Nightwing

Huckabee takes Georgia, though it's proportional distribution. With all three candidates in a dead heat, it's not quite the win it could have been.

I also took it as a pragmatic thing, and frankly, if we ARE going to stay, I'd rather have him in charge. Why? No Gitmo and no torture. Those are two things that are IMPERATIVE to reestablishing some respect abroad. At the very least, if we are going to stay at war, we'll be fighting it the right way instead of the wrong way. I can respect that far more than anything Romney has talked about. And apparently Missouri is literally tied between McCain and Huckabee.

? I'd wager McCain'd be a better President than Romney. Christ, Romney is like Dubya 2.0.

I was watching Red Wings Post-Game when he came on. What'd he say?

Huckabee carries Alabama.

And apparently a Tornado is aimed right at the center of Nashville. This Super Tuesday is brought to you by Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay.

Connecticut and Kansas go for Obama. Huckabee seems to be holding off McCain in Georgia and Missouri, but Tennessee is ridiculously close. This is probably the most interesting Super Tuesday ever.

This is going to come down to the edge. If California goes to Romney and the South keeps going more Huckabee, this is going to be a lot more complicated than it looked like it would be. On the Democratic Side, I'm already hearing about no one coming out with too big an advantage.

You're a really angry person aren't you? I'd wager he's about as angry as you are retarded. But that's probably understating your retardation.

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.

Don't call it yet! God damn it, knock on wood! KNOCK ON WOOD!

I'm taking bets on how long it takes majormayhem1 to now fade into complete obscurity, as his entire existence seems to be to centered around the Pats. And thank God that this breaks up the "Boston Trinity" with the Sox victory and the Celtics "magic" season right now. God help me, but that would be unbearable. Gotta spread it around. Congrats, Giants. You're probably the New York team I hate the least, and watching every sportscaster and sports-radio guy have to apologize to Eli Manning is going to be hilarious enough for me to forget about Mercury Morris.

Well, at least some lucky Vancouver fans will be getting Plasma TVs...

God damn it, shut up Marvin! I can already hear EricMM and the rest of Ann Arbor running towards this fucking board! This shouldn't even be disputable at this point in time that we are doing something to affect the Earth. Why not play on the safe side?

Oh come on. He was just flipping through. Don't crucify him for making a little comment. By the by: This thread needs a "Comments that Don't Warrant a Thread" Thread for things like that.

It's not like it won't be on non-stop for the rest of the night.

I'll forgo grades, as there are just two candidates in this one. Overall, I felt like Obama came out a little ahead. Hillary got across that she was a policy wonk, but I almost felt like she was trying to hard to establish that (Talking about how many brigades a month she wants out in Iraq was a little much). The Bush-baiting was good for a crowd pop, but I still don't think it's going to help in a general election with a potential candidate that has separated himself from the current administration. Obama came out strong. I feel like this was his best debate: he came off well, and he managed to take it to her once the opportunity showed itself. He needs to get Wolf Blitzer a bottle of champagne for that "Naive" comment, because it created the opening he needed to get in a slam dunk on her. I felt like he got one heck of a point over on her there. In the end, I don't think anyone really won. It felt more like a unifying moment than anything, as I think everyone felt good about who was coming out of this. I'm not sure how that is going to play for either candidate.

Look again. Those were two candidates who were directly part of the previous Administration as a VP. With McCain as a frontrunner, it's hard to connect him to the Administration with his moderate views on multiple subjects and his known problems with the Administration (And the party as a whole). If Dick Cheney were the guy running, you'd have a point. But he's not; in his stead is the "Outrider Maverick War Hero Senator" who has multiple endorsements from moderates about how he can "reach across the aisle", along with the proof to boot. You can't honestly think this is an "Al Gore" or "Gerry Ford" situation, can you? John McCain is pretty close to an icumbant on the Iraq War. Wait, why am I even doing this? I'm not really sure, because independents tend to disagree with you. He has separated him very well from Bush, despite his agreement on the situation in Iraq. This isn't August anymore, and with the surge "working", he looks a little bit vindicated by the thing as he's been begging for it for a while. And that's not even considering the fact that Ford and Gore were both Charisma Vacuums at the time they were up for election. Seriously, this shouldn't even be a debate: McCain has put himself in a different boat in the minds of most independents when it comes to a lot of issues.

OMG!!! And Clinton gets a softball on the issue of Bill.

Wolf Blitzer just called Clinton "naive". Ballsy, and it's given Obama a hole to bust through, especially with Clinton almost justifying Bush's war for him.

Look again. Those were two candidates who were directly part of the previous Administration as a VP. With McCain as a frontrunner, it's hard to connect him to the Administration with his moderate views on multiple subjects and his known problems with the Administration (And the party as a whole). If Dick Cheney were the guy running, you'd have a point. But he's not; in his stead is the "Outrider Maverick War Hero Senator" who has multiple endorsements from moderates about how he can "reach across the aisle", along with the proof to boot. You can't honestly think this is an "Al Gore" or "Gerry Ford" situation, can you?

This debate isn't nearly as fun as the Republican one. Watching Romney and McCain go at it, Huckabee beg for space, and Ron Paul look pissed all night at least had some entertainment value. I feel like this is a lot of backpatting and cheap pops from the crowd. Clinton is getting a bunch of them, but hammering on GW isn't going to be something she can do in the General Election when an actual candidate from the Republicans is out there. Overall, I'm gettin gthe feeling that Clinton is coming out of this a bit better. Obama needs to nail Clinton on something, as he's the guy who is behind. He needs to make some sort of move here.

The problem is that, if you look in comparison, economic downturns still happen with the Gold Standard. And they are ridiculously harsher: The recessions of the 1800s were far worse than the one we call "the Great Depression", and those countries that still were on a commodity standard during the Depression were hit harder and longer than those that weren't. Inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing as it reduces the 'sticky wages' problem (where wages don't go down when demand does, causing output to fall). It's a safety valve, really, and something a commodity-based system doesn't allow for. I know you are paranoid about the Gnomes in Zurich (look it up) and the mysterious men that control the Federal Reserve, but the fact of the matter is, that if (actually, more like when) our currency devalues, it's going to have a much more drastic economic hardships than you would under any sort of Commodity-based standard. The fact of the matter is that it's all fiat: Gold doesn't do a service, it just sits there. We give gold the price we want to. Tying our currency down to a fixed-rate is only going to tie hands and cause speculation runs that can destroy an economy (Look at Argentina). If you're economic state is weak, you'll get destroyed (again, Argentina), and we'll have a full-blown Depression instead of a Recession. It's not a magical solution that will instantly make the government transparent or better, either. Frankly, it'll just make fighting and gridlock the order of the day as people dogfight for funds for their districts. It's not like someone would vote out a person who is getting pork-barrel deals for THEIR district... Israel, Korea, Japan, and many others. And you'd be surprised how many people want US military bases in their area: They bring in a ton of money, as we all know they spend so much. People might whine about them and the "American Empire!", but the fact of the matter is that they help many economies more than they know. And he is an isolationist. How is being part of the UN "interventionist"? How is being part of NATO "interventionist"? Completely pulling out all our military assets aboard, along with pulling out of major organizations like the UN and NATO and cutting our Foreign Aid budget is isolationist. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's anything else. And how is that different from completely eliminating the government form the scene? If there is no regulation, the corporations are writing the regulations still. It just cuts out the middle man. Completely neutering the Federal Government in just about every way would only give corporations more power. Heck, have you ever considered that corporations have a better hold over state governments? This idea of "Let's get the Federal Government out of the picture and everything will be just fine!" is foolish because it relies on this idealized version of state governments. Less regulation will just lead to things like the Mortgage Crisis we're currently in, or the state the Airlines are in. I'm sorry, but having a nearly-powerless Federal Government that completely deregulates the economy for corporations to run wild in might as well not be there.

I wouldn't say Holocaust Part Deux, but losing American Support would almost certainly cause some serious destabilization in the region. But hey, OUR EMPIRE WORKS FOR US NOW, right? I mean, what can be a more graceful end than abruptly and completely pulling out of all our previous military obligations, flipping the bird to our allies by leaving the UN and NATO, and completely cut out our foreign aid budget?

That'd be a hell of a move there.