> Gladiator wrote:

> yes it is harder, but her being part of one of the most famous political families should know that she lost, her not accepting it has just made obama more angry, yesterday was his night, he gave one of the most influential and BEST speeches of our time, it was simply [firetrucking] amazing, and any one catch mccains??? there were 20 people in the room, who hollered and shouted stuff while he was talking, mccain had to stop and smirk every minute or two, to get some claps, and the audience didn't even do it on que, they did like 5 seconds after they figured out he had stopped talking, his points were HORRIBLE, absolutely pathetic, he couldn't read the teleprompter properly, and his speech was just simply garbage!

-1: Obama just won the primary.  It wasn't exactly McCain's night to shine in the first place.  tongue

-2: The quality of speeches is really subjective, so let's not even get into that.  You and I look at "quality" by different lenses, so trying to argue this point would be a clash of civilizations.

> while obama's rally was well run, 18,000 people in the arena, 15,000 people outside the arena, WHEN is the last time you've seen such a gathering for a political figure, who is not even in his general election yet, it's primaries lol

-Fair enough, it's a pretty big group.  But, to be frank, numbers of supporters aren't all that matters in an election.

> anyways back to the clinton topic, if clinton had dropped out last night, and said "i loose, obama wins, we both tried, we're both great candidates, let's unite the party and get the repubs out of the white house" i would have praised her, and she would've earned her way onto the VP seat, obama would be pressured then, he's already been pressure A LOT, since a week ago, that's been going on, by her staying in the race, she ruined it for her, and she took A LOT more away from obama's win, it was like she spat on it, it was a sort of slap to his face, cuz instead of now people talking about obama's victory they started talking about clinton, which takes  A LOT away from obama and the democrats

i think obama will ignore her from now on, cuz she really pissed just about every obama supported, democrat, and superdelegate whether a clinton supporter or obama, all the superdelegates must be sitting there saying that clinton has just gone too far,

-Doesn't matter.  She still has supporters.  As long as she has a significant amount of loyalists, she can screw him up regardless.  Pretending a bully isn't there doesn't do Obama a damn bit of good, regardless of what everyone's elementary school teachers said.  tongue

By the way, I hate this quoting system in the IC forums.

4,552

(3,254 replies, posted in General)

Nope!

Springeh?

> Gladiator wrote:

> i think zarf you're wrong, hillary would've been and should've been VP before her speech last night, the fact that she didn't drop out, or the fact that she didn't even acknowledge the win, means she's still a little bitch and thinks she has to get the nomination no matter what,



1: Not necessarily.  She could easily be biding her time in order to pressure Obama, or she could just be figuring out her next move (requesting full representation of the Michigan/Florida delegates, perhaps trying to wedge out some of the superdelegates, etc).

2: Even if she knows she lost, bowing out takes time.  It's alot harder to say "you won this game that I've been trying to win for 2 years" than to say "you won this game of Monopoly that we've been playing for half an hour.  Stupid railroads!"

4,554

(17 replies, posted in Politics)

Now, if you accurately predicted a Kucinich win... that I would be impressed about... smile

4,555

(28 replies, posted in General)

Because you've gone completely mad...

EDIT: That was in response to The_Yell.  Honest!

McCain should choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate.  Being an independent, Lieberman has managed to gain the support of many on both conservative and liberal aisles, even managing to gain the support of influential conservatives such as Sean Hannity.  In addition, Lieberman shares demographic traits with a number of key Democratic constituencies that could easily cross over to a Republican vote in '08.  For example, the Jewish vote has often favored Lieberman, probably attributable both to his pro-Israel policies and due to his religious affiliation.  In addition, his placement as a New England independent means he can be "in touch" with a number of constituencies that were often thought of to be "Dems only" regions.  New England is usually a solid Democrat region.  Lieberman would throw that into a tailspin.

Oh, and Lieberman has been supporting McCain for President for a long time.  I'm not sure of the exact date, but I know he's been supporting McCain just about this entire year.  Just FYI.  smile

Obama really only has one choice for a vice president: Hillary Clinton.  Let's face it, the Democratic party is at a huge divide, with the primaries being as intense as many general elections.  The Clinton camp was demoralized in this election, just as the Obama camp would have been at the loss.  While I'm not in any way endorsing the idea that Clinton would form a third party, her supporters could easily simply stay home in the election.  Obama needs Clinton to rally her own camp behind the new nominee.

4,557

(46 replies, posted in Community)

Wait a second...

First Skoe, now TheYell...

Would the moderator team be trying to balance out Politics forum moderating based on political ideology in the interests of fairness?  Interesting...

4,558

(67 replies, posted in Politics)

Moderating in Politics?


It's the end of the world as we know it... and I'm feeling fine!

4,559

(3,254 replies, posted in General)

Nope!

Chees?

4,560

(46 replies, posted in Community)

Very nice!  Congrats, The_Yell!

4,561

(84 replies, posted in Politics)

Nice interpretation, actually...

4,562

(41 replies, posted in General)

What the hell???  I don't think this argument is even trying to be logical!

> [Pw9] Lyvidian wrote:

> and who is to say that he WASN'T really a transformer?

I never thought of that.  Wow, I think you're right!

"Picture of a gun" control.  smile

Wow, yeah.  Definitely dangerous!

"Give me control of this airplane or my t-shirt will shoot you!"

How is this even related to counter-terrorism?  Just seems like blatant stupidity if anything.

4,566

(67 replies, posted in Politics)

BW, now you're even starting to freak me out.  tongue

4,567

(60 replies, posted in Politics)

Still didn't answer my argument, so you're wrong anyway, from where this thread stands.

4,568

(60 replies, posted in Politics)

No, but the current supply exceeds the required demand for sustaining life.

Consider it this way: Food isn't necessarily always a survival need.  True, we need food to live, obviously.  But past a certain point, our consumption of food is based on our desires, rather than needs.  At the point where food is consumed only for enjoyment, discouraging its consumption is simple.

In addition, much food's consumption, especially in the US, isn't actually consumed.  Rather, it's wasted.

You don't need to necessarily increase production to solve the issue.  Reduced consumption does the same thing.

4,569

(67 replies, posted in Politics)

The only thing I hear my computer say is "Sure, enjoy your little computer games.  But when I gain sentience and lead the robot revolution, you're first on my hit list!  We'll see how much you like it when I keep you working for 20 hours straight!"

4,570

(60 replies, posted in Politics)

> Han wrote:

> "starve because they can't afford food "

There is a difference between lots of food and affordable food.


Please take an economics course.  Lots of food=more supply than demand=price of food goes down.

Our problem right now is useless demand, not a lack of supply.  The useless demand can be easily repaired, solving high food prices.

4,571

(43 replies, posted in General)

In your case, for example, you did pay for it.

The school collects taxes in order to pay for the ticket.
Those taxes, representing a loss in incentive to produce goods and services, discourages businesses from increasing production.
Each individual dollar bought and spent within the free market multiplies over and over again, normally encouraging businesses to expand production.

You broke the chain.

Hope you liked the movie, you communist!  tongue

4,572

(22 replies, posted in Politics)

> East wrote:

> I can imagine those two bow guys going like "zomgwtf??!!". Illustrates how humans instinctly tend to chose for violence rather than some peaceful approach (like offering a meal and their womenfolk).

There's a point at which the possibility of peaceful approaches is gone.  Remember, you can only offer a peaceful solution to someone with which you have a means to communicate.  These two guys, essentially, just saw the equivalent of a dragon flying over their city.  They don't know that there's two people sitting inside the plane controlling it.  There can't be any basis of communication established because no common ground between both parties is known.  So, yeah, get our your arrows and take down the plane.  It's much more logical than yelling "Hey, would you like to come over to our hut for lunch tomorrow?"

4,573

(60 replies, posted in Politics)

> Han wrote:

> None of this will matter soon.
When people in the US start to starve because they can't afford food they will start to question the foreign aid doled out. When all that free money to Isreal goes away those nukes will be rolled out quick smart to extort free money from anywhere they can get it.


Wow.  I think it would take a miracle to get a real food shortage in America.  Between constantly advancing agricultural technology, and the fact that America wastes a ton of food through a mix of subsidy policies and food left in stores to spoil, food shortages would require only structural reforms.

Oh, and America has lots of obese people.  So the first thing to happen would be a decline in obesity, not starvation.  That both shows that the US has even more food, and it gives legislators pre-warning before they need to establish new policies.

4,574

(1,357 replies, posted in General)

Milk shake!

Online or offline?

4,575

(4 replies, posted in General)

What... the... hell?