Jobber of the Week

I don't think you understand quite how this company works. Doing something like that, you see, would be doing what the fans want.

Looks like another blowout. This is the third year (in a row) I've succeeded at getting WM tickets, and I'm pretty suprised at the prices this year. Maybe I was spoiled by the mass seating at WM 19, but I was suprised to find out that lower bowl meant paying $100-$200 figures.

Eventually. They need to make a broadcast variant. DTV doesn't have access to that VOD shit where you can pretend to drive a Tivo over your cable line.

Welcome to Current Events.

Because if one person so flagrantly breaks the rules, what's to stop everyone else from breaking the rules and chaos breaking out?

There wasn't any 9/11 or terrorism in the case of Chong. The general complaint was that the government can find out about what he's doing in his spare time but has such massive intelligence failures in more important areas. Giulianni's legacy was born out of showing more leadership than anybody else on 9/11. He's been pissing that away, though, from lying to the Commission about the firefighter equipment (someone here actually suggested that the lie was OK because we should be allowed to have heroes, appearantly their sacrifice means less if they didn't die voluntarily) and the emotional pandering he invoked at the RNC.

This is the root thought of every small state citizen who can't stand the idea that the guy who gets the most votes wins because it reduces his power. Give it up. This is a DEMOCRACY. It is the worst system of government in the world, but only if you don't count everything else. I don't understand where all this shit is about urban people being the only ones considered important. I know from living here that people outside of the big city can get together enough votes to defeat an initiative to give money to where we don't want it. Almost every election I and many others vote down propositions to give arm sacks of money to Los Angeles and screw the rest of us. So yes, I have lived in a small city, we're barely on the outskirts of a large city which means we often get ignored services-wise to serve the people in the big city. My midway proposition, if you will, is to keep the college but split a state's electoral votes into an appropriate percentage for how much each candidate got. This way you don't have 49% of the people's votes being discounted because 51% voted for another guy. If you think you'd be screwed, look at the above, that's even screwier.

So far, campaign in rural areas is majorily what they do. Again, unless I can afford a $250,000 a plate dinner, I don't get to see anyone important. Meanwhile in Rural Ohio they just about can't walk to the Post Office without having to walk around another candidate "town hall meeting."

I didn't see Kerry's use of them, but I'd find that offensive too. If it was at the Democratic convention, I was in Las Vegas at the time and saw nothing other than the star speakers. Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson is doing the same thing on Crossfire as one of the righties here. Interpreting that Kerry saying that he wouldn't start a draft is the same thing as saying Bush is.

Naw, this is exactly what fluff is made for. It has little political or debatable value except to say "Wow, that's stupid."

I remember widows on the first night of the convention. I don't remember how many, but I remembered thinking that while what they were saying wasn't offensive, taking it in the context of a political rally made it disgusting.

I own a Faux News shirt. We should get together for steak & beer or something and just confuse the hell out of everyone.

Nobody hates people who live in rural areas. Your vote counts as much as someone who lives in a heavily populated area's vote. The REASON for the college was to make sure candidates wouldn't stop campaigning in these rural areas. I don't know if you've noticed, but that's just about all their doing right now. There's this tiny piece of Columbus where politicians and the media circus are becoming so common that some of the people who live there want them gone. I'll never get a chance to meet a candidate where I live. Since it's considered that all our votes will be going to one guy no matter what, the candidates only come here for expensive dinners with party elites to make money. The people who actually vote here are told to stick it. And if you're a Republican here, your vote on the Persidency is a lost cause (yes, locally, we have a bunch of propositions on the table.) The college is causing the opposite effect of what was intended.

I have a lot of reasons besides just the 2000 style "won the popular vote but didn't win the college" scenario to not like the current system: A) Again, it divides the states into Republican country and Democrat territory. As such, Republicans won't bother campaigning hard in the Dem territory and Democrats won't bother campaigning too much in the Republican territory. This means that instead of informing people across the country about the issues, it actually keeps them from being informed when their state is considered a "lock." B) If one candidate just barely comes out ahead in a state, all that state's votes are given to that candidate. This makes the efforts of those voting for the other candidate completely ineffectual. Again, this stifles people's will to vote in states where they're known to be far outnumbered. Democrats in Texas (they exist) might as well concede early, and the same with Republicans in New York (they exist, too.) Again, the electoral system leaves people feeling that their vote is a futile effort. C) There is currently a small region in Ohio that is flooded with analysts, media hounds, pollsters, and politicians looking for a vote. This little corner of the world is one of those small towns where everybody knows your name, and both sides are fighting tooth and nail for this slice of pie while the citizens who live there are so tired of seeing these candidates that they'd wish the election were over already. Meanwhile, large amounts of people living in high-density cities who have questions cannot ask them directly. Californians are more likely to see the northern lights than they are to see a Presidential candidate. I think the system was written with good intentions, but I think these days it's outdated and hurting democracy.

I always liked the "dinner with Pepper" skit just because even though I saw it coming, until it happened I didn't think there was any way that they'd actually have the balls to go through with it.

OMG U MINDLESS FLAG WAVER YOU HULK HOGAN YOU WAT AN EGOMANIAC See, referencing wrestling gimmicks doesn't help you in real debate. It is basically your way of sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to discredit the other person with lame insults instead of actually make a counterpoint. Not to mention that most the people that boo by reflex when they hear the music probably can't even remember why they're supposed to hate France in the first place. If you're going to make a gimmick joke, joke about a GOOD gimmick. Instead saying the other guy is far-left and the kind of person that Vince McMahon (who, of course, is a bastion of integrity when it comes to impartial politics) makes fun of, actually try and address the points instead of running away while shouting about how you're too good to come up with an arguement.

I hereby declare that the movie "Pearl Harbor" was war profiteering.

No, because I've held the opinion long before 2000. While the root of it is held in the belief that whoever gets the most votes is the person who should win, there's a lot more it than that. This whole thing about simplifying everything into Red States and Blue States also comes from the Electoral College. I understand it's purpose circa the period it was created, which was to help smaller, more rural states understand the issues. But in an era of internet, 24 hour news, syndicated newspapers, mass mailings, and phone-in supporters, it's very hard to live so remote that you can't find out what the candidates stand for anymore.

Probably because Bush exploits 9/11 even more.

My point is that it's mostly the partisan base that votes in primaries. Iowa and, at times, New Hampshire is the exception, as these states have a lot of small towns that are a lot more abuzz about having someone running for President coming through and wanting to sit down and talk to people. Dean was getting a lot of press, but people outside Iowa and New Hampshire pretty much didn't know who he was. Mainstream Democrats were mostly thinking "You mean there's someone going to run against Bush?" at the time. I bet turnout in the Super Tuesday states was much more down to the party base than it was in Iowa. By the time Iowa and New Hampshire were finished, momentum was set that carried through the rest of the primaries, and by the time the Super Tuesday states came around, many mainstream voters probably thought that the election had pretty much been decided for him, and that's not completely false either. This is why states like California that are so full of party die-hards are angry that the conclusion is so forgone before we have a chance to weigh in. Many here view the Iowa primary as a bunch of cracker barrel folks getting to choose the party's candidate instead of them, but the fact is that the candidates CAN'T have public luncheons with people all over California, it's just too damn big.

Yeah, the AP fucked it. Again. Edwards did say that the draft wouldn't return if Kerry got elected, but whoop de do, anyone with a proper vision of politics would see that the draft isn't likely to happen under either President. People who like to second-guess politicians, however, see a stronger chance of the world going kookoo and the draft coming back under Bush, since he's been re-elected he wouldn't have any political future to look out for if he did. Makes sense, but still pretty crazy in the current situation.

Dean didn't win because Iowa voters didn't care for his aggressive style, and the media put his head on a stake, mid-scream, after the first primary. I don't have a real strong feeling one way or the other for open primaries, I just see the logic in it but don't really have any opinion. This is unlike my feelings that the Electoral College is old and unneeded.

To keep the extremes from getting too much power? The party base seems to be the only ones that vote reliably in primaries, witness how most Democrats had barely heard of the challengers while DEANMANIA IS (allegedly, by the press) RUNNIN' WILD. I don't mind open primaries because without it we'll always be stuck with some hippie vs some reformed Christian. Clinton did well because he was a reformed hippie Christian or something like that, and played along both lines.

I'd approve of that. Hell, I don't care how scummy it is, I'd still approve of that. I like Cobb. His message is pretty simple, to rally his base and make a showing of how many loyals they have in order to advance that party's agenda to certain other people (see also: Democrats.) He is spreading a message without rocking the boat. Nader is all about rocking the boat, and it was solidified in grade-A stone when he left the Greens and then decided to run again. This has pretty much immortalized his campaigns as being pure ego vehicles. He's even actually screwing over the Greens this time, as many of the Greens are planning vote for him for no other reason than because he's Nader and he's always on the ballot. For every action taken by the Democrats to keep Nader off a ballot, there's been twice as much reaction in the form of support or donations by Republicans to keep him there. It's fucking embarassing, and I'm disappointed to see the man's name still in lights even after he abandoned the movement he was identifying himself with.

Didn't you know, Tyler? Gallup is the organization that keeps fair & balanced tabs on the pulse of America. Pulses like "having an extramarital affair with a woman that results in a child birth is acceptable, but two gay men loving each other is not."