Nightwing

Considering the popularity of Obamalamadingdong (Who seems to be on pace to lock up the nom) and McCain's weird yet powerful appeal to moderates and independents, I doubt it. Sure, Conservatives say they won't vote for him... but they will. They know the score. In all honesty, I don't think the third parties are going to get any extra turnout. Heck, maybe even less, as I think the majority of people are going to be somewhat happy with their candidates, unlike the last two times. I'm hearing rumors about a possible "Redo" with Michigan and Florida. Anyone else here this?

Apparently John McCain flat out told the CPAC he wouldn't change his views on immigration. Now I know I respect him for being ballsy, but I have a feeling that falls on the "stupid wiseass" side of the line...

Personally, he irritates me. But he's made good points before. In particular, I remember him calling out ESPN for doing those stupid skits with the ghosts of Super Bowls future, past, present, and talking about how they would match up and always beat the legendary teams that they were put up against.

John McCain isn't worth rioting over. Who do you think he is, Rocket Richard? He isn't going to get that reference. And I think McCain has a better argument than people give him credit when it comes to change, considering his opposition to how the war has been run (Toture, Gitmo, etc), his steadiness against pork and trying to get Congress not to spend wastefully, along with a moderate immigration policy and someone who looks to work with the other side. Right now he goes head-to-head with Obama well, and he beats Clinton in most polls. I'm more inclined to believe that McCain will be able to change more than a polarizing second Clinton administration. And Mitt would have worked wonders if his own personal "change" hadn't been so sudden, or just such a large change. Changing social views is different from economic views, and his were just so drastic that it would be impossible to come out phony. I've heard people say that he could "Out-McCain McCain", which would have been nice to see. But he came off as selling his principles for the hardcore part of the party, and it didn't fool anyone but the talk-show people. Sad that the Republicans seemed to sacrifice someone who probably would have been a lot better candidate if they hadn't messed with him. Oh well...

Does this mean you're Maven?

Well, Mitt has a better head on his shoulders than I gave him credit for. He puts his stock behind McCain so that the party can unite (And specifically, he recognizes McCain as the choice instead of Huckabee). Considering Huckabee's "Let's stick together here" stance towards any attack against McCain has really put him in the position to be the second name on the ticket. Interesting. So, Big Mac is going to get his campaign run. Who would have predicted that one?

OH NOES~!

If you'll remember, Im still a registered Independent. Who goes listens and believes GLENN BECK. That's like saying "I'm not a leftist, I just believe in socialized government." Because a man who proposed spending limits on the Bush Tax Cut and made his career on cutting pork-barrel spending is going the one who destroyed limited government values in the current Republican Party? I mean, it'd make sense if you were sending it to Bush, but I'm not sure if McCain is the right one. I wonder if the Republicans are sending a wreath back... of course, that'd suggest that the Libertarian party actually LIVED in the first place...

Marvin is pulling a "Coulter". I believe the Republican Party can only benefit from this.

In that order. Fuck Justin Tuck, the Giants won because Arlen Specter loomed over the Pats LIKE A SPECTER 0MG I H4V3 B3N PWN3D

Thanks for proving how retarded you are. Best 1-Season Team, you jackass. Patriots are a damn fine team, but they aren't close to one of the Best 1 Season teams because they never dominate in the Post-Season. They actually get WEAKER in the Post-Season, if you look at the stats. I'm not even sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand besides you feel you have to justify their losses to yourself. I'm sorry that you're that insecure, but that's not the topic of discussion. They weren't playing good in the post-season anyways. Look at their other two games before all this stuff, and they weren't playing good, either. They waltzed into this game and got beaten by a team they didn't expect. Besides the fact that they didn't beat every team in the NFL... not much? It's not like we judged the OMG 21 WIN STREAK PATRIOTS by their loss to the lowly Dolphins. And I never called them losers, you did. I'm not shitting on the Pats, you're just too busy giving them a nice cock-rubbing. I know you can't open your eyes right now because you might be blinded by their "mighty man-spray", but you're going to have to look at the facts eventually. Again, they aren't dominant. They are consistent. And, to take that challenge... Green Bay of the 60s Pittsburgh during the 70s San Fransisco of the 80s Off the top of my head, and those shouldn't even be disputable, as they all have more championships. The Packers are probably teh most dominant dynasty the NFL ever had with 5 Championships in 6 years back in the 60's. 21 in a row, but does that matter? We've seen a team go 18-0 in one season and then lose the final game. They never dominate in the Post-Season. Their total championship difference, combined from those three years they won? 218-151. That's not dominant. Look at the teams being discussed here, and they are literally getting the difference you have there in ONE season. It's not even comparable. The fact that the Patriots have never won a Super Bowl by more than 3 points should show that fact. I'm not a Lions fan, though. Suppose you saw I lived in Michigan and tried to get in a shot. Try better next time, fanboy. Indeed. I mean, Belichek might be suspended for the entirety of that season, according to ESPN. That'd show us, right? Face the facts: The Patriots had the biggest possible (To quote Bill Simmons) "Eff You!" season already. They don't have a reason to have that sort of "motivation" again. They have a bunch of guys who are up for Free Agency, and their defense is getting older, and older, and older... Yeah. I'm sure that'll improve their play. They'll be just as good as they normally are, and just as consistent. But let's face facts: They are dominant in the regular season, but much more human in the post-season. Their points differential and every one of their Super Bowl wins shows that off. ... Wait, are you Bill Simmons? No, I believe it's just beginning.

Are the official numbers out yet? I've heard a lot of predictions, but I haven't heard any definite numbers. I have to wonder: If Obama wins, will he be the first democratic candidate to ever get out of the primary season without winning New York, Massachusetts, and California? Because that's a pretty crazy feat in and of itself.

It's easier to believe that he might be honest about it than Hillary Clinton. With Hillary Clinton, there's no chance it would end. Let's face facts: we might get a political climate that is actually worse than what we have right now. I'll hedge a bet with Obama rather than know I have no chance with Clinton. And Gogo: I understand that politicians manipulate things as such, but there's a line. I didn't find Al Gore to be outright manipulative. I find her to be. Perhaps it's the fact that she seems so blatant at it that irritates me. Along with her campaign tricks... yeah. She rubs me as a person who typifies an era of politics I want to forget.

Why would they even be included? They only beat Philly by three points in the end, and their playoff score differential is only 85-51. That's hardly epic. Their regular season was good, but Pittsburgh's was better, and while they had the best points differential they were only a few points better than the Colts in that category. By the very fact that they won their Super Bowl by 3 Points dictates that they shouldn't be in this discussion. Edit: As to how the Patriots will be remembered, they'll be the Russians to Giants 1980's USA Hockey Team: The big, bad favorite that gets taken down by the spunky underdogs. And, they were 17-2. I know it's hard to accept their greatness, but as a man once said, "Whether you like or you don't like it, you better learn to love it, cause it's the best thing going today." Bitch. 17-2 isn't a show of greatness, especially when you only beat Philly by 3 points. Most Pats team have a lack of true post-season dominance, but that's to be expceted... bitch.

I DO.

It's not underlying sexism. If anything, the other candidate's reaction to crying is consistent to what Nixon did to Ed Muskie years ago; by writing it off, that'd probably be a bit more sexist ("Women are expected to break down."). The problem with her crying for many people is that it came off as a scripted event, and not something natural. At the very least, I can give Ed Muskie that: His crying was an honest reaction to people writing lies about his wife. Hillary's little sniffle didn't feel natural, it felt contrived. Same thing with this week: Oh God, we have her crying again just before Super Tuesday? Just like she did before she won the New Hampshire primary? Yeah, that comes off as contrived. The only reason she's trying to change the whole "Hardass Ice Queen" deal is because she miscalculated: She thought that the hardass Liberal would be the best thing to campaign when the campaign was about "Bush". But the campaign isn't about "Bush", it's about "Change", or "Broader Change". She made a political miscalculation, and she paid for it, just like she did the Iraq vote. People don't want Clinton not because she's a woman, but because she carries more baggage with her than American Airlines does. She's been at the center of numerous scandals during the Clinton Administration, and people still remember them. It doesn't help that she's pulling out all the old dirty tricks along with her husband on the campaign trail. She comes off as manipulative. Hell, I don't take much Michael Moore says to heart, but he calls her out for taking a ton of money from prescription drug and insurance interests. People see her as two-faced, and that's not an unsupported claim. And I'll say right now: A Clinton Presidency would be much worse than Obama. It would continue the political divisiveness that Bush has brought to a fever pitch, and that's something that needs to be avoided. Policy-wise, she is similar to Obama. But when it comes to style and background, she brings in a lot of bad things and little good.

True, but you also have to take into consideration the level of the crime as well in the sentencing. Covering up a possible murder (I'd probably say 3rd Degree Murder or Manslaughter) is a bit more than that. I'm sure he's committed a few others that I can't think of the name of, but I'm sure he's at least committed 3 or 4 crimes here, and with a dead girl being tossed into the sea, I think he's not going to be getting the easy way like Mrs. Conflict-of-Interest. I understand I'm not very familiar on Dutch Law, but I'm fairly sure that he'll be serving more than a hand-slap if he gets convicted. I'd guess somewhere in the 15 to 20 years if this goes good for the prosecution. But again, this is just what I'd expect with a possible homicide being involved.

Is obstruction of justice not a crime there? That's one of those, you know, universal no-nos that you just don't see much of a variance on. Unless Aruba has a lot of wacky, wacky laws, I don't think there are going to be many differences.

Well, that's not necessarily true. There's been a lot of rumors about him using a date rape drug, which caused the reaction that happened. Regardless, the obstruction of justice and other charges that will arise here are going to easily be enough to put him away for life.

My opinion: Obama survived the worst attack from the "Liberal Establishment". With New York, California, Massachusetts, and most other big Clinton/Establishment states out of the way, he's still standing and with a ton of money left. Clinton is going to be looking worse and worse. I'd argue McCain has almost put it away, Romney is almost dead, and Huckabee is turning himself into the defacto VP with is wins in the South. Can you feel the Neo-Conservative Talk Radio Establishment crumbling down like a house of cards?

Missouri goes to Obama.

McCain takes a huge win in Missouri, as well as taking California. Hillary will take California, but Missouri is still up in the air. And Romney is dead on arrival in this one, only taking the Mountain States and Massachusetts.

At this point, I think I'm going to call Missouri for McCain. They've been talking about how McCain's counties are the only ones left, and his lead is slowly growing. It's not a big one, but looks like it'll stand up with the trends the way they are. And Obama is GAINING on Clinton in Missouri as well. That'd be a great pickup, rounding his total at a dozen so far.

And Obama takes Colorado in the middle of his speech. Gotta feel good there. Edit: And Utah. And now a "USA!" chant...

McCain is UPSTAGED~! by Obama! And Missouri is looking "Florida 2000" close, but McCain seems to be pulling away, which would be a major victory as it's a "Winner-Take-All" Primary.