at cheapseats in a regular arena style show. Here's a picture of that view: When it comes to prices for the premium seating, though, Deon pretty much answered that one right on.

Marriage got state recognition when it was made a Sacrament. Ok.... I do support that. You got a politician who does, so I can vote for him/her?

I thought the new style was pretty great with Eddy/Brock. My main complaint though is just HOW MUCH work is on the shoulers of the heel. I know that Vince has a serious thing for big fat heels, but what happened to a strong powerful challenger who the audience really thought could win? I don't mean Goldberg, where it's a foregone conclusion. But these days there's 90% "heels stacking the deck against the face" and 10% "face makes the comeback." In fact, more often than not, if a face wins, we're supposed to treat it as some sort of miracle that he managed to beat a guy who was either so huge, or survived the odds and ends that had been booked for this angle. It's really hard to go nuts and want your favorite to go in and kick the other guy's ass when so many big heels (HHH especially) are marketed as being so overwhelmingly powerful and unstoppable with every card in their favor. This match style assists that. If your face does win, you just wind up being mildly amused instead of ecstatic. Let's hope that Dead Man Taker at least provides a little more randomness to the scene.

They aren't the only people that use red ropes you know. I guess black ropes have been different, but it's not like boxing or any other ring-based sport changes their ropes that often.

I'm really getting tired of this arguement. How did male/female marriage ever get government recognition in the first place? Was this arguement simply not around? Did people in the 1800s try and get married to dogs and pigs?

Nationwide? State-wide? What are we talking here? This is the same "slippery slope" arguement I just complained about above. How is this being prevented now that it can't be prevented if gays were marrying? What's the difference? How is gay marriage the last vestige preventing this from happening? How would civil unions not endanger it in the same way? Everytime I try and figure this out, it winds up being that there's no arguement, only scare tactics. And yet casinos are appearing all over California, where anti-smoking legislation is typically founded. So why not do TRUE marriage reform? Why not make marriage a religious act that has no bearing on government-recognized unions? That would give the church control of what they consider so sacred, let them argue it out if gays should get married, and gay and straight people have equal rights and protections. There's no reason why the President couldn't ask for THAT kind of reform. Here's a wake-up call: Nobody outside of a few politicians and priests really cares about "family values." Or if they do they're very hypocritical in how they view it. Appearantly, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich getting married again and again and again has no damaging effect on family values. A gay man getting married once does. If you're talking about Massachusetts, the judges base their decision on their intepretation of the state constitution. See California. Without the zero-tolerance discrimination stuff, prop twenty-something would be unopposed. Nah, I'd say it's pretty close. Hannity's comment about Clinton "loathed the military" has to be up there. But I'm making money saying these things like he is. I didn't say that. There's a lot ways to interpret the situation, but Bush's is one of the most extreme.

I'm suprised we ever got to government-sponsored marriage in the first place. If these "What happens next?" people were around, marriage law would have had to be revised 600 times to get rid of the "What If" people.

You actually missed an important point of what I wrote, that hate doesn't exactly mean he wants to grab a knife and kill you. Hate comes in many forms. If this man was being honest about his feelings of marriage, he'd just offer licenses and put marriage back in the church. That way, gay people aren't getting married. If he agreed in the previous conclusions we've reached in these arguements, about how the federal government would handle marriage, he would have proposed those changes. But no, he proposed these. Because he has no interest (or at least no serious interest) in protecting marriage. Instead, he has an interest of setting a radical religious-based agenda to hate gays/lesbians/bisexuals. Congratulations. And all while we're fighting religious zealotry overseas.

That is a political agenda. This is not conservation. This is not conductive to a free society. These are state conflicts being handled in state courts by state governments. Get this in your head: GEORGE W BUSH HATES YOU. And don't tell me he's a nice guy, don't tell me he's just doing what the people want, don't tell me that he's just a religious fellow. He hates you. Hate goes beyond rage. Hate is turning a blind eye. Hate is using people to score political points. Hate is intentionally being ignorant. Stripping rights away is hate. And could you guess there was a new Al-Qaeda video tape today? You, if you're like the majority of the country, did not. And why? Because while war is being waged, people are dying, nations are unstable, soldiers are being shot at, and Osama's henchmen are sending threats via videotape, this President has chosen to hold a press conference about gay marriage. How's it go again? Failure.

An agenda is being applied to the Constitution. Perhaps going into hysterics isn't inappropriate.

Andrew Sullivan, the conservative gay guy that supported Bush up until about, oh, today, and defended the Iraqi war, etc etc etc? Remember him? Now he's up in arms. From his site

Ladies and gentlemen, these are YOUR WWE logos. So if you hate them, blame yourself. Choken One: 2GOLD: Ced: wrestlingbs:

Ahahaha. The President is trying to further a right-wing agenda and you know it. And this will, if there's still decent people out there, not pass, just like all the other crap he's shoveled up in the past few months. I don't think 75% of states will support it. Nobody is eager to make a federal blanket rule on the issue right now. This is purely political, to either make the Democratic candidates agree with him or support full federal licenses for gays. Considering he believes marriage is some sacred institution, you'd think he would be working towards the goal people like you and me ultimately want, which is the government out of marriage. This proposal does not help us get there. In fact, it may actually put it in reverse. He is not trying to help anyone do anything. He is simply trying to help himself.

Oh, poo. The current federal law says it's left up to states. Fine. What's going on right now is a state issue. Bush has no interest in the DOMA, about as much as he wanted to talk to the UN, he just wants to go ahead and mess with the Constitution.

What's he gonna do? Pump him up? Tt's been 100 days now. The first few days had some action and then..... ? And that Collectinator stuff was Bullshit. He hasn't pulled a dime out of President Bush and his compadres in Washington. Suprise, suprise.

He called out Kerry on special interests? Good lord, Nader spent much of his time actually BEING a special interest.

RAAAAR! EVERYONE SELLS FOR BILLY GRAYBEARD! BILLY GREYBEARD WILL NOT LEAVE NORTH AMERICA WRESTLING SCENE LOOKING LIKE A FOOL! BRET HART KICKS FOR YOU! Good for Brock. He has no neck for his head to be kicked off of.

FWIW, they've changed belts on short notice before. The previous WWF title, which guys like Rock/Austin/HHH carried around in the late 90s, started off with a block logo on it (even though the scratch logo was already appearing here and there for the first time the next night) and then changed to scratch at about the same time the ring apron did.

KONG! KONG! KONG!

BENOIT THE HOSS KILLER

He was selling as early as No Way Out, so I doubt it. I do want to see them stiff each other to hell, though. If friggin' Jericho could bring him down with techincal wrestling, Brock should be able to tie him in knots.