NoCalMike

I didn't think Karate Kid II was crap, I actually thought it was a decent movie. And his role in Honeymoon in Vegas was small but memorable.

House of 1000 Corpses was attempting to be a horror movie in the vein of TCM, and The Devils Rejects was much more emulating a 70's Exploitation Film.

The problem with Monk, is he was from the 80's era of the NFL, and he is being judged against the 90's era WRs. If you look at Monk's stats from the 80's, only Jerry Rice kept up with him. No other receivers were close, it wasn't normal for WRs to being what Monk and Rice did in the 80's, but he is unfairly being judged by TODAY's Standard of WR. Your HOF credentials should be judged based on when you retire, not the current year it is today. Monk also had Williams, Theismann, and Rypien, while Rice had Montana and Young. Monk also had Ricky Sanders and Gary Clark as fellow WRs which definately would help reduce the number of balls thrown his way. You ask all the "experts" and analyists who actually were old enough during the 80's and they all say hands down that Monk is a HOFer and that it is a travesty that he keeps getting passed on.

The problem is WWE saw the forumla with Austin & Rock, and now they want it to be that easy for EVERY ME'er. The thing with Austin and Rock was, they were basically faces, working as heels, by the time they were turned. Not the case with Cena.

There is also a report out now in England that a newspaper there had a confidential report that Bush wanted to Attack Al Jazeera Network Headquarters, but Blair talked him out of it, but the newspaper was threatended by the Government there about printing the story, under some law, about not being able to print "secrets" unless they were obtained in the right way.

Cause I didn't care about the WMDs when they told me. I knew the UN and Clinton admin had been saying for years that Iraq had WMDs and I knew the kind of man was running that country. To me, the guy running the country was enough for me. I'm mad at how piss poorly they handled it but that's it. ETA: I can see how others would be mad though if that was the only reason they agreed with it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To me Bush's dad had the correct method. You tell the Iraqi people to uprise and overthrow Saddam, and when they decide to do it, they will be supported by the American Military. Of Course Bush Sr. didn't keep to his word, and THAT is what is what resulted in the Kurds being gassed, but it sets a bad precident that our government, with the including the President can stand up there and lie about why we are dropping bombs on another country, and as more and more evidence comes out that he was lying, he can just brush it off as "well Saddam was bad"

Saturday Night is one hell of a shit timeslot. Trust me, if it wasn't for TIVO, I probably wouldn't even be watching TNA. Not because I don't want to, but it is a tough time to be sitting in front of the TV. I think you could move it to Monday Night, buy ad time during Raw to tell people to change the channel, and you would easily arouse more interest and exposure, due to advertising DIRECTLY TO WRESTLING FANS.

Is there really anybody left that thinks we invaded Iraq because of terrorism, or that invading Iraq wasn't already in the plans before 9-11? Seriously.....?

I find it hilarious that Vince would come out with this new policy, considering the entire roster that came from WCW/ECW/Indy...etc....all had somewhat managable physiques BEFORE WWE, and somebody was obviously coaching them to become muscle-bound freaks in WWE.

Question - is this a remake of Superman 1, or is this actually a "Superman Returns" movie? If this is just a remake of the 1st one, why the hell is it called "Superman Returns" it should be called "Superman Remade" or Re-filmed, or Re-envisioned. Is this another chapter in the Superman Saga, or is this simply just a remake?

Anyone think there is a chance for a Sinister Minister/Mitchell turn.....they might do it like they did the Fonzie turn on Taz at Barely Legal.

I don't see what is wrong with Sabu being a "garbage" wrestler. I mean SO WHAT? He fits the niche for it and is over as hell for doing what he does.

That's bioterrorism, I think. Yeah blowing up giant cars is great for the environment, too <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's what I said. Nothing like burning a parking lot full of SUV's that'll explode and fill the sky with black smoke and debris for miles and miles. BRILLANT! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I never said I defend these idiots, or even think what they do makes any sense what-so-ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would bold certain parts of the definition of "terrorism" that help my point, but the whole definition does. Is this group of eco-fucks using force/violence? Yes. Is this group of eco-fucks organized? Yes. Are they using force/violence against people/property? Yes. Are they doing it with the intent of intimidating or coercing the people themselves/owners of the property? Yes. Are they doing it for their own idealogical beliefs? Yes. ...since the answer to every question has been "yes," how are they NOT terrorists? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd equate ECO-Terrorism, to poisoning water supplies to kill the masses, or unleashing a deadly virus. Not Burning an SUV.

From the cases I have heard, the damage has been done purposely when no one has been around, and has not in the least been targeting civilian death(s). Like I said before, if they are intending to start killing people on purpose then yes, it then crosses over to being terrorism. You could compare this to kids egging someone's house, or spray painting their driveway, is that an act of terrorism? If the neighborhood jackass goes around breaking car windows out, is that terrorism, or is it an idiot going around vandalizing property? This is really sad. You are trying to equate "Throwing eggs at a house" with "Blowing up SUVs and Apartment Complexes". Do you really not see the difference between #1 and #2? No, she obviously was intending to commit an act of terrorism. Intent has a role in these things.Hell people get drunk and run over folks and barely get charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, yet idiots spray painting "ELF" on a car are being labeled terrorists!?! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, first off, it's obvious these people aren't just 'spraypainting' ELF on cars. They are blowing them up. And I bolded that one word because of this statement made above: I suppose that's definitely not intending to hurt anyone, right? I really am surprised you go so far out of your way to defend these people, NoCal. Grow a pair and realize these guys aren't people who are getting bad media press, but out to hurt people. Hell, join the Sierra Club or something, but don't try to defend these people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not defending them in the least. They should be held responsible for the crimes they commit, I just don't think in MOST CASES, what they do equates to Terrorism. The ONE STORY you keep posting and quoting, well yes it looks like in THAT case it crosses over because it is intending to hurt or even murder civilians, but in most cases of ELF or whatever the hell they call themselves, they spray paint and burn cars in the middle of the night when no one is around, because they are purposely trying to NOT hurt PEOPLE. Just as well as you are pasting the worst of the worst things these enviorn-groups do, I could also point out stories by the media where they were saying that a crime as simple as spray painting cars was eco-TERRORISM. In other words, the only real difference here seems to be whether or not the suspects are a member of ELF or not, because if they weren't a member of ELF then there is no way it would be reported as ECO-Terrorism All I am saying is that things should be treated case to case as far as the crime being commited. Just like burning down a church that just happened to house a large majority of african american members, wouldn't necessarily be a hate-crime, it depends on the details of the case.

Whoever made this file, lets us in on it... http://uploads.ungrounded.net/276000/276650_MKvsSF2.swf

I just think people overrated how fast people would just accept a new fed on tv, like people would instantly flock to it. This isn't like '98 where the masses are itching for more wrestling. This is 2005 where for the past few years WWE has been doing their damndest to drive the masses away from Prowrestling.

Saturday Night Folks, not a good night for wrestling ratings. I would be interested to see a straight up return of Monday Night Wars.

I certainly would like to see it. Two guys who have "the look" and can work a stiff match.

I wish it would be a no-rope, barbed-wire match, but it doesn't seem very viable for a PPV show which is on a strict time limit. *crosses fingers*

Too Short "My Dick & My Sack" Well anything in his library really.....

Oakland@Washington: Randy Moss gets a TD late in the first quarter to tie the game at 7-7, and that is where the fun ends for Raiders fans, as Washington's D clamps down in front of the home crowd of 90,000+ die-hard fans. Redskins 27 Raiders 13

From the cases I have heard, the damage has been done purposely when no one has been around, and has not in the least been targeting civilian death(s). Like I said before, if they are intending to start killing people on purpose then yes, it then crosses over to being terrorism. You could compare this to kids egging someone's house, or spray painting their driveway, is that an act of terrorism? If the neighborhood jackass goes around breaking car windows out, is that terrorism, or is it an idiot going around vandalizing property? No, she obviously was intending to commit an act of terrorism. Intent has a role in these things.Hell people get drunk and run over folks and barely get charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, yet idiots spray painting "ELF" on a car are being labeled terrorists!?!

Alright, a better way of putting this: If a Neo-Nazi group destroys a Holocaust Museum with no one in it, is it arson or terrorism? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A Hate Crime, I have seen reports of churches and/or jewish temples being burned by fuckheads, and never once was the "terrorism" card dealt. I am not saying "eco-terrorism" can't exist, but IMO, burning an SUV is not an act of terrorism, it is vandalism.

Did you actually read the article? That's not terrorism? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds like Arson to me!?!