Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
DrVenkman PhD

WWE General Discussion - February 2009

Recommended Posts

Makes you wonder what matches they'd have on it.

 

If they don't have Jake the Snake and Undertaker ruining Elizabeth and Randy's wedding afterparty at Summerslam 1991, I'll cry!

They recently re-aired pretty much every part of the post-SummerSlam Savage/Snake saga on 24/7, and it was still causing people I know to mark out. At least one Flair match has gotta be guaranteed, so hopefully its WM 8, plus a lot of Hogan/Megapowers stuff. I'd also hope to finally see the Bret/Savage SNME match, unless its supposed to be on the SNME set.

 

Speaking of the Megapowers, f they don't put the Tower of Doom Steel Cage matchI'll cry.

 

They were known as the Monster Maniacs in WCW. You have to call them that.

Damn you. They'll always be the Mega Powers in my heart, brother. Were the Mega Maniacs Hogan and Beefcake?

 

Yes. And for those keeping score, Savage and The Warrior were the Macho Maniacs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather Linda take out Legacy herself and declare herself the World Heavyweight Champion. Way better than your sucky fantasy booking.

 

Do you think it'd kill you to not be a troll for one day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot WWE folder = serious unless Venk posts.

 

You're one of the worst trolls anyway, bro. But that's neither here nor there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather Linda take out Legacy herself and declare herself the World Heavyweight Champion. Way better than your sucky fantasy booking.

 

Do you think it'd kill you to not be a troll for one day?

 

He's not trolling. That fantasy booking sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Jacobs (Kane) open letter to Robert Reich

 

Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is currently a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy

 

Professor Reich:

 

I have some questions about some of the points that you brought up when you appeared on CNN’s The State of the Union show Superbowl Sunday. Although all my own training in economics is purely autodidactic, it seems to me that your arguments rest on faulty premises.

 

When asked what is the fastest way for the government to create jobs (a question which itself relies on the erroneous presumption that the government has the ability to "create" jobs), you replied with a three-part answer, and first stated that "almost all economists agree" with you.

 

Whether almost all economists agree or not of no importance, but gives your answer an air of authority. Unfortunately, it is the policies of these same economists which have caused the mess in which America currently finds itself. While "almost all economists" may still possess authority in academia, their credibility on Main Street is sorely lacking. In addition, many economists do not agree with you. In fact, Austrian economists vehemently disagree with you.

In any case, you said that the government’s first priority should be to expand the social safety net, which will cause money to go directly into circulation.

 

Historically, government welfare programs have been wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. Private charities do a much better job of administering aid to those in need with the final goal of helping the unemployed get back to work. Government programs, on the other hand, lead to longer periods of unemployment by encouraging welfare recipients to remain on the dole as long as possible.

 

I am also curious as to how you propose to fund these programs. There are only three ways that the government can raise revenue: taxation, borrowing, and printing (both the latter are actually forms of deferred taxation). All of these methods have dire implications for the economy. Direct taxation retards economic growth by punishing producers. Borrowing crowds out investment in the private sector. Printing money causes distortions in the market, misallocation of resources, and eventually destroys the purchasing power of the monetary unit.

 

In addition, of what importance is "money in circulation"? You contend that passing money around will create jobs, but the fact is that passing money around is simply passing money around. What you seem to be proposing is that the government take money from some people, and then give it to people on welfare so that they can buy stuff from the same people that the government originally took the money from in the first place. How is that going to create jobs? Why not allow the people with money to invest it and build their businesses so that they can hire the people to whom the government is planning on giving their money?

 

Professor Reich, it seems that you have confused money with wealth. The government can create all the money it wants simply by printing it. Wealth, on the other hand, can only be created through saving and investment.

 

The government’s second priority, you said, should be to build infrastructure – putting people to work building roads, bridges, a new electrical grid, and a broadband internet system.

 

While we certainly need those things, how is this going to create jobs and why is it the government’s business to build them anyway?

 

Labor is not homogeneous. Yes, people can do many different jobs, but many jobs require specialized training and skills. While building a road may be a boon to the road construction industry, how does it benefit an investment banker who just lost his job? How does building a bridge in California benefit an aerospace engineer who was just laid off in St. Louis? Or running fiber optic cable in North Dakota benefit a real estate agent out of work in Florida?

 

While the government can create jobs in one sector of the economy, it can only do so by destroying jobs in another sector of the economy. Perhaps you are familiar with Frédéric Bastiat’s famous essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen. In it, Bastiat explains that when the government undertakes a project such as building a bridge we see the benefits it brings – the jobs that it creates. What we do not see are the things that are destroyed because of the project – the jobs that are not created because the government confiscates the resources needed to create them.

 

You may also be familiar with the Nobel Prize winning economist F.A. Hayek. One of the major themes of Hayek’s work is that the free market is a discovery process. Since none of us are omniscient, none of us has perfect knowledge of market conditions. Hence, no central planner can effectively allocate resources.

 

In contrast, the free market’s pricing mechanism provides us with the information needed to efficiently allocate resources, and rewards those who do so correctly and punishes those who do not.

 

Instead of relying on market signals to determine where to allocate resources, the government relies on political pressures. Most likely, roads and bridges will not be built where they are needed, but where the politicians think it will best serve them. The beneficiaries of these programs will not be the American people in general, but political patrons and special interests.

 

The government’s third priority, according to you, should be tax cuts. I wholeheartedly agree. Let’s eliminate personal income tax, property taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes, as well as the onerous regulations that have driven so many companies out of the country. Unfortunately, that’s probably not what you meant by tax cuts, is it?

 

All in all, Professor Reich, it seems to me that your arguments defy logic and common sense. However, as a prominent economist, public policy expert, and opinion molder, I’m sure that you can explain what I am missing. I anxiously await your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a pretty well written letter and has some great points. Even me, someone who has only a basic grip on economy and would probably take the govermnents word they're doing a good job, have had my eyes opened by that letter.

 

I just hope the fact it was written by Glenn Jacobs (Kane) doesn't detract from the points it made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kane has always come across as fairly intelligent (with his political standings, not so much with his "on screen" persona). I believe Val Venis had some strong, well-supported political views as well, and even wrote a regular newspaper article for whatever town he lives in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is. It would be funny if he ever ran for office, and his opponent dug out some of his footage from the late 1990s.

I think that happened when Nikolai Volkoff ran for a government position a few years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Uncensored 96, Buffer announced Hogan/Savage as the "Mega-Force". Plus Savage/Warrior were the "Ultimate Maniacs". I just saw the October 92 SNME so I can confirm that. Like it matters. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, Val's a huge libertarian, I think.

 

I don't know about Val, but Kane is a pretty prominent Libertarian.

 

He is. Val, I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kizarny would be well served to actually bring some carnival freaks to the ring if his gimmick has a hope in hell of getting over. Preferbly different freaks every time until one (or more) sticks . . . like the sword-swallowing lady from his vignettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Kizarny would be well served to actually bring some carnival freaks to the ring if his gimmick has a hope in hell of getting over. Preferbly different freaks every time until one (or more) sticks . . . like the sword-swallowing lady from his vignettes.

 

He has to be a heel too. It's still baffling that he and Boogeyman are both faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silence: Well, with Boogeyman...since they're marketing more to kids nowadays, kids like the gross-out factor.

 

It's why Mike Shaw thought that Bastion Booger should have been a face insted of a heel.

 

Also, it plays off how Jake "The Snake" Roberts would put Damien onto his fallen adversaries post-match...but with smaller, limbless organisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Kizarny would be well served to actually bring some carnival freaks to the ring if his gimmick has a hope in hell of getting over. Preferbly different freaks every time until one (or more) sticks . . . like the sword-swallowing lady from his vignettes.

I say bring back the Oddities.

 

Edit: Nevermind, the Oddities just wouldn't be the same without Luna and Tenta as Golga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One week you have the 2 sword swallowers, the next it can be the midget setting shit on fire w/ his tongue, followed by the big oaf who swings a heavy ball hanging by a chain w/ his ears. They can have Kizarny go over every week via interference or just a plain ol distraction from the freaks. That way, you get the even steven booking that makes Vince salivate.

 

JR: Can ya blame Chavo, he thought he was going to be stabbed w/ that 3 foot sword

Tazz: Never see anything like that in Brooklyn heh heh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Orton's nearly "tweener" act lately, does he have what it takes to parlay it into "so bad he's cool=face" level?

 

The guy's T-Shirt is selling fast (according to 411mania.com), his reactions are huge, and a big win at Mania against a huge opponent could be great.

 

I'd love to see a heel "alliance" wherin Stephanie sides with Randy, who in turn reaches out to form a RKO reunion, with Edge and Vikki running SD and Steph and Randy running RAW. Making life for HHH and whatever face is on RAW living hell.

 

It'd be an interesting post-WM storyline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×