Jobber of the Week

I like how the party that Mike ass-kisses constantly had an ENRON LOBBYIST for a Chairman until recently. I don't know how Dean could even come close to that in infamy. Also, LOL that Dean is burying himself by attacking Fox News. Which side attacks ALL media except Fox News & WashTimes? I can take the attacks, I just can't take this pot/kettle/black nonsense.

Well that was really nowhere near as good as all the hype and posts of endless "hahahaha" made it out to be. Somebody thought a commercial that was all but 15 seconds of an HHH promo would make people buy the show. Sad.

Welcome to the hippie side, friend. Here's your new-age CD starter set and a "friends don't let friends drink Starbucks" bumper sticker so you can fight the power. Also, I've taken the liberty of replacing all your Limbaugh/O'Reilly books with Noam Chomsky.

Not if it costs $5000 to buy a burner for this format. And just think about how much blanks will cost.

I'm not going to help you find warez because I can't stand it when people use this forum to try and get free illegal shit. I'm not going to be high and mighty and say I never do it or anything, but I don't actually ask people publically to find my crap. Besides, Mac has almost no warez scene (never did), and the only serious site that existed was invite-only and got shut down by Apple the other week for sharing iLife 05. http://www.openoffice.org Free, open source office suite. Will open and save files in Microsoft Office format. Just as easy or difficult to use as MS Office, depending on whether you're a basic or advanced user. Lastly, all BitTorrent clients for Mac suck for one reason or another, most of which have to do to poor programming and resource management. Azureus has the most features, but is Java-based and a resource PIG. It also has the biggest memory leaks. Tomato Torrent has few features to speak of and also make some leaks, though not as big. The general consensus is that the best balance is the client located on the official site, located here. Upon first opening it, it'll bug you to send the author money and open up a web page with a picture of his ugly mug, but if you just click the "I've donated" button it doesn't bother you with this anymore. And if you're dishonest enough to download pirated software, you can click the button.

The question is whether or not it's the UN's responsibility to commit troops. It's hands are tied to what host nations can do, and right now one of the biggest host nations with one of the biggest militaries currently on an interventionist policy kick is.... Doing about as little as the UN is. You want to know what's preventing action? Go out on the street and ask how many people are concerned about the crisis in Sudan. Really, try it sometime. Ask about the most alarming and dangerous places they've known about over the past few months, and you'll hear about Iraqi roadside bombs and Asian tsunamis. And that's it. I don't think the UN is perfect (go home, Kofi), but maintaining a military force isn't in their MO, and they probably wouldn't last long if they tried.

I know he didn't say that. I'm saying even if he said he would enjoy shooting someone, even someone who deserves to be shot. Which is what I meant by "no matter who it is", as in, whether or not they're scum. Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear.

I understand there's a morale and emotional exercise going on at work there, which is why I said I wouldn't have any issue if some soldier in the heat of a battlefield in Iraq said that while dodging bullets and returning fire. I don't really like the thought of it, but the "let's go out and shoot us some bastards and have a good time doing it" mentality is how they keep themselves from going crazy over there. As long as it's not taken too literally, anyway. The Abu Gharib humiliation crew saying forcing prisoners into naked human pyramids is fun, would be a bit much. However, again, when you have a higher-up guy who actually says that, who isn't in the field, you can't really come to any other conclusion than that he actually believes in that and what it means. In other words, guys in the warzone = yes, guys in the Pentagon = no. ....And yes, Spicy, I can read. Is there something you want to point out to me, because I don't see you've made any other posts in this thread.

So, exactly what would be a better way to bring the world together for diplomatic meetings and discussion? Because, again, that's the UN's goal. Not to maintain a worldwide military.

I'm partial to the "Bud Bowl" series (don't know why, but the concept was always silly enough to amuse me) Here's another one you may not be familiar with. Lemmings (click to watch) was Apple's "1984" for 1985. Introducing a combination suite for office tools and the original LaserWriter printer, this ad was fueled on the success of 1984 and a big marketing campaign (every seat in the stadium had an Apple logo, full page ads were taken out in major newspapers announcing what quarter to find the spot.) Bad news: It bombed. The creepy music and people falling to their death didn't inspire anyone like 1984 did and the ad was panned by critics and viewers alike. Worse news: Fragile executive egos didn't like being compared to animals jumping off a cliff, making Apples a non-entity in the corporate world. Effects of this commercial are still being felt today as even in today's upswing, Apple's business presence is only visible in graphics and server markets, with the number crunching organizations passing them over. So, the next time you walk through an office building full of nothing but Windows machines, or the next time a PC user tells you that Mac people are pricks who think they're better than everyone else, look to this ad to see where it started. Still, it took a lot of balls to try that. However, it cost the ad agency credibility in the short-term as Apple fired them and then took out another full-page newspaper ad wishing them good luck in the future in a rather condescending tone. Apple did eventually hire back that agency back, though, to sell a little something called iPod. Maybe you've heard about it.

Yes. To find enjoyment in firing on live targets with no remorse is considered barbaric in modern cultures no matter whose doing it and what right or coutnry they're fighting for, and making light of it in public is never a good idea. Look, Mike, there's a serial killer that I want to see dead. Due to the California system where we take our sweet time and only kill people once every five blue moons, he probably won't be executed. Although I would like to wake up one morning and hear that he's been gassed, and I would say it was "fun" or make humor out of it. It's taking a human life no matter what. One may say that it's a justified action or the right cause to do so, and I will not protest. But once you say that it makes for good entertainment, I say you are tasteless. Consider this my own personal "pro-life" values. I'm not against killing when judged necessary, but I think it's a serious judgment that deserves a measure of respect, even if the person being targeted doesn't. Lastly, imagine if this guy was any American but a military officer. If he told you he enjoyed killing people, no matter who it was, wouldn't you be just a little concerned? Such a public comment would likely result in some sort of investigation, and possibly cause for arrest.

I'm not saying that this guy's soley responsible for it, I said he's contributing to the image. This isn't some guy fighting in Iraq who just stepped out of a firefight and said it's a real thrill, I could understand that. This guy's high up enough on the military ladder and far enough away from the battlefield that he should be smart enough to watch his words. But he isn't. Thus, I suspect that in the future when he wonders why the image exists, the irony of his comments will be lost on him.

"We're sending in someone to negotiate!" *BLAM, BLAM* "Anybody else want to negotiate?"

Well, okay then. New York is a pretty heavy blue state. I don't see why they would need to move the UN Secretariat.

This very same guy will probably scratch his head later in life and wonder why other Americans see the armed forces (or at least him) as not regular people called into duty, but as remorseless killing machines.

For what it's worth, this is not an official FACTOR-LED BOYCOTT because Bill says that it never happened. Thank god for lies, and the power of lies to revise history as Bill sees fit.

Exactly how are we unfriendly? Most the people who disagree with how the UN is running things aren't opposed to the ideal of a better, more unified society. The only people saying the whole thing needs to be abolished entirely are neocons. The UN survived America (and Republican deity Ronnie Reagan) VS the communists, so I don't see what they have to fear from Dumbya and right-wing radio.

The government, no matter how PTC-friendly, simply can't try and regulate content on cable and satellite networks, because the courts have already stripped them of any ability to do explicitly that. They are the final word on this issue, not the FCC, and not Congress.

And jingoistic statements like "They hate us for our freedom" are why the right-wing should never be trusted with anything more important than coming up with a catchy slogan or a rhyming chant.

FUCK.

Well, the reason stuff like that doesn't get print is because it's hard to balance the bravery involved without glorifying war. Unfortunately, too many editors are simply unwilling to try and take a stab at it these days.

That show sold on several factors which may or may not majorily concern the card or the people on it, but certainly aren't worth brushing off. WM17 is tied with WMXX as the most over-advertised WM ever. WMXX came close by putting logos on every piece of merchandise and web page ever, but a lot of this stuff was just advertising to their own fan base. Mania 17 was marketed every single chance they got. Shit, the last thing that WCW viewers saw on the last Nitro was a promotion for Wrestlemania climaxing the most surreal moment in North American wrestling.

Shit, for some reason I thought Invasion was 2002. I guess it's the effects of the HyperBooking going on during that period. The whole Invasion/NWO thing feels like one big blur.

Appearantly, it comes from an alternate bizarro universe where Rob Van Dam performed with the WWF in 2001.

I put it in the same category as the constant applause. Either they allow the constant clappin and groaning or (what I'd prefer) just let the man talk.