Jobber of the Week

Gephardt is dropping out.

74% in: Kerry 38% Edwards 32% Dean 18% Gephardt 11% Kucinich 1% Sharpton 0 (Source: MSNBC) Sweet Jeebus!

My guess is people liked Dean both because the media was happy to give him attention, and because he provided the kind of energy people wanted to see. What with the fact that Bush is definitely going to wrap himself as the President that united us on 9/11 and fought terrorism, a lot of Democrats felt it was a foregone conclusion for a longest time and it was a fight not worth fighting. Dean raised sprits and began convincing the country that, yes, this man is beatable. But now that we've come down to voting time, people are now seriously considering who they think can beat Bush, and that doesn't necessarily mean Dean.

Safeco Field didn't allow rude gestures or profanity either and even printed that in the WM19 program (they actually made some waves in Seattle news for throwing a guy out with a profanity t-shirt during a Mariners game early on.) Didn't stop Durst and Austin from swearing and flipping off the whole joint. Also, only about a half million WWE events have been held at MSG recently, and I see camera flashes at every single one. Since the ticket just says no laser pens or video cameras, I'd just go with that and forget about the house rules.

There's really nothing to do but just sit and wait. It looks like a four-way heat. My guess is Kerry and Edwards make big jumps, Gephardt fizzles, and Dean doesn't look like the unstoppable force he's looked like for four months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/politics...gns/18TRAI.html

Well, he got tired and slipped pretty often as well. "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

Perhaps it's pinfall/submission only?

A Battle Royal, assuming it's over-the-top only, allows them to go all over the place, jumping around the ring, the crowd barrier, the stage, etc. Guys, there's only so much WrestleMania to go around and MSG costs quite a bit to loan it out for a day, so a 38-hour WrestleMania where everyone gets their own 45 minute match is just out of the question.

Jesus. No matter how you do it, you're going to regret it later in life. I suggest you start by emailing [email protected] though.

I once said I felt sorry for the poor jobbers of the week who were shoved out on Nitro to face Goldberg night after night. I thought it made an amusing online identity since it implies someone who is so void of identity that they're simply known by their presentation. And hey, it works better than "Spineless Liberal Whiner."

Well, it didn't say his campaign, just that it was given to Howard Dean. Uhhh... Maybe they had a sports bet?

I think he ALWAYS KNEW that rich people paid more in taxes.

Here, let me ask it to you like this: About a year ago, a CNBC host took some flak because she interviewed the CEO of a company that she owned stock in. Before the interview began, she looked into the camera and explained to the audience that she was a stockholder. Some people complained and said they should have chosen someone else to do the interview. CNBC stood behind her because she was honest about her holdings and left it up to the viewer's interpretation to decide whether her interview was biased/too soft/etc. So what the question boils down to is, do you approve of something like that, or not?

Is it really that different from a journalist admitting that they own stock in a company during the business section?

Truly, let us put this away and make a random picture display anyway. I hate the subject and Mike really has no response other than "look what you're talking about." With that in mind...

You just don't like to cite cases or evidence, do you? You simply want to jump to conclusions and make assumptions, and I'm getting tired of it. This is a very poor debate because it's fueled by your opinion of how the ACLU thinks with nothing to go on but assurances that you're right. Give a listen to this one: PEOPLE CAN ADVOCATE FUCKING LITTLE BOYS AS MUCH AS THEY WANT NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT REVOLTS YOU OR ME. IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH. If Michael Jackson wants to tell a British journalist that he thinks sleeping with young boys builds trust, then go ahead, Michael, and tell away! And take the public ridicule and stigma that comes along with that! You have the freedom to talk about one of our country's biggest taboos and make a reputation for yourself as a freakshow. But at current writing, no judge or jury has convicted him of being a child molestor, and that's what really matters.

Oh yeah, you really want to beat that Bush/Hitler drum hard don't ya? Never mind it was one entry (well, two, there was a similar ad that went virutally unnoticed becase the RNC didn't host it) out of thousands. I can't imagine Miller without the words Cock and Fuck, but I guess I can try. He really started getting unfunny when he landed at FNC though, partisanship or no.

Exactly. To be honest, I don't want to either.

Well, at this point we can start splitting hairs. We can debate outlets that have a lenient donation policy versus a strict one versus a "well, as long as they're not covering politics" policy. We can debate subtracting Paul Begala because he's a partisan opinionmaker and former Clinton staffer. We can debate bias in a guy supporting his brother's campaign when having a brother in a campaign could ensure biased journalism donations or no. Then we could toss Mike's crap in here about whether McCain should be counted a Republican or not, etc. But that would be a major shitstorm. I think the initial figure speaks for itself.

Stupid "what if"s like this make you lose credibility. If some guy was being charged with child pornography charges on little girls and was having his rights violated, I'm sure the ACLU wouldn't be afraid to step in. Well, it helps when you have evidence instead of just sitting around hypothesizing. It's a Christmas tree. It promotes the Christmas holiday. Now, I'll give you that you have to have an incredibly weak spine in religious tolerance if you get offended with a Christmas tree. But it's not like it's somehow any less religious-linked than a menorah. And in legal church/state issues, that's all that matters. The case I think you're talking about involved a state branch of the ACLU, not the focus of the whole. And Canada's already been here and done this and they didn't even need the ACLU to bother them about it. That's not it at all. A better analogy would be, "you have every right to talk about fucking little boys as you do to talk about snorting lines of coke. But if there's tangible evidence you've done these things, then there's a problem."

I heard that Maria Shriver supported some guy for California Gov.

Yeah, I really remember how he was holding down the likes of Chyna, X-Pac, and Vince McMahon. And everyone scratches their heads and wonders why WWE talks shit about the internet.

Damn straight.