It means that Obama gets one more delegate than Edwards. One. Edwards really needed a win in Iowa, as he isn't a fundraising juggernaut like Obama and Clinton, and has been virtually ignored by the national media despite being the only other candidate to consistently poll in double digits.
It consisted of nothing more than railing against what "they" said. "'They' said it couldn't be done." Who the hell is "they", Barack? The speech was nothing more than a bushel of strawmen; The Young Turks gave it the mocking it deserved.
Complaining about a "nanny state" isn't a policy argument, it's a marketing point made by those who lump good government and bad government into one category: bad.
The two biggest reasons Hillary probably lost by as much as she did are her votes for the AUMF to invade Iraq and for Kyl-Lieberman. Edwards also voted for the AUMF, but he apologized two years ago. Hillary has never accepted responsibility for her bad vote, and voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which was nothing more than a repeat of the (baseless) warmongering on Iraq from 2001-2002. Best quote on the subject came from Micheal Moore earlier today:
And last night she must have gone to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.
Say what you will about their business ethics regarding things like patents
Don't hate the player, hate the game. The way the U.S. patent system is set up, your company patents everything in sight, even though most of it is bullshit. This is so that if another company tries to sue you from infringing on their bullshit patent, you try and find a way to counter-sue. Apple would be unethical if they acted as a patent troll, but I haven't seen any evidence that they've done that.
Oh, right. Well, I don't really remember but I probably just got distracted with your constant use of kindergarten-grade scatological references.
Those who whine about "24/7/365 FUD" should not throw stones in glass houses, then make a quick claim of moral superiority and declare victory. You never bothered to make a rational defense of Vista's worthiness, you just engaged in rhetorical masturbation without ever making a point.
And besides, whatever list I could have come up with would be insufficient, given your awesomely stupid predisposition against the thing.
Translation: no, you can't name a single compelling reason to switch from XP to Vista.
Actually, dumbass, I was talking about Waco. Your memory of that decade and analysis of the current seems to be suffering from the massive amounts of pot you've inhalled.
I can't read your mind, dumbass. But if you knew how to read, you'd see the rest of my post was a 100% fact based debunking of Waco as a grand police state action by our 42nd president. But then, if you used rational thought, you'd have to surrender your Fucking Idiot Wingnut merit badge, wouldn't you?
Yes, because not mentioning a compelling upgrade reason is saying Vista is a turd sandwich.
It is when one of the richest companies in the planet spends billions developing an OS and you can't name a single good reason to "upgrade".
Oh, to live in a world like yours, where everything is either absolutely amazing or complete shit.
Straw man.
Oh and by the way: DirectX 10.
It takes a special kind of stupid to raise an argument that was already shot down earlier in the conversation:
Microsoft could improve the performance issues with Vista with service packs, but seriously - what does Vista offer over XP, aside from artificial obsolescence like DX 10 being Vista only when it was almost certainly developed on XP?
Yes, I did: but seriously - what does Vista offer over XP, aside from artificial obsolescence like DX 10 being Vista only when it was almost certainly developed on XP?
Perhaps you forgot your original point in the middle of jerking off to how fuckin' awesome you are now that you've exited puberty.
Another yawn. Maybe if you worked on your reading comprehension a little more and shot your mouth off a lot less, you wouldn't look like such an idiot.
Sure, lets talk about it - I have yet to slap down some wingnut bullshit today. If you're talking about Ruby Ridge, that happened when Bush was still president, though that hasn't stopped right wing idiots from blaming the incident on Clinton. The ATF started investigating the Branch Dividians in 1992, long before Bill Clinton was sworn into office. They executed a search warrant when Clinton had been in office for 38 days. Janet Reno had been in office for an even shorter period of time when the FBI told her that the children in the compound were being molested, so she authorized the FBI to use force to take the compound, specifically forbidding the FBI from using pyrotechnic devices in the assault. The FBI, who was headed by William Sessions, a Reagan appointee, used them anyway. I wasn't able to find out who appointed Stephen Higgens, but he was the director of the ATF before Clinton took office.
And where would we be without wingnut hypocrisy? Much like the Republican stances on draft dodging vs military service and the seriousness of perjury, wingnuts have shown themselves to be exceptionally flexible when it comes to abusive law enforcement. During the 1992 election, Clinton was constantly attacked for his attempts to void the draft when he was running against the WWII vet George H. W. Bush. Funny how quickly the importance of military service went out the window when George W. Bush was running against Kery. Or when the *same* people who attacked Clinton for his supposed perjury called for a pardon for Scotter Libby's perjury *conviction*. So, my question is, where the fuck did all these civil libertarians disappear to when Bush started raping the 4th (searches), 5th(due process), 6th(speedy trial), and 8th(torture) Amendments?
There is a significant difference between Microsoft releasing an operating system that does not fulfill expectations and the 24/7/365 FUD machine that tries by all means necessary to convince everyone that Vista is unusable, mostly by playing the DRM card and exaggerating every single flaw and small bug to death over and over again.
All that blather and you can't mention a single compelling reason for a user to switch from XP to Vista. Go ahead and enjoy your turd sandwich, fanboi.
Just like the U.S. government, MS is so huge, bloated, mismanaged and downright corrupt, the only way it can possibly be improved is for 95% of it to simply go away.
Uh, no. But thanks for drinking the anti-government Kool-Aid anyway. Government agencies can do great things when competent people are put in charge, as Clinton proved in the 90's with FEMA. But when the government is run by people who hate government, you shouldn't be shocked, shocked! when it fails.
Please note: When Win2K came out every Win98SE lover bitched
Uh, no. It was finally possible to play games and use hardware with the ease of 98 with the stability of NT. Win2k was the greatest OS Microsoft ever produced.
No, it can't be that Microsoft released a turd sandwich - it must be Slashdot group think! Come on, lets get real here - all the promising features of Longhorn were stripped out of XP's successor and we end up with an OS that adds little in new features but a lot of bloat, DRM, an obtuse UAC and a large performance downgrade.
Microsoft could improve the performance issues with Vista with service packs, but seriously - what does Vista offer over XP, aside from artificial obsolescence like DX 10 being Vista only when it was almost certainly developed on XP?
Well, I did have you pegged as a snobby luddite the first time, but thought I'd give you a chance to show you don't breath rarified air. Now, go back to legally, cheerfully watching your TV at NBC.com or buying it off of iTunes, where the TV studios figure out how much to cut the writers by taking all the profits made from online distribution and multiplying by zero.
I don't know, did your mom tell you that college students making a negative $15,000 per year should be held to a higher standard the multi-billion dollar corporations?
Not compensating artists/creators for their works = immorality.
Complain to the movie and television studios and recordlabelsthen. They are by far the biggest pirates of all. Hell, their entire industries were founded on piracy to begin with!
I swear, the biggest problem with society today is the "OMGWTFBBQ MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS SCREW YOU!" attitude.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I were a Luddite or your garden variety prude. People who are adamant on their civil liberties are that way because of the Luddites and the "OMG WILL SOMEONE PLEAAAAASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" crowd.
No, do tell it to me. Your justification for why this isn't such a big deal for the athletes that would be forced to have GPS implants is the "megabucks" in sports, when few athletes actually gain those "megabucks". Like if Nike answered complaints about the working conditions in their Chinese factories by talking about how great a living the plant manager makes. Lame.
There is one age for cigarettes: 18. There is one age for alcohol: 21. It's not remotely that clear cut for video games. Imagine if cigarettes or alcohol were sold with age based ratings:
Early childhood - Budweiser for kids 3 and older. Everyone - Camels for age 6 and older. Teen - Miller for age 13 and up. Mature - Marlboro's for 17 and up. Adults Only - Captain Morgan for 18 and older.
This comparison also ignores the free speech issue with games and the health risks with alcohol and cigarettes, but mainly just cigarettes. If a 13 year old gets a hold of a case of Bud and drinks it over the course of a couple weeks, he's going to get buzzed and might do something stupid. If a 13 year old smokes half a dozen packs of cigarettes over the course of a month, he might become addicted and smoke for the rest of his life.
for all the things Democrats have going for them, they pull something like this.
"They" is Hillary Clinton. The other two Luddites in the Democratic party were Lieberman and Tipper Gore. The former is no longer a Democrat and only won his last election from massive support from Republicans, and the latter was only the wife of the vice president. On one of her visits to Iraq, people were cracking jokes on Dailykos, asking her if she went because an Iraqi child was playing GTA or if he was burning an American flag.
I've been leaning toward Obama because Clinton just seems to be too populist, almost as if her stance on issues is determined by the changing winds of public opinion.
Populism != pandering. Edwards for example, is engaging in populism when he argues that the economy in the U.S. shouldn't be run to the exclusive benefit of the top 5%. Hillary is pandering when she talks about regulating games and banning flag burning: legislating non-problems to get votes.
Slashdot Mirror
It consisted of nothing more than railing against what "they" said. "'They' said it couldn't be done." Who the hell is "they", Barack? The speech was nothing more than a bushel of strawmen; The Young Turks gave it the mocking it deserved.
The two biggest reasons Hillary probably lost by as much as she did are her votes for the AUMF to invade Iraq and for Kyl-Lieberman. Edwards also voted for the AUMF, but he apologized two years ago. Hillary has never accepted responsibility for her bad vote, and voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which was nothing more than a repeat of the (baseless) warmongering on Iraq from 2001-2002. Best quote on the subject came from Micheal Moore earlier today:
That's just stupid. What if the defendant is a cop?
Say what you will about their business ethics regarding things like patents
Don't hate the player, hate the game. The way the U.S. patent system is set up, your company patents everything in sight, even though most of it is bullshit. This is so that if another company tries to sue you from infringing on their bullshit patent, you try and find a way to counter-sue. Apple would be unethical if they acted as a patent troll, but I haven't seen any evidence that they've done that.
Oh, right. Well, I don't really remember but I probably just got distracted with your constant use of kindergarten-grade scatological references.
Those who whine about "24/7/365 FUD" should not throw stones in glass houses, then make a quick claim of moral superiority and declare victory. You never bothered to make a rational defense of Vista's worthiness, you just engaged in rhetorical masturbation without ever making a point.
And besides, whatever list I could have come up with would be insufficient, given your awesomely stupid predisposition against the thing.
Translation: no, you can't name a single compelling reason to switch from XP to Vista.
You know what they say about the horse - fuck it
That explains a lot.
Actually, dumbass, I was talking about Waco. Your memory of that decade and analysis of the current seems to be suffering from the massive amounts of pot you've inhalled.
I can't read your mind, dumbass. But if you knew how to read, you'd see the rest of my post was a 100% fact based debunking of Waco as a grand police state action by our 42nd president. But then, if you used rational thought, you'd have to surrender your Fucking Idiot Wingnut merit badge, wouldn't you?
It is when one of the richest companies in the planet spends billions developing an OS and you can't name a single good reason to "upgrade".
Oh, to live in a world like yours, where everything is either absolutely amazing or complete shit.
Straw man.
Oh and by the way: DirectX 10.
It takes a special kind of stupid to raise an argument that was already shot down earlier in the conversation:
Sure I could, you just didn't ask for that.
Yes, I did: but seriously - what does Vista offer over XP, aside from artificial obsolescence like DX 10 being Vista only when it was almost certainly developed on XP?
Perhaps you forgot your original point in the middle of jerking off to how fuckin' awesome you are now that you've exited puberty.
Another yawn. Maybe if you worked on your reading comprehension a little more and shot your mouth off a lot less, you wouldn't look like such an idiot.
Sure, lets talk about it - I have yet to slap down some wingnut bullshit today. If you're talking about Ruby Ridge, that happened when Bush was still president, though that hasn't stopped right wing idiots from blaming the incident on Clinton. The ATF started investigating the Branch Dividians in 1992, long before Bill Clinton was sworn into office. They executed a search warrant when Clinton had been in office for 38 days. Janet Reno had been in office for an even shorter period of time when the FBI told her that the children in the compound were being molested, so she authorized the FBI to use force to take the compound, specifically forbidding the FBI from using pyrotechnic devices in the assault. The FBI, who was headed by William Sessions, a Reagan appointee, used them anyway. I wasn't able to find out who appointed Stephen Higgens, but he was the director of the ATF before Clinton took office.
And where would we be without wingnut hypocrisy? Much like the Republican stances on draft dodging vs military service and the seriousness of perjury, wingnuts have shown themselves to be exceptionally flexible when it comes to abusive law enforcement. During the 1992 election, Clinton was constantly attacked for his attempts to void the draft when he was running against the WWII vet George H. W. Bush. Funny how quickly the importance of military service went out the window when George W. Bush was running against Kery. Or when the *same* people who attacked Clinton for his supposed perjury called for a pardon for Scotter Libby's perjury *conviction*. So, my question is, where the fuck did all these civil libertarians disappear to when Bush started raping the 4th (searches), 5th(due process), 6th(speedy trial), and 8th(torture) Amendments?
There is a significant difference between Microsoft releasing an operating system that does not fulfill expectations and the 24/7/365 FUD machine that tries by all means necessary to convince everyone that Vista is unusable, mostly by playing the DRM card and exaggerating every single flaw and small bug to death over and over again.
All that blather and you can't mention a single compelling reason for a user to switch from XP to Vista. Go ahead and enjoy your turd sandwich, fanboi.
Just like the U.S. government, MS is so huge, bloated, mismanaged and downright corrupt, the only way it can possibly be improved is for 95% of it to simply go away.
Uh, no. But thanks for drinking the anti-government Kool-Aid anyway. Government agencies can do great things when competent people are put in charge, as Clinton proved in the 90's with FEMA. But when the government is run by people who hate government, you shouldn't be shocked, shocked! when it fails.
Please note: When Win2K came out every Win98SE lover bitched
Uh, no. It was finally possible to play games and use hardware with the ease of 98 with the stability of NT. Win2k was the greatest OS Microsoft ever produced.
No, it can't be that Microsoft released a turd sandwich - it must be Slashdot group think! Come on, lets get real here - all the promising features of Longhorn were stripped out of XP's successor and we end up with an OS that adds little in new features but a lot of bloat, DRM, an obtuse UAC and a large performance downgrade.
Microsoft could improve the performance issues with Vista with service packs, but seriously - what does Vista offer over XP, aside from artificial obsolescence like DX 10 being Vista only when it was almost certainly developed on XP?
Well, I did have you pegged as a snobby luddite the first time, but thought I'd give you a chance to show you don't breath rarified air. Now, go back to legally, cheerfully watching your TV at NBC.com or buying it off of iTunes, where the TV studios figure out how much to cut the writers by taking all the profits made from online distribution and multiplying by zero.
I don't know, did your mom tell you that college students making a negative $15,000 per year should be held to a higher standard the multi-billion dollar corporations?
Not compensating artists/creators for their works = immorality.
Complain to the movie and television studios and record labels then. They are by far the biggest pirates of all. Hell, their entire industries were founded on piracy to begin with!
It's called common courtesy. Ever hear of it?
Have you? It's called minding your own business.
I swear, the biggest problem with society today is the "OMGWTFBBQ MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS SCREW YOU!" attitude.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I were a Luddite or your garden variety prude. People who are adamant on their civil liberties are that way because of the Luddites and the "OMG WILL SOMEONE PLEAAAAASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" crowd.
You seem to be confusing liberty with dignity.
Nope, drug war is worse by far, because it doesn't reduce drug use, it just makes criminals out of millions of non-violent Americans.
No, do tell it to me. Your justification for why this isn't such a big deal for the athletes that would be forced to have GPS implants is the "megabucks" in sports, when few athletes actually gain those "megabucks". Like if Nike answered complaints about the working conditions in their Chinese factories by talking about how great a living the plant manager makes. Lame.
There is one age for cigarettes: 18. There is one age for alcohol: 21. It's not remotely that clear cut for video games. Imagine if cigarettes or alcohol were sold with age based ratings:
Early childhood - Budweiser for kids 3 and older.
Everyone - Camels for age 6 and older.
Teen - Miller for age 13 and up.
Mature - Marlboro's for 17 and up.
Adults Only - Captain Morgan for 18 and older.
This comparison also ignores the free speech issue with games and the health risks with alcohol and cigarettes, but mainly just cigarettes. If a 13 year old gets a hold of a case of Bud and drinks it over the course of a couple weeks, he's going to get buzzed and might do something stupid. If a 13 year old smokes half a dozen packs of cigarettes over the course of a month, he might become addicted and smoke for the rest of his life.
for all the things Democrats have going for them, they pull something like this.
"They" is Hillary Clinton. The other two Luddites in the Democratic party were Lieberman and Tipper Gore. The former is no longer a Democrat and only won his last election from massive support from Republicans, and the latter was only the wife of the vice president. On one of her visits to Iraq, people were cracking jokes on Dailykos, asking her if she went because an Iraqi child was playing GTA or if he was burning an American flag.
I've been leaning toward Obama because Clinton just seems to be too populist, almost as if her stance on issues is determined by the changing winds of public opinion.
Populism != pandering. Edwards for example, is engaging in populism when he argues that the economy in the U.S. shouldn't be run to the exclusive benefit of the top 5%. Hillary is pandering when she talks about regulating games and banning flag burning: legislating non-problems to get votes.
Sorry, but Bush killed the "lesser of two evils" argument, along with the "who'd you most like to have a beer with" argument.