Jobber of the Week

Swear to god, people, just because you're related to manufactured fame doesn't mean you should manufacture your own fame yourself. Fuck, I could be a pop star and I don't need Simon Cowell bitching at me that I have no talent. I can't sing for crap, but if so many singers little brothers (Aaron Carter) and sisters (Simpson, Duff) who only happen to share blood heritage with someone who got popular first can go out there and be considered a legitimate star (well, legitimate on the Clear Channel circuit) then why can't I?

I didn't read long enough to see if the people in that woman's story ("Oh, we got a Republican here!" *boos* *hiss*) were hired or instructed by the Democratic Party. I did read the text of her complaint though, and it sounds like she didn't know either. In which case, it'd be best to complain to your government.

IMO anyone who has a problem like that should complain to their city government, state government, not political party. All you're going to do by talking to them is escalate it into a partisan issue.

(Insert incredibly easy Purple Heart joke here) How many times have you been wounded in combat? More than Kerry, most likely. -=Mike that's a pretty big bet to put up. How many times have you been wounded in combat? or at all More often than Kerry. -=Mike Bullshit Did something stop you from going to the army? Just curious He'll tell that it's none of your business, and he'll be right. Of course, when you make a bold claim like he has, you'd think he'd back it up, but he won't divulge any information. I broke my arm when I was a wee lad. That, alone, means I've suffered more wounds than FrankenKerry has. -=Mike Just posting to add one more level of ridiculous quotation.

Oh for the love of god, Florida... Another dead tie poll where Nader walks away with one or two percent.

Well, to be fair, the caption for that photo says those people just finished listening to Al Sharpton talk. So it's possible that Al may have destroyed their brains.

I don't support violence at protests. To say I do is every bit a logic gap as saying that I support bank robberies because I expect police to respond to those, too. The job of the police is to protect. And since a large protest is often the perfect cover for someone who wants to ignite violence, the police need to be there to protect. Whether they are protecting city grounds, local businesses, nearby homeowners, or even the protest crowd itself should someone show up with a gun and use it in an unwise manner.

The people will not be silenced! RRRRAAAARRRGH! UPSIDE DOWN SIGNS FOR AMERICA! (PS: Feel free to use this picture in your photographic storylines. You're wittier than I am.)

This job would be great, if it wasn't for all the customers... Any officer that complains about having to "babysit" a protest because someone might use the oppertunity to get violent is, in my view, in the same boat as a whiny McDonalds lacky who bitches about how he could be snacking on cheeseburgers and playing with the Happy Meal toys if only this lunch crowd didn't keep coming in.

I cower before you, you INTERNET TOUGH MAN! You're really showing who's boss, here on the message board, where the men are seperated from the boys and NOBODY can get away with pretending to be some icon of masculinity. That's also why nobody ever lies about their penis size on the internet, either.

See, that's where all his combat wounds come from. This thread is so bad that I actually think THIS is an improvement:

Eh, monitoring a protest and neutralizing any aggressive violence is actually part of a cop's "real job," IMO. Just as much as ticketing speeders or chasing robbers through the LA freeway system.

I haven't done any research into connections between Al-Qaeda and Somalia so I don't know if there are any, but yes, I've previously stated that sitting around and not actually going after Al-Qaeda (key words "going after Al-Qaeda") for their previous actions wasn't a good idea. That's true, and if OBL had been nipped after the 1990s WTC bombing he wouldn't have gotten much farther. But Hitler is a distinct target with a finite army. A "global war on terror" is an idea with a virtual army. In this case, the enemy could be fighting us in seven different countries while blowing up buildings at home at the same time. At least Hitler provided us with an advantage. When he no longer wanted to fight and did himself in, most of the remaining Nazis lost their interest as well. After all, when Great Leader stops fighting, why should I keep on? But you're never going to see someone rise up and speak on behalf of all terrorists that they're giving up and going to stop. You also didn't have a problem where killing Nazis could result in more people becoming Nazis. You do have that problem here. While you have made a good case for tightening homeland defense, and I applaud you for that, I think you missed my point.

It's not that there isn't a terror threat, there is one and we're not the only nation on Earth that suffers from it. That's part of the issue. Other countries don't go rampaging around the world declaring the end of every terrorist outlaw alive when an attack happens on their soil. We're only doing it because we have a big military and think that we're "special." Israel actually has the right idea, they blow up Hamas repeatedly because Hamas keeps blowing up cars in Israel. They haven't charged around the planet declaring an end to everyone who's ever detonated a car or donkey in a public square, governments be damned.

Mike, if an anti-American ran for leader of Russia, wouldn't you be praying that he wouldn't win? It's a matter of interest, and in this world you can't blame people for having them or looking out for them.

Of all the conservative talking points, this one pisses me off the most of all, because it basically insinuates that 9/11 is forcing us to take a different look at how we view the world. 9/11 was a fucking fluke comitted by people who want to kill us, and we have been dealing with people who want to kill us for a long time. Our ancestors only just got the country going when the British came over and wanted to kill us. The idea that some outlaw who lives in a cave managed to send about a dozen guys over here to sneak around airport security and cause damage, even 3,000 dead damage, is simply an outrageous exploitation of security protocol and isn't some catalyst to changing how we view the world, because most the world had absolutely nothing to do with this. It's almost self serving to suggest that after so many wars and so much bloodshed, that OUR event is the big one.

The suggestion of assassination was too far for a newspaper, more the kind of thing that should be joked about in private instead of publically in homes and computers worldwide. Everything else is pretty much dead on. The rest of the world is hoping Bush's 2000 election is a fluke and that we're really not going to support a man who doesn't care if the entire rest of the planet Earth is riding along in the backseat as long as he's in control and has unquestionable and unstoppable power in persuing his agenda.

What macho talk! And on the internet, no less!

...In a thread about calorie-filled desserts, no less. You guys are really starting to let me down.

My super-teeny change: No tag team matches as a main event. Feel free to use tag teams to advance PPV angles, but not in the main event. My small change: Make Ric Flair a face again. For the love of God, all having Flair as a heel does is cause the crowd to support a heel, since nobody buys Heel Flair as anything more than a "Hey, remember this?" joke referencing NWA Flair. If the guy is going to keep going in there even though he's out of gas and has little left to offer, then we might as well not encourage fans to work against the angle. My moderate change: World Title matches start actually appearing on free TV. Once a year (maybe, maybe twice if we're desperate or using a change to abort an angle) the title changes on free TV.

More like "Either way, Burnett will do what Burnett will want to do." I don't know if you notice the small print alongside the credits, but Trump is "consulted" by the production team. No wonder Bill is just killing time waiting for the phone to ring. If I was being "convinced" by a TV team of who to hire and who not to hire, I wouldn't care for the person I wound up with either.

I hope those people are willing to work for a lot less. But now that they got a taste of that Yankees bankroll, they're going to inflate their egos and demand star-quality paychecks for the kinds of shitty performances they've put on for the Yankees 04 season. Money doesn't win the game, but it sure increases the sense of self-worth. Congrats, Yankees. You truly are the WCW of the MLB.

Argh, didn't see this one when I posted the double thread. I search the topics for Clinton and nothing came up. Anyway, I'll just state my opinion: I don't think it'd be any different, you'd STILL have a guy in Gucci bitching at the US for not giving enough money to poor nations.

No, but it beats the other 24 hour news broadcasts. The people who watch Brokaw do so because they don't want to watch 2 hours of news to find out what's going on in the world. Stuff like the Nightly News has another issue, which also affects CNN Headline News: When you only have 30 minutes, it's pretty hard to fit in any healthy doses of bias. Now maybe Dan Rather is innovating some ways, I don't know. That got press only because it was sent out onto the internet somehow. The fact that Cameron had a heart-to-heart with Bush prior to an interview talking about his WIFE organizing campaign rallies never got that level of rage. I've barely seen any mention of it other than Outfoxed and a few political blogs. Look at the response to my last quote. Mainly because people don't care. 24 hour networks aren't exactly profitable either. Fox is breaking some records but prior to that taking off they were basically a money sink that some manager at each media conglomerate decided they needed to have so that they don't feel one-upped by the other conglomorate. Jerry Nachman, when he was head of MSNBC, expressed disbelief once that the 24 hour networks are getting so much ink because they aren't exactly a booming business. I've almost never watched Today and don't know who Kitty Kelley is, sorry. Well, I remember she once made a Nancy Reagan book when I was a young thing who prefered watching The Disney Afternoon cartoon block instead of Meet The Press, but that's about it. I'm still going to stand by my opinion of that as Drudge crap, since the memo scan is so illegible. I'm always suspicious of Drudge exclusives, and I get doubly so when the story never makes the rounds outside of NewsMax and the Washington Times. Rush: There is a liberal bias in the media! Hannity: There is a liberal bias in the media! Coulter: There is a liberal bias in the media! Savage: There is a liberal bias in the media! Drudge: There is a liberal bias in the media! Novak: There is a liberal bias in the media! Fox News: There is a liberal bias in the media! Watch us instead. Average American: Hmmm. You know, I think there's a liberal bias in the media. I didn't even get into the B-list radio hosts and pundits like Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, Bill Bennett, but they're there too just with a smaller audience. Point being, if you repeat something often enough, people will think it's true.

Oh, I see. I wasn't conspirating deep enough.