Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) They have been back and forth in courts for years. So far OJ has failed to pay any of the $33 million. What are they arguing on appeal? It's been at least 9 years....surely he's paid something. I remember hearing that he was broke after the trial, so if he hasn't paid the 33 million, or whatever they're eventually owed, any proceeds he gets from this would need to be spent on his debt to them. They could get a court order to freeze those proceeds before he can spend them too.

I hope that because of the civil damages he has to pay that all of the proceeds of the book and of his television appearance go to the family of the people he killed.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 06:19 PM) wow, imagine that... people disagree about comedy. If you think Dane Cook is the funniest man alive, then ok. He has some of the funniest bits I've ever heard. If you think Dane Cook is the worst comedian alive, then ok. He has some of the biggest bombs out there too. The part of the article which I disliked most was in reference to "So where's the joke"? That's the kind of shortsightedness that probably happened when people stopped telling knock knock jokes and moved on to puns... Life is funny. Exaggerations are funny. Stories are funny. Sounds are funny. AMERICA'S FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS is funny. Lighten up and laugh...especially Rolling Stone Magazine=the saddest bastards in the world, followed by Pitchforkmedia. Agreed. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I myself used to be a Dane Cook fan. I first heard him on that cartoon show on comedy central where they 'acted out' comedians bits. His bit about cheating is great, as is his bit about being upset when you hear tires squeel but never hear the impact. Tourgasm was an aight show, but nothing spectacular. I thought his HBO comedy special was average as well. But really I think most of those HBO shows are average. I love Lewis Black but his latest HBO special wasn't really anything to brag about. Same with Dennis Miller, Whoopi and George Carlins most recent. South Park might be the third greatest show on television, behind Lost and The Office. For some reason they're the only show that speaks out on major political and cultural issues, often on the unpopular and politically incorrect side. It's very refreshing. 'Come on Tom, we all know, just come out of the closet.' Classic.

QUOTE(bmags @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 09:56 AM) i don't know, no questions were really answered and they just ended it on a bigger cliffhanger than normal. It's kind of tiresome. While every other hour-long show resolves its main problems within the hour, lost just keeps rolling them over sometimes not even addressing them, and this is gonna go on for 4 more years? I mean its already getting wearisome. that said, last nights episode was awesome. LOL, that's exactly my problem. I'm growing tired, yet I watch on the edge of my chair with anticipation every single week... The thing with Juliette being evil I don't trust. We all thought Ben was evil last season, but now we think he's good? It's seems a little too obvious that the writers want us to dislike Juliette.

So the Dems take control of the House, the Senate is most likely going to be split and Blago is Governor again. In the end here are my thoughts: 1. Even as a Repub I'm kind of glad the Dems won the House. The biggest problem with government right now is that Congress has become the whipping boy for the Executive branch. This is probably the main reason why the Repubs lost control...they never deviated from the President. If anything this will cause Congress to become more 'powerful' in government. I doubt anything gets done because of the bickering that will ensue, so I guess only time will tell if this is going to be a good thing. 2. It'll be interesting to see what the Dems actually plan to do. The entire election campaign was never based on issues, but rather 'we're not going to be like Bush.' I'll admit a FEW Dems were willing to stick their necks out and actually give a plan of action for something like Iraq, but mostly Dems campaigned for change and it worked. I think these next two years will be huge for Dems. If they plan on pushing for the Presidency in 08 they need to show that they aren't just a point and criticize party and that they can actually get some work done. 3. I'm in shock that Blago won again. The man continues to grant promises and pass bills that he has no money to pay for, it's obvious he's yet another corrupt politician, and our state could be the first to have back-to-back governors thrown in jail. I know Topinka wasn't well received by most...she was harsh, seemed bitter, and in the end i just don't think many people were able to connect with her. But while I feel good that the rest of the country wanted a change and voted the other way, I'm amazed Illinois stuck with this inept socialist wannabe. 4. I'm upset that Ford in TN didn't win. I was hoping his 'brand' of politics would resonate through the nation. What did everyone else think?

Chris Matthews is a moron, but we already knew that. He extends the liberal ideology that unless everything in the world is equal someone, somewhere, is being unfairly treated. How about we give the people of TN a little more credit. It is, after all, 2006, and although racism still exists, it's not like we're living in 1850. I for one actually like Ford, and I'm a Republican. I saw him on Bill Maher and came away impressed. He's more of a Repubilican than a Democrat: against abortion, for prayer in school, for the tax cuts...the only thing he's against is crazy spending, but either way he's something that's a lot more moderate than the wacko's on both sides. It'll be great when if he wins because liberals are gonna be in shock when they find out he's incredibly religious...all of his business cards have the Ten Commandments on the back of them (gasp!). Better hope he doesn't put up a statue...

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022006/news/..._washington.htm Good story about troops reaction to the statement. I've heard the same kind of things from some friends and family, and a little from media reports, that most of the troops over there see a lot of good and change, and are proud of what they do. I know 3 people who've served in Iraq, at various levels of the military, and they all get really annoyed, and claim other troops do to, when celebrities pull the "We support the troops, but not the way" Basically one of my family members in the service say that a lot of troops don't want that type of support, and view it as PR ploys... Not sure how I feel, just passing along some of the military opinions I've heard LOL: ""You remember John Kerry, the senator who voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it - the guy that was always lecturing us about nuances," Vice President Dick Cheney said to a Montana GOP rally in remarks prepared for delivery. Added Cheney, "Of course, now Sen. Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up. I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it" - a reprise of the flip-flopper stigma Republicans tied to Kerry in 2004. " Score one for the 'evil side.'

Did anyone else notice the 'mechanical' noises (like grinding gears) the black smoke was making? I also think that Juliette and her video could have been Ben's idea, to test Jack. It seems odd to me that Ben would go through the elaborate plan of 'breaking' Jack to get him to 'want' to operate on him. Why not welcome the survivors with open arms? Give them food/water, etc. Be friends with them. That would be the easiest way to get Jack to perform the surgery. I think there's something bigger going on that we have no idea about...

I agree. My view on this (and Kerry) was similar to Dennis Miller who thought that being a veteran might actually be a bad thing when it comes to war. Maybe with the experiences gained you'd be hesitant to push the button at the right time. Or maybe you'd be overzealous in your planning. There's a reason 'civilians' work hand in hand with major generals of the armed forces in managing our military.

QUOTE(S720 @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 06:06 PM) John Kerry does not suck at politics. It's the Republicans and the f***ing corporate media who want you as well as others to think that Kerry sucks as a politician. I just don't get you people. Here we have a decorated veteran who has served his country, and all you Republicans want to do is to de-value his integrity so that you can glorify those who have chickened out of their services at the time when they were called to serve. You all damn know that his botched joke was not intended toward the troops but to criticize the President who did not do his diligent study on the Iraq situation before the invasion and now has led our troops to be in this dangerous situation. Do you guys still remember what Colonel Powell said, "If you break it, you own it?" Well, Bush breaks it, and now instead of owning it, he runs around and blames every f***ing thing on the Democrats. It's just so pathetic to see the President of the United States is such a crying baby. You guys want to talk about blaming the troops for the situation in Iraq, read this: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75542 WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on House Majority Leader John Boehner's decision to blame the troops for Republican failures in Iraq. "John Boehner ought to be ashamed. He's blaming our troops for failures in Iraq. If he wants to cast blame, he can start by looking in the mirror because he and his Congressional Republican colleagues have rubberstamped the Bush Administration's failed policy for nearly four years. Our troops in Iraq have performed bravely. It's political leaders like Congressman Boehner and Donald Rumsfeld, who have failed. I expect President Bush and Congressional Republicans, who demanded John Kerry apologize, hold their own party's majority leader to a much higher standard. There's no spinning his disparaging comments. He made them. He needs to apologize." --- House Majority Leader John Boehner: Wolf, I understand that, but let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld. Wolf Blitzer: But he's in charge of the military. House Majority Leader John Boehner: But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president. CNN, 11/1/06 Well first off he does suck at politics, otherwise he wouldn't have lost the '04 election and he wouldn't have made this idiotic 'mistake.' If he was good at it he wouldn't have other Dems saying things like 'well he botched the 04 election, i guess he's trying to do the same thing in 06.' Second, I hesitate to call Kerry a 'hero.' Being white and privileged, spending summers hanging out with the Kennedys and other rich Mass families, having the money and opportunities he's had, then going of to war to become a 'hero,' seemingly just to put that on his political resume, isn't exactly a 'hero' as I would define it. You may believe that crap, but I don't. Who said anything about blaming the troops for Iraq? Pointing out that there's another moronic politician (shock!) doesn't take away from what Kerry said. And I laugh when you say 'corporate media' spins this...I don't think we need to go into which side 'corporate media' is on, regardless of the popularity of Fox News... Also, why are you so sure it was a mistake? Don't you find it odd that he at first REFUSED to apologize, but after realizing the effect he was about to cause on the mid-term elections (he later canceled ALL of his scheduled appearances) he then, almost begrudgingly, apologized?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) There is a debate on how to solve our problems in Iraq on Capitol Hill. Problem is, the only ones doing it are the Democrats. Really? I've heard two things from the Dems: 'We need to get out of there' and 'This was a big mistake.' Neither are answers to the problem. I'm not saying the Repubs are any better. But this is precisely the problem with the Democratic party. You'd think after losing the last 6 years they would have thought the stategy of 'point and criticize' doesn't really resonate with the electorate. The majority might think Bush is a moron and his administration has made some mistakes. But it takes more than criticism to make them change their allegiance.

Oh that's right cuz we've been attacked multiple times since 9/11. Douche. Failed war planning I'll give you. Not so much security. Really? Continue? What the hell have you put forth in the last two years to 'change the course' or provide a 'winning strategy?' Oh, that's right. Nothing. Like the rest of the Dems.

It makes me sick that the Dems, over four years later, are still harping on the fact that Iraq was a bad decision. Talk about getting over it and moving on to bigger and better things... I'm a proud Republican, voted for Bush twice, and can sit here and say I wish the management of the war would have been better. I blame Bush and his admn for thinking we could waltz in there, be welcomed with open arms, and then leave a year later. I hold them responsible for the mess we're in. But i'm not going to vote for a liberal douche-bag who does nothing but point the finger. TELL ME WHAT YOU'D DO DIFFERENTLY, then maybe I'd vote for you. But you know why they don’t? Because they don’t want the electorate to think. They want to react. As I said in the Fox thread, these f*ckheads know the majority of people that vote are completely uneducated about the issues surrounding us. So they pander to emotions. And i’m talking about both sides here. As for the stats of the college-educated military personnel, someone should find out the age of most of the soldiers. Aren't the vast majority under/around 20? Don’t the majority of our armed forces serve in a branch in order to get a degree? It's pretty stupid to criticize people for choosing an avenue that will most likely help their future. Yeah it's sad that a large portion of the military is made up of 'disenfranchised' people. But instead of living a worthless life on the streets, they're trying to better their lives. F*ck Kerry for calling them stupid, as if the serving the country is the 'dumb' way to go. There is NO other way to read his statements. He told some LA kids you better do good in school or you'll be sitting in the military being shot at in a useless war. Funny that a guy who bragged about his service is now warning the youth about it, basically telling them to stay away at all costs. He makes me sick, as do the majority of liberal douches (politicians). This I agree with completely. Both sides are full of douche-bags. It's too bad the people of this country are more concerned about Madonna adopting some kid than topics that will affect their everyday lives.

Usually I try not to. Movies and TV are visions of the directors/writers, not the snotty actors that simply speak the words. That said, when douche bags like Tom Cruise continue to spout verbal no-sense, I use it as a reason to boycott anything and everything related to them.

But you are not everyone and as has been proven somewhere in this thread, peoples opinions about this issue have changed because of this ad, not because of the factors involved, but because of emotions that are brought up. As I've stated before, just like you probably hate Bush for lumping everyone into 'with us or against us,' Fox does the same thing here. His, without pointing to scientific advancements or opportunities, basically says vote for X because the other person wants me to continue to live like this. Obviously this is a tactic used by both sides, and at least for me, it's sh*tty politics all around. Except that the one major difference is that the 2nd ad talks about facts (the procedure of getting fetus' and the number of women affected by it) and they don't pander to emotions. I dunno, I have to rewatch that ad, but i dont think it says it "will" make cloning legal, but will lead to making cloning legal. I could be wrong though... Can to!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) I appreciate living in a country that this can be filmed and shown. I also appreciate living in a country where I can choose not to watch this. I would really love to live in a country where no one went to see this movie. Completly agree. Well said.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) I certainly agree that political ads are lacking in intelligent discussion. They are definitely all about the sound bite, the shock value, and the outright deception. Both sides too. They're really almost comical in some instances. I'd laugh, except, for some people, they'll take it seriously, and that's sad. Just out of curiosity, what did you think about Christopher Reeve showing up in front of Congress (on multiple occasions I think) trying to champion research? I think there is a grey area there, as to how far is OK to go. I personally am OK with Reeve, and also Fox's actions. I wouldn't have a problem with that because there's nothing about his condition he can 'make worse' for a bigger effect. Look, I'm just going off of what I saw on ABC-7 two nights ago that discussed the ad. They showed the ad, and then the showed him at some fundraiser for an IL Dem candidate where his shaking wasn't even close to what was on the ad. If he just had a 'bad day' with the disease when he filmed it, fine, there's nothing wrong with it. But from what I saw in the two clips, it looked like it was a clear attempt to gain a sympathy vote, which as I've said is BS. While I'd like to agree, I just don't trust the media, and more importantly, the political parties, to make accurate, neutral ads using 'truth.' As any 'reality' show fan knows, 'reality' can be manipulated to produce the show the creators want. "Truth" can be manipulated in the same way.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 02:14 PM) You think showing someone with more-or-less typical Parkinson's symptoms is equivalent to a pile of dead fetuses? Or someone crawling around on the ground? Use hyperbole much? The fetus one yeah. I was just making a point that making an effective ad isn't always acceptable. But it's not more or less typical. Watch any recent speech he gives and it's not even close. If he didn't take his medicine and then filmed the ad, it's no different than a paralzyed person not using their wheelchair just to show they can't use their legs. It's misrepresenting the condition he's usually in. I'm not picking sides here, I'm very much pro-stem cell research. I'm against sh*tty ads that make us pick politicians for the wrong reasons (emotion versus intelligence). According to Balta's find above, the sh*tty ad worked. Instead of people looking at the issues surrounding stem cell research, they got moved by a guy shaking uncontrollably on the TV.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) Here's what I love about politics. Michael J Fox suffers from Parkinson's Disease and has a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for it. His foundation supports candidates who support embryonic stem cell research because they feel its the best hope to find a cure. As a result, he works with candidates who support funding for the program he wants and says in plain english, the candidate I support supports this and the one who doesn't, opposes this. His physical symptoms of his disease are plainly viewable. Somehow that's construed as negative advertising because the viewer is forced to see the effects of the disease. There's a difference between an effective ad and a negative ad. But there are levels of acceptability with 'effective' ads. Like I said before, if there's an anti-abortion ad why not show a pile of bloody fetus'. It effectively shows what happens, but is it in good taste? In part he's also misrepresenting his disease. Why not show a spinal cord injury victim who's paralyzed from the waist down crawling on the floor, struggling to get to the bathroom or kitchen or wherever he wants to go? Sure, they could have taped him using his wheelchair, but why do that when we can effectively show the problems associated with being paralyzed? "See how difficult it is for him to move? See how difficult it is for him to live on a daily basis? Vote for X because he supports stem cell research which could allow this victim to walk again. The other candidate loves the fact this man must crawl to any place he wants to go. He hates stem cell research and he hates you. Vote X in 2007." It's crap.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) I wonder if he had as much of a problem in 2004 with the pro-Bush ad using a 16 year old girl who lost a parent in the WTC attacks. I didn't know about this, but yeah, I have the same opinion. I just hate all political ads really. Talk about the f'n issues, stop sensationalizing everything. You reduce voters to uneducated people by making them choose based on emotion than by intelligence. All that ad did was tell voters: 'look at me, I shake a bunch, isn't it terrible? If you vote for X you can stop this sad thing from happening.' Give people statistics about how many people can be helped, give them examples of what stem cell research can do. TELL THEM THAT FETUS FACTORIES WONT OPEN UP AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING THE RESEARCH. Don't sensationalize the disease and get sympathy votes. Further, the ad can be misleading. You all have a problem with Bush and his 'you're either with us or against us' mantra. To me this is Fox saying 'you either feel sorry for me and want to help or you get enjoyment from my disease." The Rebub candidate in that race isn't pro-Parkinsons. He/she is opposed to the means used to fix the problem.

Jason-- My problem with it is it's dirty politics, both by Fox and by the Dems (who were whole-heartedly behind the idea i'm sure). I think the Repubs campaigning for anti-abortion should create a video with a pile of dead fetuses on the ground, cuz hey, it's reality. No one, included Rush, is downplaying the severity of Parkinsons. He's just calling into question using that as a means to get votes. I don't think it's a huge deal myself, but I consider it another negative aspect of our political system which is all about sensationalism versus talking about the issues.

What's telling for me is that the local stations in Chicago were covering some speech he was giving here in town just a couple of days ago. Except for the occasional jerk he looked fine. It's pretty obvious that the ad was an attempt to garner any sympathy possible. I think it's yet another sh*tty campaign technique that's a perfect example for whats wrong with this country's political system. That being said, I think my fellow Republicans are absolute morons for not allowing stem cell research.

QUOTE(knightni @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) It's 10-15 days for media mail. I paid the extra $2 for the next level up in shipping and got minein like 4-5 days. Dammit!

Mine was shipped 10/18 and it's now 10/25...still haven't seen it. Did it take a while for you guys to get it? They sent it USPS Media Mail.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:02 PM) Except in the vast majority of states, gay people do not have the same rights as you. Really? They can't vote? They can't own property? They can't speak in public? Just because it might be more difficult to get a job, for instance, doesn't mean they don't have the same rights. They're given the same opportunities as everyone else. I think his point is that people have a bias against lots of people for lots of different reasons. So what makes this any different? I don't buy the argument that they've been historically discrimanted against...again, lots of people have...