Jobber of the Week

Whatever's on sale in your Sunday newspaper electronic store flyer.

You drive while stoned? Holy crap, stay away from my neighborhood. The question has been how many cops are needed and how tough a law has to be made to, if not wipe out the drug culture entirely, at least send it back underground. Right now people from all walks of life are doing drugs. So the problem for them is that the answer is, "more than is feasible." I don't do any drugs myself, but it's amazing they've made pot use such a strong offense and I *STILL* see lots of people ages 15-70 doing it.

While I'm not a collector, I admit I'm guilty of bragging about how much music I've bought from iTunes. Although, personally, I think there is an additional element to doing that, because at least that says that I'm interested enough to put money forward. Someone's freebie MP3 collection usually means they barely did more work than type in a few words from the song title.

So, I wonder which excuse revisionist history will go with here? The band playing the wrong song, acid reflux, or "it's just a backup track and everybody is doing it?" I can picture Ashley putting on a blindfold and throwing a dart of a board labeled with all her excuses. Someone, please turn off the camera so this gal can fade into obscurity and tell the people at the kitschy 50's diner she winds up working at that she used to be famous once.

They also pulled an EA with the MLB name, right when MVP was reaching it's best. This exclusivity shit has got to stop.

Since we can't seem to understand that these torture claims aren't just second-hand claims: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan24.html

But you did it after declaring them irrelevant. It's illogical to say that the UN is useless and ought to be abolished and then defend your war plan by saying you're just following what the UN decided should be done. No, we didn't bully anyone. We had the support from the nations we did have because we're usually straightforward, correct, and truthful with other countries, so aside from the hippies that bitched about the Afghanistan war and the countries that had oil ties to Saddam, most of the world still thought our hands were clean and it was a pretty safe bet to follow us in. Boy, is the egg ever on THEIR face. YOU GOT SERVED! (lol, Justice has been served, get it?)

I smell bullshit on Meltzer. All he does is call up the companies involved and ask if they can deny the rumor. And they will, until they announce it publically, which is how companies work. I think it's a lot less unlikely that a reporter interviewing the President of CBS Networks took a comment out of context, than it is that some wrestling dirtsheet called up the front desk and said "Hey, is this true?" and is wont for companies, they said it's not. Tivo said their deal with Netflix was bullshit, too. And then weeks later they announced it. =b

Nope, nope, nope. The resolution didn't say the US was obligated to execute the punishments if the resolution wasn't followed. Talk all day about UN ineffectiveness if you please, but do not try and back up Bush's war by saying he was simply holding up the word of the UN. Do not spit in their eye and then say that you're doing them a favor. Most of Europe's governments, which tend to bend and follow along when a superpower says they want to start some shit. Because of this, a lot of those countries have citizens who are pissed at the people in power. You Forgot Poland!

You need to look up the definition of a strawman. A straw man arguement is, "If you like Fox News, you must have liked Stalin, too." There is no connection between Fox News and Stalin, and such a comment is simply an emotional appeal to get people to dislike Fox. Thus, a straw man. "Fox is evidence that there is big media that is slanted to the right" isn't a straw man. It's an opinion. I thought people reserved that for CNN? So then why are so many people watching it, even compared to cable news? Are so many people willingly subjecting themselves to what they see as liberal bias? Or are the big numbers of people watching these shows more than any other news programs in the country all "out of touch?" If it's the latter, then at what percentage of a majority do they cease to become out of touch and it's you who looks out of touch compared to them? Well, you had me up to here...

Okay, maybe politicians did, but I haven't. I don't want to personally, but that kind of thing isn't made accessable to the public for reasons good and bad.

These aren't all US forces, a lot of them have to do with those Iraqi police we've trained, too. And it's not like you need to see pictures of someone being violated to add legitimacy to a flood of complaints. We didn't see Saddam's torture rooms, but we knew they were there.

Seconding this thought. Did they not realize that having a PPV on a work day when the buddies you split the bill with (assuming you have them, and many do) are busy and unavailable is a GOOD IDEA?

Considering how WWE is giving replicas of the big gold belt to winning sports teams and most recently the WWE Fantasy champion, I think it's pretty obvious which belt the company considers to be their "top" belt. Odd that it's not the belt with all the legacies. 4X Odd that it's the NWA strap. I'm shocked Vince hasn't tried to schedule some sort of angle where he urinates (worked or not) on it yet.

That should really be a real HHH promo. Either way, cheers and good luck at 411.

Vyce, perhaps that's what the analysts said, yes. I saw Pat Buchanan on one of the channels say that if Bush doesn't win PA, he's doomed, and I don't think Pat Buchanan is an admirer of John Kerry's career. Still, I'm not talking about talking heads trumpeting meaningless statistics, I'm talking about the actual exit polls, which (at least for CNN) showed Bush winning in Ohio, liberals in control or no.

In your dreams. Bret would rather advertise his 3-part autobiography on TV and get a cut of any future DVDs with the devil he knows than get none of that by trying again with the devil he doesn't.

Hold on a minute. Let's go look at the polls, taken on election eve, from COMMIE NEWZ: Non white women, not shown here, was very heavily tilted towards Kerry, but only counted as 6% of the vote.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what the bird on the belt that HHH retained at WM2000 was, if not an eagle.

The first one was talked about in the first series. The second subject, eh, they covered grunge and Woodstock #2 but that was about it. Punk rock is kind of beyond the scope of VH1.

There's become some murmured discussion throughout the country recently that President Bush is being a bit greedy for spending almost $40 million on his second term inauguration. I thought I'd poll the room and see what some people think. The inauguration ceremonies include somewhere around nine formal balls, a parade, a music concert including some current big names, and a nighttime fireworks display. Money for this is being diverted from, among other places, Homeland Security funds. In previous eras, inaugurations were pretty short and simple when the country was at war, because there was no reason to waste government funds on celebrating political victories when soldiers were fighting overseas. With more and more stories of soldiers in Iraq unable to get what they need, some people think it's time to follow this old tradition. $40 million could buy quite a bit of body armor. Then there's some people who think it would be more humanitarian to use this money to send aid to the countries hit by that big tsunami. Personally, I can't really say that I think this is the best use of our money considering the flood of aid pouring into the region already, but it's still a better use of public funds than Washington power players shmoozing at a party while Hillary Duff performs onstage. And then there's some people who don't have any problem with the current budget for this event. So, what's your opinion?

No, he's never been a successful babyface unless he's hanging around people who are successful babyfaces.

The media is so liberally biased that there was entire gaps in coverage of fraud. And I don't just mean some third-page story about a recount, I mean about how Bush won with 6,000 votes in New Mexico after about 20,000 votes were chucked with no more excuses than "invalid." The media is so liberally biased that there has been almost no coverage abut Republicans in Congress refusing to proceed with legislation that would require electronic voting machines to have a paper trail. Meanwhile, the stuff that gets pushed around as media bias is ridiculous. The worst one recently was an AP article, quickly pulled, that said a Bush rally crowd booed when Bush gave well-wishes to Clinton during his surgery last year. Again, pulled shortly. People still shouted about how it was a case of the AP, of all sources the actual wire reports, being biased against Bush and/or Republicans in general. "Waaah, they were in the room, didn't they see nobody booed?" Chances are, no, nobody from the AP was in the room. The President only has a few reporters with him at any given time, and the rest of the press pool pretty much has to copy from the notes of competing organizations. Most reporters are kept sheltered from the President. The ones that fly with him know he's on board, but never see him. That's not a fault of this administration, that's just what the being in the White House press pool is like.

"I'm hungry, it's late, and I don't really want to go out. Think I'll call for a hooker."

Here's the man who should be the one to tell you what you can and can't see on your television. Don't argue with his judgement, because he is a pillar of moral clarity: