> Theodora wrote:

> They didn't retaliate at all.

the article sure implied that the russians sent the ship in retaliation for the attack despite us not being able to read russian official's minds.

> Theodora wrote:

> @Avogadro

Err...almost any court would. It's called a contract, yo. You should read about them. You'll be signing a few in your lifetime."

if you order a coffee and they make you coffee, and then spill it in the register like you would want because the coffee cant be seperated from lots of money, you dont have a right to that coffee, they can make you a new one.

i am cursed with patience.

> Theodora wrote:

> No, it's not splitting hairs at all. Your title quite clearly said "RUSSIA LOSES 33 main battle tanks to pirates" not "UKRAINE LOSES 33 RUSSIAN TANKS to pirates". There's a big difference between the two statements.

Actually I'm fairly certain most courts would recognize Kenya's right to the tanks.

we dont know who was transporting them, it could of been Russia. and If Russia wasnt transporting them, why were they the ones that felt the need to retaliate from the attacks?

we dont know who was transporting them, it could of been Russia. and If Russia wasnt transporting them, why were they the ones that felt the need to retaliate from the attacks?

> Theodora wrote:

> Err...you got the facts of your story wrong.

I guess a more accurate statement is that Kenya/The Shipping Company can't protect their cargo

i think thats awfully harsh considering nothing in your post contradicts what he said.  It doesnt say who was transporting the ships, it could of been the Russian Military. infact the article you quoted to prove him wrong hints that it was the Russian Millitary because it was the Russian Military that retaliated from the attack.

> Theodora wrote:

> I said exactly what I meant to say. People may genuinely misinterpret it, but only because they're silly and see in shades of Black and White.

The first line of the link does Not the first line of East's post...or any line for that matter.

You know a lot of people only read the headlines or the titles First impressions are important!

And I said it was East. X(

"Or in this particular case, East crediting a politician for being the one to warn everyone, as well as implying that it was John McCain and John McCain alone who warned everyone, when really, it's the poor people who crunched the numbers, analyzed the situation and wrote the reports that should be given credit."

so you were getting all anal about a headline and an opening line? please oh please tell me that you're on your period or out of chocolate or something and you're not always this bitchy.

schniepel, she said she figured out she had 4 fingers and a thumb. somehow i doubt she was able to reason to her thumb not counting as a finger especially when she was little. and even if she reasoned to her thumb not being a finger, she wouldnt of actually known until someone confirmed the idea for her.

who keeps adding and subtracting tag points from me? am i really humoring/pissing off that many mods?

> Gladiator wrote:

> OMG

how dare you guys   i actually tried to be unbiased in this one thread, i swear

and avo, i'm starting to think you aren't so biased, i'm not saying that just cuz you oppose me every single time, but like i said

mccain made a great move, but he didn't play it right, he didn't play it considering the situation... he could've made it much better i would think

ok now response to your actual post on the last page:
"Obama saying he called McCain and was talking about a joint statement changes none of this. Obama going to Washington changes none of this. "
obama called mccain first and then they talked about suspending campaign and moving debate, obama said lets put out the joint statement and let's let the campaigns figure the debate thing out -- later he sees mccain on tv at his hotel, talking about suspending this campaign

this was a good move from obama because:
now he's seen as the one who initiated the move, and mccain is just seen as the guy who jumped the gun and wanted to take his own politcial gains and now i'm not saying mccain did this just for politics... but what do you think the media will say?(remember the media has a big part in this)
the media is, and will continue to say this, and ask this of their correspondents: "how do you think this political move will play out with voters?" or "why do you think mccain made this politcal move? - response: oh he's slipping in the polls you know" and many many other questions, twisted and picked at,

now the other thing:
"gladiator, you do realize for debate, there needs to be two sides, if McCain doesnt show up, it isnt a debate, and if Obama shows up, first it gives the impression McCain's time is more valuable then Obama's. 2nd it gives the impression McCain takes the economic problems more seriously, and third it makes Obama seem shallow because he's more concerned with being on TV then helping the country. "

lol, you make it seem like, obama will be standing on the stage waiting for mccain, or vice-versa
that's not how it works , the campaigns will have negotiated this before hand
and also remember, mccain didn't say he's not guna show up at the debate, he just said he would like the debate to be re-scheduled
but the organizers aren't doing it anyways, so it's guna happen, you can bet on it
ok this is where opinions come in, i do think it's a nice political move as i mentioned before since it does show you taking a step for the economy and that's great for mccain as he's clearly loosing on the economy issue, BUT I believe it won't work too well for him, considering the situation and all the variables like the media(newspaper, television, radio, web), obama and the democrats repeating these statements --"obama initated it...we don't need the presidential election politics in the congress with this bill ... we already have the bill almost passed...american people deserve a debate...obama's helping anyways, over the phones and he's talking to us"

"Obama seem shallow because he's more concerned with being on TV then helping the country"
COME ON
name one politician who wouldn't love it to be covered by the media 24/7

@gladiator, you [LA Galaxy fan]first of all, you should of said, im not unbiased, not that i am not biased. and i never claimed to be unbiased; infact being unbiased is an impossibility in the real world; its an ideal like equality. earlier this week i was actually leaning towards Obama more so then McCain.

if what you say about what Obama said is true, Obama is flip flopping or lieing. if Obama wanted to suspend their campaigns then he wouldnt be pushing to have this debate.

and i dont read the news. i find it iritating people trying to look unbiased when they're obviously biased. its much easier to get the facts from openly biased sources from either side. so when i said if, i was talking about one hypothetical situation, it doesnt matter if it occurs or not.

and it doesnt matter if all politicians are guilty of something, its still bad when its seen by the public. just like all politicians lie, but when their lieing is seen by the public its a bad thing.

you know you have four fingers and a thumb on your left because you were taught you did when you were a little kid, dont pretend you figured that out all by yourself

well theo, you're a dumbass if you want your politicians to see everything firsthand and not rely on other people's reports at all. a president isnt going to be in person doing a reconnaissance mission in Iran, he's going to be reading a report.

> Theodora wrote:

> Assuming what you say about the debate is true Soth:

A debate on the financial crisis in Washington would be fairly idiotic and serve no purpose, unless they both plan on replicating the financial crisis and/or the circumstances that led to it when they take the helm.

In general for election debates,

Debates on general issues (e.g. foreign affairs, the economy, domestic policy etc.) = good.

Debates on specific issues (Cowboys vs. Redskins, Abortion, Osama bin Laden, this financial crisis etc.)  = bad.

As an aside, I don't care what Obama or McCain has to say about the current financial crisis anyway. Neither of them are economists. Neither of them have any training that would give them knowledge of this specific situation. So who cares what their opinions are? They both just rely on their own experts to tell them what they need to know. If I were American, I'd be more interested in their general views on the economy, since at least there, there are multiple approaches.

Of course, maybe I'm underestimating McCain. Maybe he's  far more conservative than I believe him to be and advocates letting the companies sink or swim on their own merits, instead of bailing them out."

thats pretty idiotic reasoning there theo. we should just ignore candidate's actions before they're president because the exact same situation isnt going to occur in the future. or maybe we could look at their actions to see the type of steps they might take if a similar situation happens during their presidency, yeah, that seems way more reasonable.