NoCalMike

You are pretty far into the series. If I remember correctly there are 6 seasons(even though techincally they had seasons 4a 4b and 5a 5b so that would be more than 6 seasons) I'd say you are almost to the last season. If you go to hbo.com/oz I believe you can find an episode guide and description for every episode. This was my favorite show on HBO. I thought it was very underrated and was PISSED that it kept getting passed up for Best Drama nominations. I own seasons 1 & 2 which are availble on DVD.... IMO, Seasons 2 & 3 were the series best.

Marney, well then if what I said in those statements is true, I guess it WOULD be considered a conspiracy if more than one persons are conspiring for the prop to go through. Well Done, it is a racist conspiracy~!

Listen, if research based on race was not done, how would you know of inequalities existing? Would you just kind of pull it out of the air? Have you even been reading this conversation, no one is calling for "extra funding" just equal funding. the FACT is, inner city schools are underfunded, do you want to find out why or just participate in covering up any research into why it is happening in CALIFORNIA....

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I wish they did, sir. I wish they did. Wow, another pasting of the King speech. Well done, I am so schooled now!?!

"vast racist conspiracy" "hypothetical conspiracy of racist legislators" Funny, I don't remember ever saying any of that, hmmmmm.

For goodness sake. Validity has nothing to do with it. There are such things as visibility, recognition, and mass media exposure. Furthermore - oh, the hell with it. I'm too tired to teach Politics 101. Although come to think of it, this is more like elementary school. Marney, settle down, you aren't TEACHING me anything. I fully understand that visibility and recognition and all that goes into it as far as who someone is going to vote for. Yes, Mass Media exposure is gonna help Arnold extremely, thank you for the insight. That is my whole point, that the average voter is going to be satissfied with Arnold because Jay Leno joked around with him about how to fix California. That is exactly the point here.

great idea......now you call everyone that is attending the ppv and explain your master plan.

That isn't MY LIST.....but RVD vs. Sabu at GAC was their WORST match ever.(I believe that was the one where Sabu threw up and was sick with the flu) A Matter of Respect '96 was great. Stretcher Match in 96' was great until the finish. Since you don't like the RVD/Lynn series, scratch those off my list for your liking, and take the rest into consideration. As far as the AJPW goes, it has nothing to do with RVD being Guererro. (Plus, HHH is no Guererro anyway) RVD was an instant hit in Japan mainly because of his ABILITY TO ADAPT to their style. Killing the notion that he isn't "capable of working the wwe style" HHH's work in the Foley matches was pretty standard, run of the mill stuff. He used his three or four knee manuevers and then pulled out a sledgehammer and started nailing Foley with it, and Foley bumped like a madman. Both matches were over simply because of Foley bumping. HHH didn't do anything special to make the match memorable. He was just "said worker" who got to destory Foley. If one wrestler is willing to bump and just totally put the other guy over then generally the match would go the same way no matter who it was against. Compare those matches with HBK/FOLEY or Rock/Foley and you are going to remember a lot more to those matches besides strictly Foley's bumps. Look I don't know where this argument turned into who is the better worker, but I will gladly take equal blame. Maybe we should just stop right now because the point has become moot. I mean all it has become for the last page is, "I like this match better" then "well I don't, I like this better"

That's nice. Can you explain Washington, DC yet? You know, the nation's capital? I thought this was about California.

I assure you, neither the Republicans in California nor the RNC can automatically get you on Oprah or the Tonight Show. Being Arnold Schwarzenegger can. It is. Well then I take up issue with Oprah & Jay Leno. I mean if the general public honestly wants to vote for a candidate based on softball joke-y questions lobbed by Oprah and Leno, then UGH, so be it, I guess. If Oprah & Jay Leno are honestly interested in politics and not just Arnold the celebrity then they would give equal time to all candidates, but they are in the ratings game not the political arena. So why should I give validity(although too many people do) to an appearance on Oprah/Leno etc? Just to add, I saw McClintock on Hannity last night and not once did Hannity ever mention to him about how he thinks he is a good candidate and agrees with his principles, it was just 20 mins of, "drop out loser, you suck, you are hurting the golden boy etc......" I mean Hannity had not ONE positive thing to say to his own republican comrade. How betrayed he must feel.

Both his side and the "retarded tradition from many decades ago" are based on the exact same principles. There is no straw man here. If you deny the one, you deny the other. If you accept the one, you have no logical argument against the other. There is a parallel. Ultimately, this is about one question: how do you determine a human being's worth? I, for one, refuse to make any determination whatsoever based on skin colour. Nor Do I. Never once did I say inner city schools should get extra or MORE funding then any other school because they are minorities. EQUAL, yes. What you are trying to do is ban research that will cause the racism currently going on to continue. Like I said before, if you want to put a blindfold on right now and pretend that certain schools aren't being underfunded because of race and/or location, then ok that is your opinion, however I disagree and feel all possibilities must be explored as to why the disproportinate funding is going on. Race is just ONE of them, not the only one. I am very happy that YOU don't determine a human being's worth by the color of their skin, however some people in charge of funding obviously do and it needs to be corrected. Once again, how is RESEARCH on this a bad thing?

Well Marney, maybe if they went out and supported the other guy, gave him the unlimited resources to all the talking head shows like they do Arnold. Those types of tactics do work to get people's support. I mean I really shouldn't be caring since the GOP splitting the vote is a good thing for liberals. It would be one thing if the choice was, Arnold or Cruz or Davis, but it is clearly not. Arnold is just being used in hope of getting a name into the office and then hopefully molding him like so.

Well Jotw, the thing is.....doing the research alone still doesn't guarantee anything will change. That is the tricky part. Shooting down prop 54 doesn't mean, HOORAY EQUALITY FOR ALL, but it does mean research will be taken and patterns of racism and injustice will be available for everyone to see. Or you can vote for 54 and hope all of this is covered up and never explored or looked at, and we can keep the cycle of affirmative action going. See killing this prop and getting the info out there could be the first step into ending affirmative action all togther. It will take awhile though. And yes, location could be a primary example, or just schools with lower performance in general would not get looked into to see why this might be happening. This issue is bigger than my soundbites elude to. It is all very indicative of the evil nature of some people.

lack of research breeds ignorance and ignorance is one of the leading causes of racism.

that entire article was painful to read.....

Two words: Trent Lott. Thereby meaning GOVERNMENT RESEARCH? I mean I am sure he didn't just read it in PEOPLE or something.

Now, this is a straw man. Nowhere did I say that we should abandon cultures wholesale and deny history. Yet saying that you want people to be treated the same "IN SPITE" of the colour of their skin is rather telling. It means you think we're innately inclined to treat people differently based on their race, and we can only overcome it through taught principle. I don't think that's true. "in spite" was the wrong word usage.

I tend to dislike a lot of opinion shows, and as many of them are on NPR as they are Limbaugh, Hannity, Media Whore, etc. I watch Fox News Sunday sometimes depending on who's on and I see "Studio B" a lot since my parents watch it (and Shepard Smith is the guy there left with credibility anyway) My two main tests of an opinion show are (if it's a solo show) whether the host can ever admit to being wrong on something, or (if it's a two-side show ala H&C or Crossfire) whether I can agree with the guys on both sides on different issues. H&C is 83% about Hannity, so I can't ever come to a conclusion besides "Boy, that guy is a real ass." 83%? I'd say 95% at the least.....

"Riding the gravy train?" Exactly what kind of benefits do you think Hannity will accrue by supporting Schwarzenegger, assuming he wins, as seems likely? What ridiculous political naivete. It doesn't matter what McClintock's ideology is if it ensures that he'll never be elected. It's the equivalent of stepping onto one of two stones in the middle of a river. You can either step onto the first and have a good chance of landing safely, or you can leap for the second and probably drown. Say you've almost drowned several times trying to leap onto similar stones in the past. Don't you think California Republicans have learned? If someone sees Schwarzenegger as at least a first step in the right direction, there's no shame in supporting him. but see it has nothing to do with a "step in the right direction" it has to do with, wow here is a popular figure head that can garner votes. Nevermind that 50% of more of his views are stuff we detest, fuck it, he is under the ® tent. Now here is this other guy but he is not as popular so lets blackball him and scream and yell at him that he is a spoiler and he should drop out so he won't hurt our precious sterling horse on his way to the victory lap. I gurantee that if Arnold had the same views but ran as an (I) or (D), the same fucks who support him would rail his ass as another, "hollywood liberal" and only bring up his liberal tendencies.

If that's not a straw man, it's damned close... this kind of statement is just trolling for flames and you know it. It's nothing of the sort. It is a direct parallel. In the past, black people were considered unworthy of marriage to whites. There were laws against it. Mixed people were called mulattos and mongrels who had disgraced their heritage. It was discrimination based on race, pure and simple. Do you deny that? Now, in the present, we have white people denied admission to universities for which they are eminently qualified, on the basis that their race has had advantages over other races in the past. It is discrimination based on race, pure and simple. Do you deny that? What we have in the future is a choice. We can either stop punishing and rewarding people for the colour of their skin or we can continue. We can be racists or we can be Americans. We can assess people's needs based on economic status or we can assume they need help based on their skin colour. I'm not a racist, and I know which side I'm on. Do you? Yes Marney and STILL TODAY, some schools are deemed unworthy of proper funding. A lot of them by "coinicidence" happen to be located in the inner city and filled with minorities. See I am not sure what you are getting at, are you honestly trying to suggest that there is no longer racist practices going on at the grade school level as far as funding goes? Oh and as far as college emissions go, I have not talked to one white kid that has not recieved a quality education due to affirmative action.

Actually, NO, I don't want the color of people's skin to mean NOTHING. I do want everyone to be treated equally though IN SPITE of the color of their skin, not because we all are wearing blinders that makes us all see the same "american" skin. It would be rather dull if everyone in the country shared one exact culture and custom. Instead I like the fact that people can be considered american and still integrate their own culture into american culture at the same time. It works rather easily.

It is research on where people's ancestors came from. Fifty years ago some white people "researched" the ancestry of tanned men to make sure their daughters weren't marrying anyone with nigger blood. Want to justify that next? (emphasis added) Good. Funding should be based on need. Race is irrelevant. We have laws against racial discrimination. Anyone who feels that his race affected a decision to fire him can file suit for wrongful dismissal. A predominantly black public school which is refused funding by a white legislator on the basis of racism can file suit against the state, and as a political analyst I can tell you that the accusation wouldn't even have to be true for white legislators all over the country to fall over themselves begging to give tens of millions and fighting each other for the privilege. There are no grand racist conspiracies in this country. There are incompetent bureaucracies, noncompetitive wage structures, and unacceptable standards, all of which are established, fed, and nurtured by the teachers' unions. It comes as no surprise to me that they are among the most vicious opponents of the dream of Dr King. It means everything. It is central to the issue. Do you want a colourblind society or not? Do you want an America in which your skin colour means nothing? In which your ancestors' origins mean nothing? In which we don't think of our friends and neighbours as black, white, Latino, Asian, Oriental, but simply American? Yes or no? How do you think tracking and "researching" our most superficial differences, rather than our fundamental needs, will make that dream a reality? "some white people" huh? WTF does that mean? Great, because I am sure the same types of people are doing research on funding for schools!?! Seriously, what in the fuck type of comparison is that? "A predominantly black public school which is refused funding by a white legislator on the basis of racism can file suit against the state, and as a political analyst I can tell you that the accusation wouldn't even have to be true for white legislators all over the country to fall over themselves begging to give tens of millions and fighting each other for the privilege. There are no grand racist conspiracies in this country" Oh well that is really golden isn't it, and where exactly would you find the facts and figures to support such claims? That is the whole point of why research is necessary, thank you for helping my argument. Unless you feel no research is necessary and everyone can just cry wolf. No one said funding should be based on race alone Marney. However we do need to research where the the funding is going and where it isn't and we need to find out why. If race has something to do with the crooked system of school funding distribution, then shouldn't that in fact be made known to the public? That fact of the matter is schools in inner cities, are being severely underfunded and so far there has been no explanation as to why. If you just want to pretend it has nothing to do with race then fine.

I never said lets have 1000 parties. I'd say 3-5 is healthy.

MikeSC, I think the only reason certain candidates have no chance of getting in is because of the way we are all conditioned towards politics. Until I found out on my own through snippets on tv, and/or internet and talk radio, I knew SQUAT about 3rd party candidates. I mean in highschool all we ever talked about as far as competition was a Democrat or Republican with maybe once in a blue moon and (I) thrown in there just for fun. People are conditioned to buy into the 2-party system.

Most people I know in general have only seen Evil Dead 2......I think that one has the most mass appeal to it. "Evil Dead 2" seems to be a household name to a bunch of people my age even though the "2" should elude to there being a first installment, hahaha. I'll go with Evil Dead because in the vein of Evil Dead 2 is another classic that I think is better....."Dead Alive"