McCain will be the next U.S. President (IMO)

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » February 1, 2008, 4:21 pm

Ashur wrote:
miir wrote:Ann Coulter is batshit insane.
All women are. Hence, you are correct sir! She just wears her crazy on the outside.

Mann Coulter is no woman, sir.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 1, 2008, 5:15 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrG ... re=related

Ann getting owned by Al. The whole debate was pretty entertaining, with Ann completely exposed multiple times with even more awkward, inept attempts to play off getting called out.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » February 1, 2008, 5:50 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrG ... re=related

Ann getting owned by Al. The whole debate was pretty entertaining, with Ann completely exposed multiple times with even more awkward, inept attempts to play off getting called out.

Those of you pretending that Coulter isn't an irrelevant cunt should probably take a peek at all 7 minutes, 32ish seconds of that video. She get's totally blindsided by her own ignorance and inability to phrase a sentance without the word liberal in it.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 1, 2008, 7:17 pm

I take comfort in the fact that she looks anorexic and will hopefully be dying soon.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 1, 2008, 7:44 pm

Siji wrote:I take comfort in the fact that she looks anorexic and will hopefully be dying soon.

Off topic, but I read an article that one way to extend your life is to continually keep yourself close to starvation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story ... 962&page=1

A number of studies have shown that putting rats on a diet severely restricted in calories increases their life span, and a few people have picked up on the notion and tried to do the same, eating only one small meal a day in hopes of living longer...

...In the study, 48 overweight people were assigned to four groups. One group ate normally, while the other three were put on calorie-restricted diets that ranged from a 12.5 percent reduction in calories to no more than 890 calories a day.

The study was conducted by the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

Over the six-month study, researchers measured important changes, such as hormone levels, body temperature, insulin levels, fat mass and weight loss, among other things. They also examined energy expenditure and DNA damage.

At the end of the study, people in the three calorie-restricted groups had lowered their fat mass and body weight. In addition, they decreased their insulin level at fasting, body temperature, energy expenditure and DNA damage.

Scientists say that the decreased body temperature and insulin levels are particularly important in this study because they are good indicators of increased longevity and are often referred to as the biomarkers of longevity.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 1, 2008, 8:45 pm

I don't think any intelligent and rational person can deny she's a nutjob.

However she is relevant in the fact that (some) people keep listening to her. Why do you think she keeps getting on talk/news shows in the first place? Those who dismiss her too easily at this time are making a mistake.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 1, 2008, 9:31 pm

She was raving on Hanidy today. Still have no clue who the fuck she is.... someones senater?

Drolgin Steingrinder · February 2, 2008, 3:31 am

You still haven't posted a source for me, Noysy.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 2, 2008, 1:59 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:You still haven't posted a source for me, Noysy.

I think I did in my original post... i.e. rwanda, germany, china, cambodia, burma... Did you not hear about those before?

Here...http://law.wustl.edu/WULR/75-3/753-4.html

Hence, notwithstanding that it is hindsight, one may well reproach the liberal, democratic Weimar Republic and its successors for disarming the German people in the hope of taking back the streets from the right- and left-wing brawlers of the 1920s and 1930s. National Socialists had nothing to do with these firearms confiscations, but once in office, it suited them that Germany's laws left decisions concerning gun ownership to the administrative discretion of police or military authorities. The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures.

There's a nice little passage.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 2, 2008, 2:26 pm

It is hardly a secret that lawful governments sometimes do grotesque things, quite often to popular acclaim. One thinks, for example, of the Kristallnacht. On November 9, 1937, German mobs perpetrated a nationwide "spontaneous uprising" against the Jews, assaulting and killing hundreds of people, smashing shops and homes, burning synagogues, and inflicting losses of over one billion Reichmarks.[28] The constitutional government of that place--what in some theories would be called the "virtual representatives"[29] of the Jews--immediately swung into action. Calculating that one billion Reichsmarks of damage claims might prostrate the German insurance industry, the government canceled the Jews' insurance coverage by decree and then fined them one billion Reichsmarks for the nuisance that resulted from the destruction of their property.[30] Where were the police? "I refuse the notion that the police are protective troops for Jewish stores," said Hermann Goering, who was then chief of the German national police. "The police protect whoever comes into Germany legitimately, but not Jewish usurers."

Though it may be an extreme example, the Holocaust draws into question precisely the problem of relying exclusively and simply on "the law . . . your representatives . . . your fellow citizens." Professor Robert Burt put the matter poignantly:H]ow we can rely on our government, on our fellow citizens, on our neighbors; how we can rely on anyone who today seems at least tolerant, and maybe even friendly, but tomorrow might turn on us with murderous rage just because we are Jews or African Americans or Bosnian Muslims or Irish Protestants or mentally disabled or whatever? [One lesson of the Holocaust may be] . . . that our government, our neighbors, our friends of today, can quickly and easily become our assassins of tomorrow.

Although firearms are not more "accessible" today than in the past, they are certainly more numerous. The increase in the civilian stock of firearms, and handguns in particular, has been continuous for generations.[42] Of course a number of countries with tight legal restrictions on civilians' access to firearms, in particular England and Japan, enjoy very low murder rates.[43] Yet it is also true that some other countries with similarly exacting restrictions (for example Mexico, South Africa, and Russia) have very high murder rates.[44] Furthermore, some countries with civilian firearms access comparable to or even greater than that in the United States (such as Switzerland, Israel, and New Zealand) have very low murder rates.[45] Some of the highest suicide rates in the world are found in countries where firearms are hardest to come by, including Japan, Hungary, and Romania,[46] and some of the lowest suicide rates are found in sub-populations that suffer from some of the highest murder rates, for example, African-Americans males between fourteen and thirty-five years of age, which have relatively easy, though usually unlawful, access to firearms.[47] It weakens any argument for weapons restrictions if such complexities are not acknowledged and probed to reveal what they might intimate.

The whole essay is a good read, looking at the topic from both angles (though leaning right) and I could post quotes all day... so I'll stop with those. Read it!~

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 2, 2008, 3:03 pm

Ok more...

To many Americans, genocide seems so remote a contingency that the relevance of policies meant to constrain it can simply be dismissed out of hand. This is one aspect of the theory of American exceptionalism--the idea that we Americans are different from and perhaps better than the other members of the human race. One is entitled to be skeptical whether this self-conceit is sound, especially given that one of the more terrifying aspects of genocide has been its prevalence among civilized, educated, cultured people. A reality check is in order for Americans who reflexively dismiss the relevance of genocide to their lives.

Uhhhummm.

Consider a thought experiment suggested by Professor Robert Cottrol. Let us travel by some means back in time to the year 1900, and there convene a committee of the most exalted thinkers from all over the world. We inform them that within fifty years a great and cultured nation will try to exterminate, with near success, one of its most important ethnic, racial, or religious minorities. We now ask them to forecast who the victim group and the perpetrator nation will be. Would any predict the Holocaust?

It is hard to see why anyone would. Jews as a likely victim group might have been foreseen, though other candidates would surely have ranked higher. As for potential perpetrators, surely the United States would have been high on the list, what with that proverbial culture of guns and violence that Europeans find so quaint, to say nothing of our many minorities--immigrant, indigenous and racial. Germany, the homeland of music, philosophy, mathematics, public sanitation, environmentalism, physical culture, social security, and the rule of law could hardly have figured at all

It is hardly far-fetched to imagine this line of reasoning emerging in a foundering, beleaguered America. Things were bad enough while the war was going well. In 1944, when America's eventual victory in the war seemed assured, a Gallup Poll asked Americans what should be done with the Emperor's subjects after the war. Thirteen percent of the respondents answered: kill them all.[81] Popular support in Germany for the extermination of the Jews may never have been as great.

I find that rather chilling.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 2, 2008, 3:19 pm

By the end of the 1930s the Klan was in decline, unable to take any advantage of the same Great Depression that had brought the Nazis to power in Germany. One factor in the KKK's downfall may have been that its victims' continued to have access to the means of self-defense. (Credit the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Revolver Association, whose efforts caused laws restricting such access to be defeated, repealed, or held unconstitutional across the nation.)[94] It would be incorrect to claim that America's rejection of the Second Klan was primarily attributable to the tradition of firearms ownership and armed self-defense. Nevertheless, the American tradition of armed self-defense conferred at least three important benefits on Klan victims and targets.

First, armed self-defense brought police intervention which martyrdom would not have done. African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and radicals were neither popular nor powerful in the areas in which the KKK thrived. Public authorities and influential private citizens might well have been content to see unarmed victims brutalized or slain, if the violence could have been so confined.[95] When victims arm themselves, however, authorities are compelled to act lest incidents lead to widespread bloodshed and disorder.[96] Florida's Governor Martin "spoke out forcefully," stating that such a situation in which "mobs formed at night to terrorize the community and citizens had to carry concealed weapons" for their own protection could not continue.[97] In the words of the author of the law in another state, which broke the thitherto-increasing power of the Klan, "We don't want conditions in North Dakota to become such that a man must carry a pistol to be safe."[98]

Second, gun ownership gave victim groups both the courage and the means to sustain themselves in the face of the KKK threat and police indifference or hostility.[99] In fact, victim perseverance was essential to eventually discrediting the KKK. By defeating its initial attacks, maintaining themselves, and asserting their rights, victims encouraged decent citizens in the majority community to come to their aid.

Third, because decent citizens were themselves armed, they were able to speak out, thereby engendering, nurturing, and enlarging overall community support that eventually ostracized the Second KKK and consigned it to oblivion.[100] These advantages were not enjoyed during the 1920s and 1930s by decent people in Germany. There can be little doubt that these institutional differences insulate Americans from at least some of the horrors through which others have passed.

Does that not explain my point and stance?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 2, 2008, 3:34 pm

Quite well actually... Good stuff.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 2, 2008, 6:30 pm

The Down-Side of Gun Control

Advocates cannot see any harm in gun control, but it has a nasty
downside. Its victims number in the tens of millions. Its downside is
genocide: the mass-murder of civilians on account of religion,
language, or political views. Since 1900, at least seven major
genocides have occurred worldwide involving 50-60 million victims (see
table).

MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES -- THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL
Date of
Perpetrator # Murdered Gun-Ctrl Source
Gov. Date Target (Estimated) Law Document
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ottoman 1915-17 Armenians 1-1.5 Mil. 1866 Art. 166,
Turky Penal Code

Soviet 1929-53 Anti-Comm. 20 Million 1929 Art. 128,
Union Anti-Stal. Penal Code

Nazi 1933-45 Jews, 13 Million 1928 Law on Fire-
Germany Anti-Nazis, arms & Ammun.
& occupied Gypsies April 12,
Europe Weapons Law,
March 18

China 1948-52 Anti- 20 Million 1935 Arts. 186 & 7
Communists Penal Code.
1966- Pro-Reform
1976 Group

Guatemala 1960-81 Mayan 100,000 1871 Decree #36
Indians 1964 Decree #283

Uganda 1971-79 Christians, 300,000 1955 Firearms Ord.
Pol. Rivals 1970 Firearms Act

Cambodia 1975-79 Educated 1 Million 1956 Arts. 322-328,
Persons Penal Code

TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCH ... ocide.html

not including burma, wich not suprisingly, few people know of.

Remember: when they come for your guns, give'em the ammo first!

rofl.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 2, 2008, 6:59 pm

Liberal Democrat wrote:But there is no longer any such animosity between races, cultures, religions in our country.

Islam.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 3, 2008, 8:09 pm

At this point I would be happy to vote for whichever candidate stops calling my damn house. We are getting at least 10-15 calls a day starting about 8am. "Hi this is blah blah and I endorse blah blah." It is really getting annoying.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 3, 2008, 9:00 pm

Tyek wrote:At this point I would be happy to vote for whichever candidate stops calling my damn house. We are getting at least 10-15 calls a day starting about 8am. "Hi this is blah blah and I endorse blah blah." It is really getting annoying.

Do Not Call list is your friend.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 3, 2008, 9:09 pm

I signed up for it a while back. Guess I will have to redo it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 3, 2008, 9:44 pm

Doesn't the do not call list have exemptions for "charities, religious orgs, and political information"? Something along those lines

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 3, 2008, 10:35 pm

I figured it was the political thing. They generally get exemptions. I went to the site and resubmitted my phone numbers again. What really sucks is they are calling my office line non-stop as well, so getting 10-15 calls on each line.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 4, 2008, 12:27 am

I think you're correct in that political stuff is exempt.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2008, 10:57 am

could this be the next big bad election photo? or just an audition for Popeye?

I yam what I yam!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 4, 2008, 12:56 pm

Yeah political stuff must be exempt, my girlfriend has been getting the calls on her cell phone and we both added ourselves to the do not call list.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 4, 2008, 1:15 pm

If exempt, they probably use the Do Not Call List to seed their phone lists!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 4, 2008, 1:21 pm

Political organizations and charities that call you directly are exempt. Random people/orgs representing the charities and such are not.

I vote regularly (national/state/local) and I have not had a call since...a long time ago. I believe it was around the time that I told the person that I would make it a point not to vote for their candidate just because of the phone call!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 4, 2008, 5:10 pm

McCain has a pretty solid lead in most of the states for Super Tuesday but looks at Utah:

Romney: 84%
McCain: 12%
Undecided: 4%

Morman sheep!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 4, 2008, 6:42 pm

Boogahz wrote:Political organizations and charities that call you directly are exempt. Random people/orgs representing the charities and such are not.

That seems a rather loose definition, since an "entity" can't make a phone call.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 4, 2008, 7:26 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Boogahz wrote:Political organizations and charities that call you directly are exempt. Random people/orgs representing the charities and such are not.
That seems a rather loose definition, since an "entity" can't make a phone call.

I could call around "representing" the United Way and asking for donations. I would not officially be associated with the charity organization, and I would be responsible for not calling those on the do not call list. Or, I could work directly for an organization doing calls for donations as directed or authorized by the United Way, and I would be exempt from the restrictions of the do not call list.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 5, 2008, 4:46 pm

But you would not be exempt from my air horn I have next to the phone for asshats that call me from organizations.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 5, 2008, 7:56 pm

Shenanigans in West Virginia!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/05/ ... index.html

(CNN) -- Republican Mike Huckabee scored the first Super Tuesday victory, winning all 18 delegates at stake in West Virginia -- partially with the help of Sen. John McCain's backers.

Huckabee won with the support of 52 percent of the state's GOP convention delegates on the second round of balloting.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in second with 47 percent of the vote, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona was backed by 1 percent of the delegates.

Romney was ahead in the first round of voting in Charleston but failed to get the majority needed to win.

It appeared supporters of McCain, who placed a distant third on the first ballot, moved over to Huckabee, helping him carry the day.

Romney's campaign was furious over the "Washington backroom deal."

"Unfortunately, this is what Sen. McCain's inside Washington ways look like: He cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Gov. Romney's campaign of conservative change," read a statement from Romney campaign manager Beth Myers.

Huckabee chuckled at the remark.

"I thought he was saying yesterday, 'No whining.' So is it no whining or whining? He can't even keep a straight answer on the 'whining or no whining' question," Huckabee said.

That's how it's done Michigan!

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 6, 2008, 1:50 am

Not sure if any of the other California people had this experience today, but I was a little pissed about it and an older lady was making quite a scene about it. They hand me my numbered ballot. The ballot look something like this.

Prop 91

Yes < <<<
No < <<<

Now I am supposed to draw a single line connecting the arrow. So I vote and go to hand in my ballot and the guy there pulls it and starts looking over my entire ballot. He hands it back and says, "go ahead and place that in that box face up."

So now he has seen my ballot and the three people by the box also get a quick glimpse. While I am wondering what the hell is going on, my wife finishes her ballot and they do the same thing to her. I finally ask him why he is looking at the ballots, and he says to make sure we did it right.

About this time an older lady starts making a loud disturbance. The person looking her ballot over tells her she did it wrong and she should only draw a single line, not fill in the arrow. He advises her to get another ballot and they look for another ballot with her number on it. They tell her they need her "spoiled" ballot and they want it whole, she says no and tears it up. The ended up giving her the new ballot anyway but told her she had to leave them the pieces of the torn ballot.

I just want to know why the guy gets to look my ballot over before allowing me the privilege of putting it in the box. Why did I have to put it in face up and why did they waste the money they did on the voting blocker page they gave me when they did everything but announce my voting results to the entire room?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 6, 2008, 1:08 pm

I'd imagine they're trying to avoid having another Florida, but still that seems somewhat shady. Voting is supposed to be private is it not?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 6, 2008, 6:28 pm

Hey Winnow:

Want to extend our avatar bet from Hillary v. McCain to Democratic Nominee v. Republican Nominee? I'll take the Dem field against the Repub field.

Alternately:

Winnow and I's bet only kicks in if the nominees are Hillary/McCain. I'll accept a bet from anybody that, if the nominees are anybody BUT clinton/mccain, the Democrat will win.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 6, 2008, 9:12 pm

Sueven wrote:Hey Winnow:

Want to extend our avatar bet from Hillary v. McCain to Democratic Nominee v. Republican Nominee? I'll take the Dem field against the Repub field.

Alternately:

Winnow and I's bet only kicks in if the nominees are Hillary/McCain. I'll accept a bet from anybody that, if the nominees are anybody BUT clinton/mccain, the Democrat will win.

I'm going to have to stick with the original bet Sueven. Hillary vs McCain is a guaranteed win for me. If Obama gets the nomination, I might even pull for him depending on other factors (VP, etc).

McCain has done his part. It's up for the dems to screw up and pick Hillary now. Looking at the delegates though, Obama still has a gret shot at pulling this out.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » February 6, 2008, 11:07 pm

Obama brought up a good point today about Billary basing her campaign stops around Feb 5th. Another interesting observation: Obama winning almost all of the caucuses thus far and with relatively high percentages.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... ates/#1918

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 6, 2008, 11:46 pm

If it's close at the end, Edwards can give his 26 delegates to either Obama or Hillary. I think he'd give them to Obama.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 7, 2008, 12:54 am

I'd rather see an Obama/Edwards ticket than a Hillary/Anybody ticket, so I'm quite ok with Edwards giving them up to Obama.

You all can heckle me all you want, but Obama inspires hope for the future in me. I think about him and wonder if this is how people felt about Kennedy. If he gets the nomination I'll join his campaign to do my part. If it ends up being Hillary, I'll be writing in Obama for my vote.

Wouldn't that be some wtf shit.. Hillary vs McCain and Obama gets enough write-ins to win.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 7, 2008, 3:21 pm

Romney is out (story)

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 7, 2008, 3:40 pm

McCain vs Obama would be a rough call for me. That said, I don't think he can win, this time around. In 2012 or 2018? It's his election.

I'm guessing McCain\Huckabee for the win vs Hilary\Some other shil.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 7, 2008, 4:07 pm

not including burma, wich not suprisingly, few people know of.

Why do so many americans still call Myanmar by that name?
The country has not been called Burma for nearly 20 years.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 4:17 pm

Vote for McCain! He's 71 and won't run again. Having a single term president isn't a bad thing. Obama will have lots of chances (like nine or ten more tries at it), not that the 2012 election will really matter but he'd be setup well to win that election with much more face time, name recognition, and "I have a dream" type speeches under his belt.

Post by **Xouqoa** » February 7, 2008, 4:57 pm

Winnow wrote:Vote for McCain! He's 71 and won't run again. Having a single term president isn't a bad thing. Obama will have lots of chances (like nine or ten more tries at it), not that the 2012 election will really matter but he'd be setup well to win that election with much more face time, name recognition, and "I have a dream" type speeches under his belt.

I just hope he doesn't choose Rudy as a VP and then die on us.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » February 7, 2008, 5:10 pm

miir wrote:
not including burma, wich not suprisingly, few people know of.
Why do so many americans still call Myanmar by that name?
The country has not been called Burma for nearly 20 years.

offtopic
The reason is that "Myanmar" is what the Junta changed the country's name to in order to separate Burmese ex-patriots from their country. Quite a few Burmese people in the U.S. are here because they fled the Junta, and therefore prefer to call it Burma instead of the name placed upon it by their "oppressors." Thus, they have convinced most news organizations to continue calling it Burma, and when/if the Junta falls the name will most likely revert back to Burma.
/offtopic

Back to our regularly scheduled McCain won't/will actually win the election speak.

Animale

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 7, 2008, 6:34 pm

Xouqoa wrote:I just hope he doesn't choose Rudy as a VP and then die on us.

I think anyone picking Rudy as a VP would be making a bad move. Rudy isn't very well liked. At least that's the impression I get. I know I don't like him!

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 7, 2008, 9:21 pm

miir wrote:
not including burma, wich not suprisingly, few people know of.
Why do so many americans still call Myanmar by that name?
The country has not been called Burma for nearly 20 years.

2 reasons. First the US govt, and media has accepted money and or favors to not report on what is going on(*) and we just dont hear about it. Second, who fucking cares what the burmese call it, it is burma to the english speaking world...

Hell Germany hasnt been called that since 500ad when the romans left town. Yet we still say Germany. Heck in mexico they call it Alemania. The Alemanians were a rather insignificant portion of greater germany (GroβDuetchland).

(*) So says Sly Stalone, not exactly a repudable source.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 7, 2008, 10:13 pm

I was curious about what happened with my voting issues, so I called the local registrar's office. Apparently I was not the only one wondering if they were doing something wrong. They had already launched an investigation and the supervisor admitted to many of the issues and is no longer the supervisor.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 8, 2008, 2:41 am

Animale wrote:
miir wrote:
not including burma, wich not suprisingly, few people know of.
Why do so many americans still call Myanmar by that name?
The country has not been called Burma for nearly 20 years.
offtopic
The reason is that "Myanmar" is what the Junta changed the country's name to in order to separate Burmese ex-patriots from their country. Quite a few Burmese people in the U.S. are here because they fled the Junta, and therefore prefer to call it Burma instead of the name placed upon it by their "oppressors." Thus, they have convinced most news organizations to continue calling it Burma, and when/if the Junta falls the name will most likely revert back to Burma.
/offtopic

Back to our regularly scheduled McCain won't/will actually win the election speak.

Animale

Besides, when's the last time you called Japan, Nippon? And should we be calling them Thai Cats now?

Oh yes, on topic... I see Mitt has announced his campaign's "suspension". Gratz McCain.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 13, 2008, 1:53 pm

It's looking like McCain vs Obama so I won't get to see Sueven use a McCain avatar for a year.

Here's one scenario of how McCain might pull out a win:

Near the elections McCain will call in the favor for his backroom deal during the 2004 election race with Bush and have him stir up some shit in the Middle East. After whatever threat emerges, McCain will use the main difference between himself and Obama in that Obama wants to talk to all leaders of the world while McCain will point out the barbarity of whatever happens and play to the fears of the American people, saying we can't negotiate with "terrorists" or leaders that allow terrorists to operate in their country.

Win McCain

fear > hope!

Of course, if <insert axis of evil country leader here> is smart, they'd retaliate by expressing a wish for peace and promote Obama winning the election as the only way that might happen. (that didn't work to well for Bin Laden in 2004 though)

---

I'm not wanting this to happen, but it's one possible strategy.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 13, 2008, 2:00 pm

Winnow wrote:fear > hope!

Well, it certinaly worked for Bush, but our country has really suffered in almost every possible way.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 13, 2008, 2:31 pm

It's looking like McCain vs Obama so I won't get to see Sueven use a McCain avatar for a year.

Yes you will. My bet with Kilmoll is valid for Obama or Hillary, so you'll still see me sporting it if McCain wins.

Near the elections McCain will call in the favor for his backroom deal during the 2004 election race with Bush and have him stir up some shit in the Middle East. After whatever threat emerges, McCain will use the main difference between himself and Obama in that Obama wants to talk to all leaders of the world while McCain will point out the barbarity of whatever happens and play to the fears of the American people, saying we can't negotiate with "terrorists" or leaders that allow terrorists to operate in their country.

Good lord. It's amazing how you can sometimes be such a clear-headed realist and sometimes advocate such blatant fantasy.

Also, see the Obama thread for a Colin Powell quote in which he supports Obama's approach to diplomacy... Colin Powell has more credibility in such matters than either McCain or Obama, as far as I'm concerned.