Loss

That picture had to be something they did based on WWE direction. They all have super busy weekends, so it would make sense if they gave them the option to go crash after making their initial appearance.

That's entirely untrue if you actually understand what the term is meant to describe; that is, the change in the operation and organisation of capitalism that began in the 1970s and the logic of which was politically hegemonic for about 35 years. Let me ask again. What exactly is the difference between neoliberalism and conservatism? Is it solely the the former is more socially tolerant? Short answer: Yes, pretty much, generally speaking. Long answer: Neoconservatives prefer to use weapons on their enemies and neoliberals would rather starve them to death, as someone here who I won't name in case he doesn't want to be dragged into this thread said to me once in a chat where we were discussing the term. The war in Afghanistan was started by a Republican President, escalated by a Democratic President, and further escalated by the next Republican President. Bush championed NAFTA and Clinton saw it through. Both parties are opposed to single-payer healthcare, with a few outliers as exceptions. Both supported the bailout. Both supported No Child Left Behind. Both support the Patriot Act. Presidents from both parties have promoted outsourcing of jobs. Even on social issues, Clinton signed DOMA, welfare reform, and the crime bill. They are pretty much the same. There was incredible continuity in American government from Reagan to Obama. If you use the term neoliberalism, you basically believe that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same or close to the same on virtually every issue, only disagreeing about things like gay marriage and abortion. It seems like the differences are bigger than they really are, which makes sense when there's tons of overlap in party donors. The Powell memorandum in the early 70s, along with the formation of the Trilateral Commission, are usually cited as the birth of neoliberalism. Milton Friedman is usually cited as the godfather.

Wait, we've seen the fake twin thing before?

Yeah. I mean, it does make sense. Think about how much original music they've composed under their roof, and how many wrestlers have come and gone. I'm not sure why it annoys me. Maybe it doesn't. I'm taking a nap.

Discussion of Trump should go in the Military Industrial Suplex folder. Trust me, it's best for everyone.

It bothers me that the Reigns/Shield music is the exact same hook as Tazz's WWE theme.

The McMahon family has been the stars of the show for two decades now. I think non-McMahon is sort of inferred.

Roman's still the ace with an asterisk. I think Rousey is the top star now.

I'd actually say the opposite as far as token diversity. If anything, they seem to embrace it. Notice, for example, how they always want a Latin star. Not multiple Latin stars. Just one. The recent presentation of Nia Jax is in many ways the most out-of-the-box thing they've done maybe ever.

Clinton and Bush disagree on social issues but are otherwise almost exactly the same. Every President has basically taken the same approach to those four pillars (intervention, trade, deregulation, tax cuts) since Jimmy Carter. They only argue questions of degree.

Heyman has said he'd only stick around if paired with Ronda Rousey or Roman Reigns. If they were ever going to turn him heel, Reigns winning and being a duo with Heyman would be red hot. But as we know, that ain't happening.

Also, promos I think have become a big strength of Sami Zayn. He doesn't need to be in a situation where he can't cut them.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Perhaps a combination of both. To me, a 3* match is must-see.

Was Balor-Rollins an all-time classic? No. But it says a lot about how high the standards are when that match isn't considered must-see.

Neoliberals are sometimes socially liberal, but their real religion is liberalizing markets. To me, the most neoliberal thing possible would be ensuring that a committee to strengthen our nuclear arsenal had the right amount of diversity.

Caught Smackdown highlights later in the evening last night. Sami Zayn was on fire!

I don't think it's an inaccurate description. Tax cuts, military intervention, deregulation, and free trade. Also, I came here to post this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-03/sinclair-employees-say-their-contracts-make-it-too-expensive-to-quit

- Johnny Sorrow joked about having an investigative reporter on the case - I said I was putting my ear to a glass, but not hearing anything - Reporters, private investigators, etc. are often spoofed doing that in pop culture when they're trying to listen in on something ... or at least they used to be

Wrestlemania is now free to new subscribers, which makes it a loss leader. They have far more freedom to think outside the box like this in build now.

I have been holding my ear to a glass for hours, but I hear nothing.

Cena as a fan for a big chunk of the show is going to be fun. I hope he's popping for everything and participating in chants opposite the hard camera.

That's what I was thinking. And historically, just about every pro wrestling promoter (not everyone, but almost everyone) has done awful things or supported awful causes. I have no issues with a boycott of ROH, but I also think you could argue most of the same justification for boycotting all pro wrestling.

Ha ... I don't even own a white suit. Anymore.

It took Benoit some time to get over in WWE. It also took Steve Austin some time to get over in WWE. Both became headliners and got over (obviously at different levels). I'm reminded of what DiBiase told Austin when he first started in the WWF. It will take you more time to get over, but you'll stay over once you're there. Same applies to Benoit.