Kahran Ramsus

I make that mistake too. But what most of us really mean is that they are hanging out with the wrong people. Ideology comes into it, but I don't think it is the bigger factor. It doesn't matter so much what they say as it is being associated with the wrong people. If Jesus was buddy-buddy with Hitler, I doubt anybody would listen to what he had to say, right or not.

You can be paroled after 25. But chances are someone who kills 4 cops won't be.

I think John Kerry is like that. But he didn't have the balls to tell them off. Clinton probably would. It is largely their tactics. Ideology does come in to play somewhat, and I don't mean the standard leftist views on gay marriage, gun control and abortion. I mean the extreme left anarchists, PETA, and groups like that. They've always been around and have not had much of an impact. It is the extreme-but-not-anarchy left like Michael Moore that is the problem, and with him is is definitely not his views but how he chooses to put forward them. Usually by belittling everyone that doesn't agree with him.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike. As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions. One party does no one in the country an ounce of good. Instead he wants the Democrats to be just like the Republicans? He might, but most of us don't. I'm not exactly happy with them either. I liked John Kerry, but feel that the extreme left (Michael Moore, etc.) cost him the election more than anything that Bush did to win it. Bush didn't get out the religious right to vote, the arrogance of the extreme left did. I don't think it was even so much their viewpoints, as it was they were so obnoxious about it.

It is an automatic first degree murder charge and if convicted, it is life in prison (75 years). Unless he is declared a dangerous offender, in which case they can keep him locked up indefinitely.

I'm not sure I understand why you're complaining, Mike. As much as Mike dislikes Democrats, he has made it quite clear he doesn't want the party folding in on itself and making more bad decisions. One party does no one in the country an ounce of good. Canadians would know. Quite frankly, the right wing up here deserved what they got for the past 12 years. The thing is the Democrats in the US are headed down the exact same path. In the best case, they only lose support. In the worst case, they split the party in two when the more moderate Democrats get fed up. Now, we will see what Dean will do as leader. I am not convinced that he is going to head in that direction, but if he does, it is a gigantic mistake. There are more conservatives in the US than liberals, so they can afford to play to their extremists more than the Democrats can, even though they are both equally insane. To win the Democrats have to appeal to moderates. Dean has some good ideas, but we will know in 2008 whether it is enough.

This to me is more evidence that the government needs to crack down on drugs rather than decriminalize them. I hope this murdering coward is enjoying the BBQ down in hell.

Just went in blind for my first draft of the season. Will try to do better later. Standard Yahoo 12 Team. Really concerned about RBIs and my middle IF is crap. Might try to pick up another pitcher, but not much is there. C Ramon Hernandez (SD - C) 1B Derrek Lee (CHC - 1B) 2B Juan Uribe (CWS - 2B/3B/SS) SS Julio Lugo (TB - 2B/SS) 3B Aubrey Huff (TB - 1B/3B/OF) OF Bobby Abreu (PHI - OF) OF Vernon Wells (TOR - OF) OF Aaron Rowland (CWS - OF) Util Brad Wilkerson (WSH - 1B/OF) BN Brian Roberts (BAL - 2B) BN Dallas McPherson (LAA - 3B) BN Coco Crisp (CLE - OF) BN Marquis Grissom (SF - OF) SP Jason Schmidt (SF - SP) SP Ben Sheets (MIL - SP) RP Francisco Rodriguez (LAA - RP) RP Guillermo Mota (FLA - RP) P Odalis Perez (LAD - SP) P Ted Lilly (TOR - SP) P Justin Speier (TOR - RP) BN Jon Lieber (PHI - SP) Also, I have a question regarding who I should start. I have some flexibility due to Uribe, so should I play Roberts or Lugo? Or start both and bump Uribe?

You mean the same Canada who's governing party constantly said their main opposition was 'too American' in the last election?

Jericho desperately needs to go to Smackdown. He's already jobbed to everyone on RAW. Send Benoit there too because he never really fit in with the RAW guys to begin with aside from Jericho. Hurricane & Val Venis are a couple of guys who would benefit from a fresh start. Hurricane especially belongs in the CW Division. On the Smackdown side, Undertaker has done pretty much everything that he can do there and would benefit from the live atmosphere anyways. Send him to RAW. Kenzo Suzuki was buried on Smackdown, so see if he can do better on RAW. Other than that just pick some random lower carders (like say Hardcore Holly) and move them. Smackdown is weaker on top, and with Angle nearing the end, they really to win the draft this time.

1) Ric Flair - Heel. He's the prototype for half the heels in wrestling today. The other half is Superstar Billy Graham. Kurt Angle is sort of unique. 2) Shawn Michaels - Heel. Aside from the Rockers & 1995 he was always crap as a face. His current act is dying. 3) Bob Backlund - Heel. He got more heat than anybody else in the mid-90s, save maybe Owen Hart, and I wouldn't even go that far. People outright hated this man in 1994-95. 4) Roddy Piper - Heel. He was such a dick, and did his best business as a heel. 5) Jake Roberts - Heel. Especially his Trust Me run. 6) Mick Foley - Face. He's just too lovable and too much of an underdog to truly hate. 7) Bret Hart - Heel. His face character was bland, but was the best out of the mid-90s WWF, purely because of his ringwork. His run in 1997 was astonishing. 8) Lex Luger - Heel. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. He was always more about looks than skill. Sounds like a heel to me. 9) The Rock - Face. He was ultra-over in 2000 and is a better face wrestler. He was also a great heel, but his best work was as a face. I could see going either way on this one though. 10) Undertaker - Face. Definitely face. His gimmick is that he is unstoppable and he just stays by himself unless you go after him first. Bikertaker was a better heel, but not his famous Dead Man gimmick. 11) Randy Savage - Heel. He was almost as over as Hogan in 1987, and that's saying a lot. 12) Big Show/Giant - Face. He makes a decent monster heel, but he is impressive and charismatic enough that fans react better to him as a face.

1) Razor Ramon vs. Shawn Michaels, Wrestlemania X 2) The Dudley Boyz vs. Edge & Christian vs. The Hardy Boyz, Wrestlemania XVI 3) Chris Benoit vs. Chris Jericho, Royal Rumble 2001 4) Chris Benoit & Chris Jericho vs. The Dudley Boyz vs. The Hardy Boyz vs. Edge & Christian, Smackdown 5) The Rock vs. HHH, Summerslam 1998 6) Edge & Christian vs. The Dudley Boyz vs. The Hardy Boyz, Summerslam 2000 7) Eddy Guerrero vs. Syxx, Souled Out 1997 8) Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon, Summerslam 1995 9) Chris Benoit vs. Kurt Angle, Judgment Day 2001 10) The Undertaker vs. Jeff Hardy, RAW

It depends on the character. JBL should cheat, but he shouldn't be as helpless as he is. He should be able to beat all but the top guys clean. Kurt Angle on the other hand is one of the few respected wrestlers out there due to his Olympic experience. He shouldn't need to cheat to win. He can get heel heat just because he's such a dick.

Didn't see any of the TNA or Indy stuff. 1) Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart, Summerslam 1994 2) Harley Race vs. Ric Flair, Starrcade 1983 3) Tully Blanchard vs. Magnum TA, Starrcade 1985 4) Kurt Angle vs. Chris Benoit, RAW 5) The Rock vs. Mankind vs. Ken Shamrock, Breakdown

Why should Hogan job to Hassan? Is he that desperate for money?

I'm curious. If instead of the Ten Commandments, had Hammurabi's Code been erected instead, would anybody be complaining? I don't care either way, but isn't their more important things to fighting about.

But I thought it was just US propaganda that claimed that North Korea & Iran were interested in nukes. And what about France? They have nukes and they performed atrocities in the Ivory Coast just last year. Even Canada is hardly clean. Look at what we did in Somalia, and the federal government under Jean Chretien practically ignored it. The United States made a lot of mistakes in the 1980s. That doesn't mean that it is their intention or that they haven't learned from it. Haven't I read many mocking posts of the American public regarding the way that you think that they are a backwards people right in this thread? You don't just criticize George Bush, you claim that he is purposely trying take over the world by acting for personal gain. As well as your theories on 9/11. You don't need a big sign to see what your feelings are. You have some valid criticisms, but nobody will listen to you even if you are right because of the arrogant and spiteful way that you handle yourself. You are only hurting your cause and make the other liberals on this board who share many of the same views look bad. You need to calm down and argue base on logic as opposed to emotion.

It is not just criticism of US foreign policy. I have no problem with that, and I certainly don't agree with a lot of which this president is doing. But you are blatantly anti-American and act like the United States is this Nazi-esque fascist state, and it simply couldn't be further from the truth. Given a choice between living in the United States and living in North Korea, you seem like you would pick Korea and it is just absurd. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and actively hating them. You act like Americans defile the ground they set foot on. That is no better than Hitler. If I am wrong, then you are really poor at conversing, because that is how you come across. Use some common sense, and try to discuss something without immediately declaring the other side as evil.

I am not so sure that Booker's performance is a lack of motivation. Sure it could be, but he has also had a lot of back and knee problems. That can't be good for his speed and agility. Look at Shawn Michaels, he moves at about a 1/4 speed of what he was doing in the Rocker days and he gets pushed as much as anybody.

Just get some friends to come over and split the cost. Or better yet, convince one of them to order it, then show up at his house and eat all of his food.

The first I remember the streak being talked about was at XIII when he was challenging for the WWF Title in the main event. It doesn't matter how big those wins were, all people will remember is that he won. You don't waste something like that on a bum like Orton who has no chance of capitalizing on it. The fans would not buy Orton beating Taker. Even as a heel, it would only give Orton X-Pac heat. If it was Kane or Benoit or somebody like that, the fans would accept it better. Orton couldn't get cheers in his feud against the biggest heel of the past ten years. How is he supposed to get cheered against Taker at Mania?

I liked the priest, and I feel the advice that he gave Eastwood was good advice. Look what happens to Eastwood's character afterwards.

They were justified. An invasion of Japan would have been a disaster for both sides, and the Japanese had a tradition of fighting to the last man. They wouldn't surrender otherwise, even though they were beaten. The war was over, even Japan knew it, but they weren't willing to accept it. Truman saved millions of lives, both civilian and military by dropping those bombs.

You should really see the movie. It deserved its Best Picture win.

Oh, bite me. I never said the Industrial Revolution wasn't important. I was complaining about the number of curriculum standards devoted to that one subtopic while other things get ignored. I had to spend four weeks teaching the Industrial Revolution last year because there were about 10 curriculum standards devoted to it (i.e. how did it individually effect every single group of people who ever lived while it was still going on), while the Reformation got about two, and the school year ended before we even finished WW2. We have tons of things we're supposed to cover, but as long as we're spending weeks and weeks on details of a few things, we're not covering a broad enough range of events so students get a fuller view of history. The World Wars' causes and impact, the Great Depression, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the rise of Nationalism in the 18th century, the Age of Exploration, colonialism and imperialism...the list goes on and on...ALL OF IT IS IMPORTANT. But we're still expected to exhaust every topic in minute detail? edit: And don't even pretend we know who the hell the exceptionally hot chick in your sig is, either. That is too broad. You can't possibly cover that in a year. When I was in school we started history with the Fall of Rome in Grade 5 and then worked our way up to the end of World War II by Grade 10. That year consisted entirely of the two World Wars, the 20s and the Depression. Those were the compulsory courses. In Grade 11 we did the Ancient World, but I only took that one voluntarily.