NoCalMike

I guess it was SUPPOSED to be released around the 2005 holidays, it wasn't and I dunno why. I have, however done some digging around and found the trailer.......... Enjoy: http://www.revver.com/video/6521/?__session_just_started__=1

Is this the full set? Full set of season one: all 22 Episodes plus tons of extras.

I contacted Dish Network to ask about upgrading to HD programming. They told me it would cost $300 just to upgrade to their HD equipment, which I don't quite understand because technically I am leasing the box and not owning it, so why should I be required to pay for it? My overall bill however would only go up by approx $10/month.

C.O.P.S. The Animated Series - Tomorrow on DVD~!

So anyone see the Tai horror movie...Shudder? A buddy at work is going to hook me up with it later this week.

I don't even remember why exactly, ( I mean I am sure it was bad service, I just can't remember the specifics) but one time at a local Denny's I was pretty disgusted with the service, so I left a $2 tip with mashed potatoes inbetween the dollars.

..the kid should of just rebooted. It solved 99.9% of problems.

What is funny is the american studios are not only remaking japanese horror flicks, but the ones they are choosing to make are often rehashes themselves of earlier japenese horror films IE: The Grudge, Dark Water etc... As far as NOTLD 3D goes, it is a shame because they spent all this money filming it with expensive digital equipment, but have opted to go with the shit-style red/blue 3-D instead of the other kind where you wear those clear glasses.

Remember when the thought of Iraq falling into Civil War was "Liberal-minded nonsense"

Thoughts?

Question: If Civil War breaks out, will the opposing sides throw roses and candy at each other and greet each other as liberators?

If another North American Pro-Wrestling Empire emerged, to be a real threat, and Superstars from each company went back and forth, then I bet the casual fan(s) would come back in flocks. Wrestling is just not what it used to be, there is no creative force contolling things right now. Heyman is the closest we have to that, but he is virtually powerless and cut off at the legs because Stephanie hates him and his booking style. Competition is, was and always will be the key.

To add something to this. Let me just say that it's not like WWE has some big money maker or ratings draw right now to justify RVD not getting the spot for at least a month or so. If he fails miserbly, then oh well, what's new, welcome to the Current WWE ME picture. It would be different, REAAALLY different if we were asking Austin or the Rock, or hell even Triple H from a few years ago to step aside for RVD, but who exactly are we asking here, Cena, Orton, Edge...!?!

I am not so much mad that RVD lost, I mean I am, but it's not like we all didn't see it coming from a mile away. What irks me the most is the nature in which he lost it. I mean Triple H just grabs him and thrusts him into the Pedigree, no setup move or anything, I mean at least kick RVD in the loweback from behind and then put him in the pedigree. It just comes off looking lame that RVD wasn't able to reverse out of the pedigree.

Which gives credence to the notion that the general public will eat up whatever shit is shoveled down their throats, and then ask for seconds.

I tend to think Trish is really damn overrated as far as in-ring work goes. I mean granted, when working with the right person a Trish match can be watchable, but it seems like half her move set, like the Matrix thing, and the standing on her hands and hurrancanrana-ing the opponent off the top rope, are so slow to be setup that it looks too damn forced. Other then that, she is just as punchy and kicky as any other female, of course she does make it look better, but nevertheless still bland. Victoria I'd say is the best female worker on the WWE roster.

Ric Flair should retire, hell he should have retired 10 years ago.

DING DING - We have a Winner

Ex-fucking-actly. This is what gets me about this Administration. For the life of them they want to be able to spy on people without warrants and court orders, but when it comes to THEM, "I don't use email, because I don't want people reading my personal stuff" or "Sorry Sheriff's come back in the morning when I can collaborate stories...errrrrrrrrr.....when I am emotionally stable" When it comes to the american people, "if you have nothing to hide, then shut the fuck up and get in line" but different rules apply to them.

Even the most liberal of libtard radio shows over the past week have agreed that the story is not about the accidental shooting, rather the fact that Cheney turned away Sheriff's when they arrived on the scene. and told them to come back in the morning.

We're not as good at brainwashing our society? Ahem, excuse me, you do realize at one time 70%+ of this nation was supporting pre-emminetly striking Iraq, right? Maybe we should get this message out about Rumsfield & Cheney..... Rumsfeld and Cheney Revive Their 70's Terror Playbook by Thom Hartmann Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are at it again. Last week, Rumsfeld told the press we should be preparing for "the Long War," saying of the war this administration has stirred up with its attack on Iraq that, "Just as the Cold War lasted a long time, this war is something that is not going to go away." The last time Rumsfeld talked like this was in the 1970s, in response to the danger of peace presented by Richard Nixon. In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente." On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said: "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world." But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? And how could billions of dollars taken as taxes from average working people be transferred to the companies that Rumsfeld and Cheney - and their cronies - would soon work for and/or run? Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear. They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with. The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone. As Dr. Anne Cahn, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977 to 1980, told the BBC's Adam Curtis for his documentary "The Power of Nightmares": "They couldn't say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, 'we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.' "INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence. "CAHN: Even though there was no evidence. "INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist… "CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it." But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good. Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology. It could - within a matter of months - be off the coast of New York City with a nuclear warhead. Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of this powerful new Soviet WMD was unproven - they said the lack of proof proved the "undetectable" sub existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz helped re-organized a group - The Committee on the Present Danger - to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for whom many of these same men would later become lobbyists. And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world. Trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs and the Soviet super-sub technology. Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that the Soviets were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working, and their military was disintegrating. But the Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Wolfowitz to Cheney who have all become rich in part because of the arms industry. Today, making Americans terrified with their so-called "War On Terror" is the same strategy, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it - and then invading Iraq to bring it into fruition - we may well be bringing into reality forces that previously existed only on the margins and with very little power to harm us. Most recently we've learned from former CIA National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and South Asia Paul Pillar that, just like in the 1970s, the CIA disagreed in 2002 with Rumsfeld and Cheney about an WMD threat - this time posed by Iraq - even as Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz were telling America how afraid we should be of an eminent "mushroom cloud." We've seen this movie before. The last time, it cost our nation hundreds of billions of dollars, vastly enriched the cronies of these men, and ultimately helped bring Ronald Reagan to power. This time they've added on top of their crony enrichment program the burden of over 2200 dead American servicemen and women, tens of thousands wounded, as many as a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and a level of worldwide instability not seen since the run-up to World War Two. When Hilary Clinton recently noted that the only political card Republicans are any longer capable of playing is the card of fear, she was spot-on right. They're now even running radio and TV commercials designed to terrorize our children ("Do you have a plan for a terrorist attack?"), the modern reincarnation of "Duck and Cover." Now that former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has confessed that many of the terror alerts that continually popped up during the 2004 election campaign were, as USA Today noted on 10 May 2005, based on "flimsy evidence" or were >done over his objection at the insistence of "administration officials," it's increasingly clear that the Bush administration itself is the source of much of the "be afraid!" terror inflicted on US citizens over the past 5 years. It's time for patriotic Americans of all political affiliations, and for our media, to join with Senator Clinton, former CIA official Paul Pillar, and the many others who are pointing this out, and refuse to allow the Bush administration to inflict terror on Americans - and the world - for political gain. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his first inaugural address in 1932, when Americans were terrorized by the Republican Great Depression, the echoes of World War One, and the rise of Communism in Russia: This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. Indeed, the best hope for the growth of democracy around the world and the survival of individual liberty in the United States is for us to turn away from Rumsfeld's and Cheney's politics of terror and fear, and once again embrace the great vision of this nation, held by her great statesmen and women from 1776 to today. Indeed, they are still among us, as we saw most recently when a brave few senators stood up to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito. In this election year, we must redouble our efforts to swell their ranks, to involve ourselves in local and national political groups, and to return America to her destiny as the world's beacon of courage, liberty, and light. Thom Hartmann [thom (at) thomhartmann.com] is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated noon-3pm Eastern Time daily progressive talk show syndicated by Air America Radio. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent book is "What Would Jefferson Do?" © 2006 Thom Hartmann

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/filmgeek/trailer/

While I don't necessarily agree with the end of the post. Moving him up and "beyond" the X-division is not such a bad idea.

I like the idea of Lynn mentoring whoever eventually beats Joe. Maybe have a Joe/Lynn match, where Lynn exposed some type of chink in Joe's armor, but still cannot muster enough to capitalize and get the win, so in turn he mentors the next guy in line who eventually goes on to mentor Joe. This scenario kind of reminds me of RVD beating Sabu at A Matter of Respect, because Taz told RVD about Sabu's neck, and RVD ended up winning with a Fisherman's Buster. Although there are still clear differences in each respective scenario. Whoever it ends up being, I think the win should involve the oppoent attacking Joe's midsection and sides. I mean when you see Joe, and his physique, the only galring thing that stands out as a negative is his mid-section. I think it could be played up that the youngster is a good ring technician, coupled with Jerry Lynn's knowledge due to his prior match. I was thinking in a match with Lynn/Joe that they could even do a PLANNED botched move, where Lynn is supposed to do something, and it ends up accidently hitting Joe's Midsection or sides ,instead, and Joe shows major effects from it, ala not being as effective the rest of the way through the match, but still holds off Lynn. The announcers can play it up a bit, but not too much as to not overexpose what Jerry Lynn was learned from his match, and eventually teaches to his eventual mentor-ee.

I think by now it should be almost assumed Cheney was drunk, or at least buzzed. I mean we have three different accounts of whether alcohol was involved. The owner of the ranch said NO, Cheney said "we had a beer" and the guy who got shot said, "well, there was no alcohol DURING the hunt" which basically is an ass-backwards way of saying they were probably drinking during lunch before the hunt.