Jobber of the Week

How? I'm talking in a purely historical sense here. CC was wondering where this mindset regarding casualties comes from, and it's born out of a combination of support for the Powell Doctrine and the common sense thinking that having less casualties > more casualties.

Er, maybe you saw some relevance that I didn't, but I'm just talking about the Powell Doctrine over here.

It's more an extension of the "Troops shouldn't have to be on the ground risking their lives unless there's no other way to do it" approach, which was more or less penned by Colin Powell, ironically enough.

Never said it was propaganda. Simple. Sit back and watch your man snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Well.... 1) Hussein was a scared rat living in tunnels. This is not the appearance of a man who is large and in charge. This means that the resistance we're encountering isn't being controlled by Saddam but is simply fighting for the sake of fighting and will have to be dealt with using force. 2) There's no signs the economics improvements are stable, it could fall apart again by November. 3) Rebuilding Iraq is going to be challenging. This is certainly a feather in Bush's cap, but it doesn't guarantee him re-election. The US economy is a transforming beast, what with the amount of work being exported out of the country. And if he pulls a page from his father's book and claims we should simply become a country of servicemen, then he can kiss his ass goodbye with swing voters and the unemployed. Bush will need to prove by November that his group is capable of rebuilding, when all the non-military actions there have been pretty darn attackable (Haliburton favoritism, country building lockouts, and whatever else we've talked about in the past few Iraq threads.) At the same time, the Dems will be railing on the subject as well as others such as the expansion of government powers and increased secrecy under the current leadership.

Today is really far away from next November, really.

Bitch? No, I'm *EXCITED* this energy can now be spent on finding someone who actually was a threat to us!

This post (and the posts that proceeded it along the same message) would have had more impact if it hadn't been on the same page as a straight guy posting:

I got woke up for this. Well, color me suprised. Guys like this usually blow themselves away. The affects of this will most likely be felt in the very short and likely the very long runs. It's a great boost of morale, and it's good to know that guy won't be on the streets again when all is done. On the other hand, attacks will step up until that happens.

I was considering registering FAUXNEWSLOL2004.com so at least my URLs and images would have a neat URL tied to them, but then I realized the domain would only be funny for a year. Of course, the catchphrase will probably be dead in a few weeks anyway.

If any of you guys find his address, I'll get the van ready.

Actual bumper sticker seen in San Francisco: Celebrate Diversity! Actual bumper sticker seen on same car in San Francisco: Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

Oh my god. I'd take a song of JR-isms set to a funky hip-hop beat *Boom boom boom* "He's a HOSS! He's a HOSS!" *ba boom boom boom* "SOMEONE STOP THE MATCH!"

Okay, to explain some of my choices: Shawn Michaels: Didn't draw flies as champion. Filled the main event when nobody else was available, but hardly could generate business and was also a major league primadonna backstage. Sorry, I've never considered the guy a legend, no matter how much they want to feed me the idea that he is. Scott Hall: I'm one of the few people here who feel sorry for the guy, and think that his work isn't that bad. If he did more in the fed, he should have been up here. Unfortunately, he didn't. He kind of peaked early and then left. Yokozuna: Now here's a guy who many of today's fans think couldn't ever fit in the main event. But he could do a lot of shit including the previously mentioned superkick. Scott Steiner and Kevin Nash are less heavy guys and they get winded just walking down to the ring. So yes, I respect his contribution.

Thank you. Also, one must remember that the WWE generally can't remember who was face or heel six months ago. So for them to expect even the hardcore crowd to remember who some of these guys are is kind of hard to swalow.

Problem is that almost all the old-timers I know is from NWA and some indies. Also, I wasn't putting them down, I'm just saying I don't know who they are. That has no bearing on whether they're qualified to be on the list, it just means I'm not going to be the judge.

Does anyone have a shot of the SmackDown where Arnold reached out and smacked HHH? I need that so much right now.

Misterio and Spanky. Spanky because he's my favorite and Rey because I'm amazed he can keep doing so much and not fuck up a spot.

Andre the Giant - Yes Gorilla Monsoon - No Shawn Michaels - No Undertaker - Yes Iron Sheik - Yes George "The Animal" Steele - No Haystacks Calhoun - Who? Ric Flair - Yes Jesse Ventura - No Junkyard Dog - No Roddy Piper - Yes Kane - No King Kong Bundy - No Buddy Rogers - Who? Ultimate Warrior - No Magnificent Muraco - Who? Honky Tonk Man - No Hulk Hogan - Yes Killer Kowalski - Who? Pat Patterson - Yes Chris Jericho - Yes Chief Jay Strongbow - Yes Stone Cold Steve Austin - Yes Ted Dibiase - Yes Bret Hart - Yes Bob Backlund - Yes Bobo Brazil - Who? Ivan Putski - Who? Razor Ramon - No Wendi Richter - No The Rock - Yes Randy Savage - Yes Jake "the Snake" Roberts - No (if he had retired earlier before getting so fucked up, yes) Ricky Steamboat - Yes Mick Foley - Yes Triple H - Yes (take THAT) Jimmy Snuka - Yes Bruno Sammartino - Yes Fabulous Moolah - Yes Brock Lesnar - No Yokozuna - Yes Billy Graham - No Antonio Rocca - Who? Pedro Morales - Yes Sgt. Slaughter - No Ernie Ladd - Who? Kurt Angle - Yes Ric Rude - Yes Ken Patera - Who? Paul Orndorff - Yes

(sits patiently, waiting for RVD's prime to begin so that it can end)

For once, I have to agree. Where's all the anger focused on the fact that all these unnecessary dollars flowed into Kuwait?

Right, but those were the two links that Google News made on the situation, and the more legit one didn't mention the Nazi stuff which I thought was worth documenting. I gave fair warning that it was a biased site, much like the original link is.

By the way, since we've all been commenting on a story authored by the people who were representing the girl's side, let's change our perspectives a bit: From the Ann Arbor News And now, for more perspective, from PART OF THE VAST GAY CONSPIRACY OMG Now we understand that this "Homosexuality and Religion" panel was sponsored by the Gay-Straight Alliance group of the school and not sponsored by school administration. My guess is that Hansen's request was denied because the "gays are sinners" ideology conflicts with the purpose behind a GSA group. It creates a rift. Yes, they should have let her say whatever at Diversity Week, but I'm puzzled how letting her air her religious views at a school event is any less of a display of state-sponsored religion than not letting her do it. Thus I'm not exactly sure whether that arguement is really valid here. It sounds like the real fiends here are the Thomas More Law Center. More shitty-ass trial lawyers using lawsuits to make sure nobody is ever offended.

He was the one who talked about how being gay was wrong and how all lesbians were ugly. I was hoping he was going to walk into Death By Marney, but it didn't happen.

From the viewpoint of justice, I would agree with that. But from the view presented by so many abortion critics, that life is always precious etc etc etc, it doesn't make sense. [Keyes offered] a civics lesson to fifth graders at a NH school today. “If I were to lose my mind right now and pick one of you up and bash your head against the floor and kill you, would that be right?” A chorus of “No.” “It’s wrong to kill children, isn’t it? At what age is it right to kill children? Think it was OK to kill you when you were 6?,” Keyes asked one child. The child shook his head no. “Think it was OK to kill you when you were 6 months? You sure? Because we live in a country right now where according to some of our courts and some of our politicians, it is OK,“ Keyes said. ”Our rights come from God. We human beings don’t have the right to take away that right from any human being, including the human beings who haven’t quite got here yet. Because we have denied freedom to children in the womb who haven’t yet gotten to this world, freedom will be denied to you and to your brothers and sisters and to your children.“ Source: Boston Globe, p. A27 Jan 28, 2000