Jobber of the Week

There's some loophole that keeps rich people from losing their mansions, I've heard.

Since we're doing our bi-monthly "Who's roiding" thread, I figure I'll stir the pot by mentioning that I don't think Angle is on roids because his body is the same shape from year to year, despite various injuries which have given him plenty of time to bulk up. I think Cena was roiding during his bodybuilding career but I don't think he is anymore. He looks positively massive in those photos compared to today.

You realize that while Vince was busy with the steroid trial, some of the worst WrestleCrap in all of history was produced, right? HELLO, UNDERTAKER VS UNDERTAKER.

Well, your efforts are appreciated. And yet a business' job is to make as much as it possibly can? This is where I get confused and can never find out where you conservatives are coming from. You say thing like this and you're anti-labor etc etc etc, but tell me: How wrong is it for the worker to try and get as much money as he can? That's exactly what the business owner you're cheering on is doing. If it is a business' goal to pay less for more work, then isn't it the worker's goal to try and fight that? It has always been my opinion that either extreme (businesses making people work in sweatshops, or ridiculous crap like the Cali worker's comp system on the other end) are bad. As always in our society, competition makes things better.

Ah, come on. FB'ing shows a poster's individual creativity, something that can be sorely lacking with bandwagon jumping like "HHH SUX PUSH RVD" and (yes, I'll admit) "FUCK GOLDBERG" being more popular here than posting your own idea. My guess is if Brock jobs, it's either to the headbutt (which they suddently made a finisher last night) or the Sharpshooter. Benoit doesn't have amateur credentials up the wazoo so it will be a blow to Brock to tap out to Benoit under any move other than the Sharpshooter, which is well known among fans as a devastating move, Rocky aside. I'm still putting my money on "No Benoit Champ Run" though. It's simply the safest bet, and the thought of Benoit getting it just seems like a huge longshot.

I bet the side without a social life wins. Wait a minute...

SkyDome? You're kidding right? That facility is OOOOOOOOOOOOLD and everyone sits so damn far away. What's the building they do Raw and Smackdown in regularly from Toronto? I think it's named after an airline or something? But seriously, the old SkyDome needs some refreshing, but it's old and ugly and grey so nobody will sponsor it.

An interesting post, Vyce, and certainly not the one I expected. There's a lot of truth in that, I guess.

Italics due to board screwup, again. I think it's your redundant quoting or something. Try not to have a quote within a quote. Why shouldn't they? God knows the U.S hardly treated workers well when WE industrialized. Because if they want to be headquartered here in the US and take all the benefits that come from that, they shouldn't be providing all the work to some third-world country. You're burning the candle at both ends for the benefit of Joe CEO, who is both saving costs having third-worlders do the work while cashing in on his big Bush tax break. This means that middle and lower class suffer. Again, this is how it goes when your industrializing. Would ANYBODY have ever industrialized under the current rules? I'm not too well versed on the specifics, but it is possible to negotiate a middle ground. Companies should be free to move about if it suits them ("Hey, our resources are coming from here, let's move this over here") but not because they can pay the labor something less than livable.

Quoting your post breaks the board and all sorts of HTML pops up, so I'll have to use italics. And in that same bad movie (yes, I saw it) they had a hearing in SF where they discussed closing the bath houses and the gay men screamed and howled about it. Right, and while there's some dangerous and risky types in any group of people, not ALL gay people were interested in having bareback sex at the local bathhouse regardless of AIDS. I doubt those people were resisting the government pressure either. It was the people who owned those places. The problem of your thinking is that you seem to think all gay people had no problem with the spreading of AIDS even though it was killing people. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion. Because, AT THE TIME, it appeared to be a GAY-ONLY DISEASE. Reagan's administration didn't name the darned thing. I'm not blaming Reagan at all. You asked if they knew how it was transmitted at the time Reagan was taking office, and I was saying that the answer was yes, since they already figured out only the gay people were getting it. You have to prioritize spending on diseases, seeing as how there isn't an infinite sum of money to be spent. The most legitimate way to do that is to determine which diseases affect more people. Can you justify spending more on AIDS research than cancer research? You know, there is a difference between spending a bit of the money and not spending one red cent of it. You make a good point but again see things too much in black and white when reality is shades of grey. Who said he had to spend more of it than was being spent on cancer? I'm not saying they had throw money into it like wood into a furnace, I'm saying it would have helped more if they chose to spend a damn fraction of it, even. Getting hard facts is well worth the money. But you have MANY OTHER DISEASES to research. Okay, so the amount of money being spent looking for a cure for Cancer, a much higher-spreading disease that is affecting many more people, is appearantly just as much research money as it would take to learn about HIV and educate the public? That suddently makes no sense. I agree they shouldn't have gone off immediately spending millions looking for a cure (something we haven't gotten to now with more money and time,) but gaining knowledge, which you admit we had a very clear lack of, is a good thing and shouldn't cost nearly as much as is being spent on it now. You're saying the government was mostly clueless as to the details, your mom was mostly clueless as to the details, then think about how in the dark the general public was.

Generally the thinking goes that there's more small businesses than there are big businesses, so even though big businesses hire a lot more people (despite machinery and overseas reducing the size of the workforce), the amount of small businesses out there mean that more people get hired into small than big. Unless of course you're talking about the far left's (i.e. California left) business policy, the "give the worker 2 months of paid leave for clipping his toenails too short" kind of policies (and yes, of course I'm exaggerating) that have caused many companies to decide to just go move somewhere else that doesn't stack the deck against the business so much. In that case, I can't understand it either. Also means more and more people are getting laid off, as the number of people getting employed aren't lowering the unemployment figures any. Which isn't to saying nobody can find jobs, but just pointing out the other perspective of your glass half full. There's nothing wrong with moving jobs overseas so long as they follow through on the same standards we do. If a business thinks it's more efficent to be overseas, so be it. But it shouldn't move over there because they can get away treating people there crappier than they can here. Hey, remember a few economic threads back when I mentioned that the job that has put food on my family's plate for two decades was moving to Malaysia? Okay, well, the the people doing this in Malaysia are either very nervous or just doing it to get it on their resume, as over there it's well known that the company is now thinking of pushing it over to China, where they can get away with even more. Skipping over your boring partisan bashing.... (when did I ever say all conservatives are bigots?) and into the giant company thing. Are giant companies unfairly demonized? I don't think so, but I don't think either party really does a good job keeping a leash on either. The giant companies are where the very wealthy are, the ones who like to see the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And while the Ken Lay crap was exposed under Bush's administration, it was brewing under Clinton's.

Ask yourself why the economy is improving. Is it because individuals are better off than they were? Probably not. My guess is because it's BUSINESSES doing better than they once were. That is to say, doing better as they cut costs by laying off employees, moving labor functions to countries with slave wage, etc. There's still an above-average amount of people without work and a large surplus turned into a large deficit, Clinton mistakes (which isn't something you care to spell out so I know what you're talking about) or not. All the people unable to find work are going to represent a lot more votes than the CEO's of various giant firms who let people go left and right to get out of the red and improved the economy by stripping their functions down to brass tacks. As for the candidates themselves, I can't say I'm too high on them either. Edwards shot himself in the ass by saying nothing of consequence. I can't stand Clark because the guy practically has to stop the interview and talk to some advisers when asked about an issue that's pretty much split on party lines and should be easily answered. Gephardt fell off my list for stupid comments, Kerry the same, and I'd vote for Bush before Lieberman. So this leaves Howie Dean as a guy who's said things that have made me cringe, but haven't pissed me off like the others.

Sure, the National Organization Of All Gay People suddently formed and fought back against closing bath houses. Look, I'm sure there was some sort of organized resistance, but you can't pin that on every gay person. The owners saw themselves as just trying to run a business (don't get me started) and they resisted. Have you ever seen "And The Band Played On"? It's about this period in history. Since you're probably too busy to read the book, the movie has this scene where Phil Collins (yes, that Phil Collins) plays a bathhouse owner saying he's not interested in shutting down because he's making money hand over fist. That was pretty much the owners' perogative. Not a good one, but hardly representative of all gay people. I'll give you this one, sorta. The term AIDS came in 1982, the test was FDA approved in 1985. But was first noted as being only in gays in the late 70s and early 80s. (Source) This is an absolutely cruel stance, but furthermore a foolish one. Diseases DO mutate you know, and we knew that back then. Too long. VH1's "I Love The 80s Strikes Back" nostalgia show has a PSA from 1987(?) with Bob Barker informing watchers that you can't get AIDS from a cat. Those lines are simply there to show the cause of a later effect. Although I've ranted about Christian Fundamentalists in the past, this really isn't about them so much. THAT IS WHAT RESEARCH FUNDING EXISTS FOR!!!! So, on one hand, the administration has nothing but fuzzy information about the disease. But getting research done to get some hard facts is a waste of money? Responding to these comments is futile when you consider the gathering of evidence through research to be a waste of money, so I won't even try.

The reason you can't find that hat anywhere is that the last time it was "hip" was when LL Cool J wore it in the 1980s.

Benoit will never get the belt. Never.

Well, never heard of this site, but at least it's better than a blog. =b http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031016171623....3.xxlm5nt0.html

Nah, he only got hit once. The pistol was also kind of dinky, so that and adrenaline is probably why he was still dodging around. Anyhoo, this is what you would call "business as usual" in Los Angeles.

Am I the only one who wish they did more Los Guererros skits. I know at the time we were afraid of them overdoing them, but something about Eddy ripping someone off to the Adult Swim theme song makes me laugh hard.

No, but it's not exactly unknown either, since they showed off all his robbery conviction shit in the buildup to WrestleMania. Why they chose to air that dirty laundry on TV, I don't have a fucking clue.

That's also Booker T's last name though. If we can't have two guys named Lance on Raw, I doubt they'll allow two guys using Huffman.

This is true. Also, the wrestling fanbase has changed from southern yokels and children who like to see the good guy who comes from nothing win and gain fame, to the angry young men and social dropouts of the nation who like to heckle the all-too-flawless good guy and support the cocky disrespectful guy. This is why crowd favorite babyfaces like Rey Mysterio and Eddy Guererro get over on workrate and not personality. This is why the Rock is everyone's favorite as a heel. This is why RVD's lax attitude about everything is over. This is why HHH gets huge pops when he comes out grunting and spitting and flexing to blaring heavy metal.

I liked the debut look because it was enhanced by him smiling all the time. It resulted in this look that resembled a Wheaties cover come to life, which was exactly the idea they were shooting for. Yeah, he was thinning, but bald he just looks like another Austin clone.

ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?

Then do I get to make a complaint thread? After all, every Hollywood movie should be staffed by people who agree with the subject. It only makes it fair, after all. Don't hire that set painter! He's a Republican! He might try and paint put a penis into the Oval Office set as a gag! I have no clue if it's true or not, but I'll pass judgment because of his political affiliations!

It was called Gay Related Imuno... Something or other. I remember the acronym at the time was "GRID" and the first two letters were Gay Related. Thus, we can presume we knew it spread through gay sex, and presumably we'd find the needles stuff out later. http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html For the record, I'd rather have Ronnie over Bush Senior or Bush Junior, but his tact here was pretty flawed, and not just due to lack of knowledge.