Jobber of the Week

He means ABC, and there's no mention of what kind of party sampling they were using, even though they collected that data since they knew who belonged to what party in their Nader poll. This doesn't say who anyone is voting for or even party data, it just simply says that a random number of adults they called think the incumbant will win in a system that favors incumbants.

Man, you have your head up your ass even more than the other talking points issue-spouting right-wing Internet Partisans do. They're at least strongly considering the possibility of another neck and neck race. But then again, Gallup paints an even rosier picture than you do, so I have to give you credit for that.

He did all you could expect him to do. They told him that the attack was still going on, that more was coming. However, you'd think they would have had some secret service carry him out of the room to safety. And the teacher thing is stupid. She didn't know what was going on until the rest of us did, and so what if she thought it was the right thing because a bunch of kids weren't bothered by people coming in and escorting the President away, in light of what happened? Her word that he did the right thing doesn't mean any more than some yahoo on the internet who thinks he should have stood up and started shouting out orders to scramble jets. Well, "Strange Brew" was a pretty accurate documentary regarding the behavior of Canadian drunks.

<zealot>But why wouldn't ya? </zealot> Aside from the fact that the web browser has a memory leak so big that you could drive a cruiseliner through. True, but if you're using IE, isn't that what a history search is for?

So, if Bungie posted on their forums or news page "Hey, we've already set up the Live servers and they're ready to go! Go download and enjoy the leaked Halo 2!" you'd jump on it without giving second thought that it might be a trap?

Wow, how very... MS-centric. It doesn't even look for Firefox's default cache folder? And no MP3 ID tag search? I think it's ownZorEd by Spotlight as far as execution goes. Maybe with time when Google searches more than just the MS suite it'll become useful.

Oh come on, Tucker was going to ambush him by asking him why his comedy/entertainment show isn't being though on guests like Tim Russert is, when there's a league of difference between the Daily Show and Meet The Press.

Any incumbant who dedicates the military to fighting a group of nations is accused of possibly bringing back the draft. Reagan could supress it because most people felt they could believe him. Bush doesn't have that going for him.

Then "idiots" (which seems to be defined as "people who won't get involved with the political process") shouldn't own guns, either?

Remember when we were told the Patriot Act would be temporary until the terrorist problem disappeared? This President lies so much in office that it's hard to believe his campaign promises. And almost all politicians lie during campaign promises, no matter how much they lie in office.

Exactly, I don't believe you ought to need to be aware of the issues and the positions to vote. It's simply a constitutionally protected right, like the right to bear arms. People should vote simply because they can and want to, just like why people say they should be able to own certain types of guns simply because they can and want to.

http://tinyurl.com/47rmw

Stewart isn't an O'Reilly show, he's a show that makes fun of the constants on an O'Reilly show. His show is not news or politics, it's a parody of what the news is doing, which right now is heavy on the politics. If the news was talking about 15 year olds pretending to be 13 year olds in little league again, he'd be making jokes about that. This is like complaining that SNL's "Weekend Update" doesn't ask the hard questions. Look at what the hell you're watching and you'll see why.

They've always done that, they do it on Survivor too, and it was never more atrocious and obvious than it was lastnight. It's like his tone suddently changes 3 times in the same sentence.

What the hell? He shoulda done this on Fox a few weeks ago.

Trump watches the footage, at least the important parts. I think that has a lot to do with why the boardroom really goes on so long. We don't see it, but I'm sure he does. The room has a big TV in the wall you rarely see for a reason. What George and Carolyn do is probably make note of which actual people are doing better and which people are dragging the team down. Having rewatched that episode, if I was Pamela, I would have taken three and picked the last two plus Ivana. Ivana didn't want to take the price because she was "too busy" writing a cheesy script with Elizabeth to look at the price, even though that is right up the alley of her advertised forte. Mini Stacy did not want to actually give Pam a price point, she simply kept "suggesting" what the price would be but never actually gave a straight answer, and of course Maria said that talking to people is her thing and then looked like she was taking speedballs in the practice run before the cameras went on. Manager John was so uninvolved with this task that even my father (who has watched them all) couldn't remember who was Manager. EDIT: Yahoo bonus footage shows Raj wearing a Hefner style smoking jacket while making advances on all the models. Meanwhile, everyone else on Mosaic is hauling 30lbs a piece of shit to the hotel and storms in to find Raj chatting it up with models. One of the guys (Kelly?) expressed that he was pissed off to see it, and surely others on the team were unhappy, too (except for idiot manager John, who declared before the show that "I can't think of anyone here who didn't pull their own weight." Yeah, John, except for YOU and Raj) Firing prediction: No team predictions because of the reshuffle, but the footage of next week's episode shows Trump laying the smackdown on somebody. "I don't like people who exaggerate!!" so I bet it's Raj.

Sounds like he's been reading from Zealot Miller's notes.

I think that regardless of the quality of the brains behind the ears, telling more people to vote isn't a bad thing.

There's a lot of campaign people who's like to remain in the background, but can't. That's politics. That's what happens when you have a meeting hall, a hotel, or a restaurant full of reporters watching everyone's every move and scribbling notes. You go out there and join a national campaign, you have your name mentioned in a newspaper or on TV once or twice, that's practically a consequence. This isn't like the Prince William media spotlight where it never leaves him alone. I already said I think all mention of her has been respectful, same with Laura and the twins.

Ed Gillespie was a lobbyist for some company or another. Shoot, I forget which one, and what a shame since I can't remember who our elected officials were being wooed by for money. Some electric group or something. Oh well, whatever, I'm sure they're good people.

Well, my opinion is that it's fair game if the other guy brings it up. Cheney, bless him for being supportive instead outcasting her, has made mention of her before to connect with moderates while diffusing the administration's marriage platform, which caters only to far-right conservatives. I'm against using families for political points, but once someone drags their family member into it, that family member is open to commentary from the other side as long as it's done respectfully. Like when Laura Bush started rambling off on stem cell research like she's a Nobel scientist and fully researched the issue, when those of us who knew better quietly sighed and suggested that it would be more effective if Bush introduced people with credentials to denounce the research instead a K-12 Teacher.

Kerry's debate performances have been the kind of softer debating you don't see much anymore because all anyone outside of politics wants to hear is vague words in a decisive tone followed up with a catchy soundbite. Kerry's attacks on Bush for not accomplishing things were of the iron fist in a velvet glove variety. Without saying much more about Bush than "The President's policies have failed" or "This President has failed to accomplish (X)", he still managed to look more knowledgable and aware of the situation than Bush did. I think the only thing that hurt him was "let me go back to that last question", but even when it happen he didn't let it fill up his time. There's also a second matter, that the GOP have demonized the word liberal quite a bit over the past few years. Now everyone takes a step back from the word, afraid to be associated with it, accusing it of being some baseless title that gets slinged across party lines. The Republicans have not taken the same issues with conservative, and have little objection if you substitute one word for the other.

I don't really care because so far all the Cheneys' outrage has been expressed at rallys with supporters instead of interviews, and at those events they're giving the crowd pleasers that people want to hear, and the crowd pleaser is "John Kery = Lying, low-balling, scum sucking moron who will say anything to win and weaken America, after he's finally decided what shirt he's going to wear that day." While I don't think they're actually happy about the remarks, a stump speech is a pretty disengenous place to talk about how you really reel.

Civil unions grant those rights. While Bush hasn't publically done much other than play to his base regarding this issue, he did support legislation that put civil unions on legally thin ice.

Oh good god, I'm starting to seriously wonder if it's true because some of this speech sounds just like Bill, if you hear it in his voice That sounds like the kind of lesson one would learn if the Playboy Channel presented "Who's Looking Out For You?" On the other hand, Al Franken is quoted directly by name, and Bill loves to call him Stewart Smalley instead.