Retribution

[quote name='Lonley Fighter']I'm going to get straight to the point here and say what's been bothering me and that being I "knocked up" my high school sweethart and am on my way to father-hood well, teen pregnancy type father-hood but it's been bothering me a bit like what's it going to be like and what the hell now and just the whole situation is crazy but my girlfriend whom I love dearly is just as relaxed and sweet as ever so my question to everyone (especially those who have experienced this before or are currently parents) is what to expect and how do I prepare mentally?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Persuade her to abort IMHO. Otherwise, your youth is essentially put to an end. No college, no carefree summers, no family stability for your future child. To be totally frank, you're probably not adequately prepared to care for a baby (emotionally or financially). I mean, you're not an adult yourself, so how can you raise a child? How are you going to pay for its expenses? Are you going to get a house with your future wife? And if so, how will you pay for it? If you have a child, it will be extraordinarily difficult to attend college. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that it will be a great challenge for you. If you end up without a degree, your earning capacity [i]for life[/i] is impacted for the worse. Sure, you can always go back and get a degree later, but the odds are against you in this one too. And not having a degree [i]and[/i] having a child early on in life both significantly decrease the chances of your child going to college. It's going to be a tough cycle to break. All I'm saying is try to think very long term, not just dealing with this immediately. I just think teenage pregnancy has been sugar-coated too much as of late, so I'm sorry if I come off as "overly negative" or "trying to tear you down". But seriously, consider the profound nature of a childbirth and it's far-reaching consequences. [/font]

[quote name='Zen'][color=royalblue][size=1] I'll rock a tight tee, but my area needs air. BTW- I've never seen a *ahem* "soda" with that label. Please, what kind of "soda" was that, college boy?[/color][/size][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Diet Coke, non-caffeinated. You know, the stuff in the golden can. ;)[/font]

[quote name='Zen'][color=royalblue][size=1]Damn Alex, your jeans tight enough, hombre?[/color][/size][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]It cuts circulation off to my balls. But anything for fashion.[/font]

[font=Arial]DW, you hipster. As for me, [URL=http://img152.imageshack.us/my.php?image=n1225831205305248038281ge8.jpg][IMG]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1543/n1225831205305248038281ge8.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] I'm the one drinking the soda. ;)[/font]

[font=Arial]I went to New York City (and am still here now) to visit some friends for the 4th. We broke into the rooftop of one of the high-rises on campus, which has a magnificent panoramic view of the entire city. From there, it was smoking and drinking as we watched the fireworks explode downtown... it was great. Then, I won a game of Texas Hold 'Em, a true American game. Generally a low-key night, but fun nonetheless.[/font]

[font=Arial]I think I should probably just post in installments or episodes. If I gave a retelling of all my [foolish] escapades and adventures, it'd be tl;dr. Perhaps I'll at least make the story interesting through my narration. So my friends and I were pre-gaming this university dance at the beginning of the year in my friend's room. We (about 6 guys) finished a few fifths of vodka, interspersed with tequila shots. By the end of this 45 minute ordeal, we were all shithoused drunk, falling over ourselves (but looking dashing nonetheless in our suits!) as we stumbled to the auditorium. Arriving there at approx midnight, the party is quite alive and packed. Our group fragments in amongst the masses, and I am with two of my friends, Chris and Ray. Despite our inebriation, we are still keeping to ourselves, shifting back and forth as we inspect the throngs of beautiful women for a potential dancing partner. After a while, I grow weary of this unfruitful exercise. "Alright men, divide and conquer. I go right, you go center, you go left," I said, pointing into separation directions of the crowd. We exchanged a customary handshake and departed, all fending for ourselves. Chris (tall and handsome as hell) walks up to this gorgeous girl. "Hey, you're beautiful. Wanna dance?" They dance for ten minutes, then he wisks her out the door and into his bed. It was truly an amazing moment, and it remains a mystery to me what exactly he told her... haha. Ray was too trashed to do anything productive and goes back to his dorm. I dance with a few girls until the party ends (perhaps around 1:30am). Then I hear there's an after party in my friend's room... interestingly enough, the same room we pregamed in. I hurry back to see [i]even more[/i] booze, in addition to a great number of people playing drinking games. I was basically obliterated at this point, but partake in the drinking games under the supposition that if I [i]got more drunk, I would have lower inhibitions and would thus be able to talk to girls more easily.[/i] Foolish! Somehow, I do end up making out with one girl on my friend's bed (sorry again bud!). The party is dying down more or less, and she leaves. Then I get a call from my room mate (around 3am I would assume) telling me he was about to bed some girl, so I had to find other arrangements. My friend tells me I can just crash in his room, and I lay on the floor. Although my friend's room mate was gone for the night, a girl was sleeping on it and I didn't feel like disturbing her. Once my friend went to sleep, she [i]actually beckoned me into the bed with her[/i]. I woke up at 8am with the worst hangover, still in my tie and slacks, and puttered my way back to my room. FIN[/font]

[font=Arial]When the OB Standard skin really was the standard.[/font]

[font=Arial]From the [i]drunk[/i] perspective (yes, I am indeed drunk), there is certainly ethics. I would argue there is no absolute system of morality, for it presupposes universality of that system (and I fundamentally disagree with that). I would say I'm closer to cultural relativism and the moral subjectivity that accompanies said perspective. While it is fallacious and problematic to say "murder is alright because it is in ____ culture," it is equally dubious to assert "this is the only way for ____ to be done, for this way is universally best". In a phrase: why can't we all just get along?[/font]

[quote name='Elk']So everyone here thinks that love is action, more than anything else? i guess that's true since you can always say you love someone but not act like it.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I guess so. You can always say "I love you" but there is no truth to the statement until one can back it up. In the absence of proof, the words are empty. To be certain, love is internal and therefore not a physical thing, but it manifests itself in the physical. For example, Parent: I love you! (abuses child) or Boyfriend: I love you! (cheats on you)[/font]

[font=Arial]Love is yelling at your little brother all day, and then having his back as soon as someone else picks on him. Love is when you argue with your parents, run away from home, and they come looking for you despite your insanity. Love is forgiving in the face of reason, wishing well for someone no matter what they feel about you, sacrificing your personal comfort for them, telling a hard truth, etc.[/font]

[font=Arial]I work out not to be healthy, but to look good (yay narcissism). Generally, I just lift weights and diet in a way to maximize those muscle gains. I used to do martial arts, but we did so little sparring and so many kata that I lost interest quickly. Granted, martial art is a lot cooler than just lifting weights, but I didn't enjoy it much I guess. I try to work out every other day, but admittedly my routine isn't rounded enough yet. So far, I've been focusing on my pectorals, biceps, triceps, abs, and shoulders. I've totally neglected my legs for now. Aside from leg press, I'm thinking about doing sprints to build up strength and definition (particularly in my calves). Could anyone tell me if that's a good/effective idea? I hate running without a purpose (around a track, etc) but I do enjoy running while playing soccer. Although my passion for playing the sport has significantly decreased, I do enjoy playing from time to time with friends.[/font]

[font=Arial]Well, I feel like we've had a pretty healthy discussion on this... so I'll make a few closing responses. I'm pretty sure you don't feel like reading even MORE replies from me haha. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]Everything you've said about Clinton does not imply that she ever thought a win was inevitable. To me, it just implies - as you said - that she thought she was "electable". So does Obama. So does every candidate. What's wrong with that? Criticising her for considering herself "electable" and for expressing such a view is profoundly unfair. And I don't think the signs pointed to an epic win - not if you paid attention to the commentary. The commentary was frequently pointing out that Hillary had an uphill struggle and that she was hanging on for too long (even early on). It was often unreasonable. This idea of Obama rising above the airs of inevitability is a perfect example of the utter spin that has been perpetuated throughout the media. It's part of the Obama story - the narrative. It's that kind of approach that I dislike (and that most objective commentators also seem to find painful, haha).[/font][/QUOTE] Of course it is impossible to prove, in any capacity, that she believed X or Y. I made assumptions based off the tone of her campaign. I assumed that because Bill was acting like an angry parent at a little-league game when she began to lose that there was a certain sense of entitlement there. When she cried in the wake of Iowa because the campaign trail was becoming hot, I assumed she was panicking. That she never believed some random nobody could actually win the first primary state. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]Mobilizing people nationwide to do what was through previously unthinkable? Geeze, you should be working on the campaign yourself! Haha. :catgirl: But seriously, yes, he did outperform Clinton. There's no doubt there whatsoever. There's also no doubt, generally, that he has been riding a media-fuelled wave which has played a large role in this performance. I think that's generally accepted by most onlookers/independent commentators, whether or not they are a supporter of Obama.[/font][/QUOTE] C'mon, James. He's a black man running for President in a country that was heavily segregated and openly racist not even 50 years ago. He's got a crazy name to most Americans (not to mention his middle name). He didn't even have an entire term in the Senate under his belt before launching to the national spotlight for the Presidency. All of this is against the odds -- he's the stereotypical "American dream" story. He brought record number of voters (specifically amongst the youth) to the polls for the first time. He got an immense number of independents and Republicans voting for him. He's shattered the fund-raising records. If you step back and look at it, it's almost unsettling how much support he has. Call it bleary-eyed or what have you, but he's gotten massive numbers involved into the political process. Yes, he did ride the media wave. I guess I don't really see it as a potential negative or a point that could cause doubt in his ability. I just see his command over the news as good strategy. Cheers! :bow:[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]The big problem, I think, is that so much of this is what has driven the campaign - as opposed to anything significantly substantive.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]The problem with this point of view is that it summarily dismisses and devalues the power of rhetoric, framing, and campaign tone. It seems you're more a fan of "substantive" campaigning, which is all well and good, but discussing issues without giving it a greater context or higher purpose is utterly lost. People do not exist in a vacuum, a national sentiment is not formed or sustained in a vacuum, and so the discussion of "the issues" comes off as dry and uninspiring. So you can preach about "solutions" to "the issues" until you're blue in the face, but it's hilariously ineffective. Rather, a competent campaign sets the issues in a larger and grander scheme or theme that captures the public's wishes. Likewise, a campaign riding the zeitgeist is not necessarily devoid of substance. Just because Obama can speak well and impressively does not mean he's peddling snake oil. I mean, he's got just as many views on the issues, but no one cares to look them up. They're all on his site, [url=http://www.barackobama.com/issues/][b]here[/b][/url]. So just because he's not rattling off dull and bland statistics or outlining comprehensive plans on TV does not mean he's devoid of substance, it just means he's focusing his efforts and energies on connecting with the American heart rather than mind. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]Regardless of a candidate's actual flaws or strengths, I find it worrying that the media has such apparent power - and that a candidate (of any persuasion) can so easily be thrust into the limelight without passing some of the most critical acid tests.[/font][/QUOTE] The media had such power in the Democratic primary because Obama excels in live, face-to-face situations. He delivers amazing speeches (and surprise! they're on TV). He's photogenic. And it's my opinion that Obama had a pretty rough media attention at times. Reverend Wright? He's a Muslim? He doesn't wear a pin on his lapel? He did coke? I mean come on, I'd say he faced far more personal, outrageous, and [potentially] damaging things via the media than Clinton. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]The problem is when you fail to define your policies clearly and, instead, opt for the so-called "Obamessiah" route (whereby it's all about bumper stickers, uplifting tag lines and ever-increasing groups of bleary-eyed worshipers). That strategy has more to do with covering any weaknesses that you may have and relying on the pack mentality of voters and media hyperbole, which is itself somewhat cynical.[/font][/QUOTE] I'm going to drop pretenses and ask you this: why bother with discussing the nuts and bolts of his future administration when it's far easier and more expedient to play different cards and persuade people through rhetoric? Politics isn't a noble thing, and maybe you think it is. Sure, it'd be nice if people were persuaded by "just the facts," and Clinton definitely relied on that assumption. But there was no resonance with her approach. I just don't understand why you'd advocate a campaign strategy that does not optimally connect with citizens if there's a better one to adopt. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]I interpret that as saying the following: "As long as we get the opposite to the status quo, we're happy." How is that positive, though? It strikes me as being similar to closing your eyes and jumping into the deep end of a pool, without really knowing what you'll encounter at the bottom. Surely altering the status quo is a means to an end; it is not an end in and of itself. And that, I think, is half the problem here. Everyone is so caught up in the means without worrying (or even considering) the end result. Even people who identify themselves as liberals are not necessarily highly liberal on every single issue. Being liberal on [i]every[/i] issue is as blindly one-sided as being highly conservative on every issue - it's simply an opposite extreme. But it's an extreme nonetheless. Surely people are more interested in ideas and policies rather than simply "it's different, so it must be good".[/font][/QUOTE] The fundamental problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption that [i]everything diametrically opposed to Bush is not good[/i]. I say this almost totally seriously -- I support none of Bush's major policy initiatives. I totally disapprove of almost everything Bush has done during his administration. Perhaps I'm far too liberal, but Bush was a terrible president, and a total departure from those policies would IMHO be a great improvement. Additionally, I've researched the majority of Obama's positions. I would not say he's blindly for change. I would say, however, that he would take the country in a largely positive direction. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]But secondly, I don't think Hillary ever assumed she would win. How could she? Despite her initially good numbers (and Obama's numbers actually dropping as time went by), the media played out a scathing narrative that would make victory difficult, at the very least.[/font][/QUOTE] I mean, I personally viewed her as thinking she was entitled and inevitable. Her entire campaign pre-Iowa was pitched on that premise, that she was "electable," that she could fundraise and manage a competent campaign, that she had experience, etc. She began with a lead in super-delegates, she began with a vast network of political allegiances and donors, and a [i]very[/i] positive public perception of her husband's presidency. All the signs pointed to epic win. And when Obama gave a strong showing in Iowa, she realized her opponent was rising above the airs of inevitability. Rather than attributing Clinton's loss to a media circus, attribute it to immense grassroots efforts, inspiring people to get involved in politics, and mobilizing people nationwide to do what was thought previously unthinkable. He fundraised in the face of Clinton's ridiculously expansive contacts. She was simply outperformed at almost every point in the competition... and I don't think you can attribute her fall from greatness as a media phenom.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]That's all fine and good, but that goes back to my earlier question: are people convinced that all this talk of change will result in legitimately different policies and implementation? Or is it about saying whatever you can to be elected? I certainly believe that most politicians will stretch words in any way, shape or form in order to attain high office. That's just a fact of life. But playing media games and building a largely artificial image (artificial in terms of it being manufactured very specifically) should not be confused with actual decision-making and real policy approach.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I wouldn't say that politicians (namely Obama) say anything they must to get into office... there have been instances where candidates handed the public the bitter pill. It's always expedient to tell people comfortable lies, but there have been instances all around of candidates telling the cold truth. Also, campaigning I would say has a lot to do with framing your personal strengths as the best for the job. Perhaps that narcissism is what makes people feel like the process is disingenuous, but at the heart of things, [i]that's what people want.[/i] It's a catch-22 that cannot be escaped, so we're all caught here. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]I wouldn't say that Obama's policies are radically different to Bush's as a general rule. In some very obvious ways they are, of course, yet a number of areas that have been portrayed as examples of change are anything but. And in the same way, the assumption that McCain is simply a carbon copy of Bush (not your words, but the words of many others) is patently false.[/font][/QUOTE] Obama was the most liberally voting Senator of 2007 (according to the National Journal). So I would assert out of the Senate, he (at least in terms of past views) is most likely to fundamentally alter the status quo. On Australia's Government: Perhaps you all have a more fine-tuned government, but that's because you learned from our Great Experiment. ;)[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]For instance, the anti-lobbyist stance. Almost every candidate in history - even political candidates in other countries - regularly label themselves as "anti-lobbyist". How many times have we heard the phrase "I'm not going to pander to the special interests in Washington"? I think if you counted the amount of times you heard "special interests" being used by any political candidate, you'd probably be somewhere in the millions by now. This kind of rhetoric is unfortunate and more than a little disingenuous. One reason is because lobbying is not necessarily a cancerous element in government. Many kinds of groups lobby government all the time, including groups who have genuinely positive agendas (like consumer interest groups, civil liberty groups and many others). Lobbying is often just a way of attracting attention and informing government when it comes time to draft legislation. Yes, of course, there are negative lobbyists (like those who try to engage in bribery or other forms of illicit conduct). But, at the same time, it's unreasonable for candidates to tar them all with the same brush. Oftentimes, lobby groups represent large sections of the community who may not otherwise be able to influence the legislative process outside voting in and of itself.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Right, lobbyists in and of themselves are not inherently cancerous to the political process. But in practice this is simply incorrect -- there are lobbies that have a disproportional amount of access to the bureaucratic structure, legislators, and (most importantly! :D) money. This gives them much more sway in the decision-making process than they should have, and can easily lead to flagrant misconduct. So, while lobbyists can be good, they generally aren't. Therefore, an anti-lobbyist platform is expedient (in that citizens hate them and they're corrupting in government). [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]A narrive is nice and it's great for the media. But a nation who has a major crush on a presidential candidate is not necessarily thinking clearly about the nuts-and-bolts of federal policy. From what I do know, I'm sure that Obama does have a degree of substance that he can bring to the table. It's just a shame that this has never been his selling point - and he has largely ensured that through his approach to the media.[/font][/QUOTE] Well, the fact that he is multiracial leads people to believe that he will look out for minority interests (which, I would say, is a fair assumption). But aside from that, you're right; one's race should not be a selling point in a campaign. I feel like most citizens have never truly and seriously thought about the "nuts-and-bolts" of [i]any[/i] campaign. People base their judgment on impression, tone, and salient issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc). I mean, Bush was voted for because he seemed personable and decently competent (lulz). Clinton was elected because people thought "he cared" about them. Both of these judgments are entirely superficial, but I'd argue that's the nature of the beast most of the time. And if you're willing to (more or less) agree with that point, it shouldn't be a surprise that people like Obama because of his image. I honestly don't see any reason why he should try to make "experience and competence" his platform when it's not getting votes. If "change" is more salient, why not harness that power? The reason the media is in love with Obama is because of his image, and kudos to him for the brilliantly successful media blitz. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]It's at least good to see a healthy dose of realism among some. :catgirl:[/font][/QUOTE] Haha definitely. But I would call it "ability to see" rather than "realism." Anyone who's read the "OBAMAS A MUSLIM" e-mails knows that America is disgustingly xenophobic. Why should it matter if Obama is a Muslim? Americans think that it does, whatever the reason, and it's one of those pills you have to swallow as a politician. It's sort of ironic people accuse politicians of being disingenuous -- they're generally like that so people will accept them. :p [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]I am not so much arguing that Obama is good or bad, I'm more arguing that a lot of the messages surrounding his nomination are totally hollow and media-pedalled.[/font][/QUOTE] Yeah, I guess. But at the same time, the other candidates quickly tried to hijack Obama's theme of "Change" by reappropriating it to their own campaigns. So to call it all media-fluff isn't quite right... obviously it's a widely popular theme, and they tried to harness it. Hollow? Maybe when McCain says he's going to deliver "change" to Washington (in reality, his policies aren't much departure from them). But Obama's proposed policies are radically different from Bush's (and hence qualify as "change"). [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]But by the same token, a simple campaign slogan should not and does not immediately qualify Obama as an agent of real political change. The latter does not come from slogans, it comes from careful, thoughtful articulation and a combination of experience and practice. As for Clinton... I just think she's been handled the raw end of the deal in many respects. I wouldn't say I'm particularly a Clinton supporter (anymore than an Obama supporter), but there can be no doubt that a lot of people have worked against her simply because of who she is, as opposed to what she thinks.[/font][/QUOTE] I agree with you on both counts. But I can't have much sympathy for Clinton (in terms of the media shunning her) -- she was handed the political legacy of Bill, the name-recognition, and the fundraising network, and still was outperformed. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]Many Americans, I think, have foregone the latter and clung desperately to the former. It's one thing to want real change and to make an informed choice. It's another to be so desperate for change that we cling to the first candidate who calls the word loudly enough over and over again. Unfortunately these kinds of competitions become more about personality than substance and [i]that[/i], in my view, is largely the fault of the media. I think this sentence really sums up my general thoughts on the issue.[/font][/QUOTE] Absolutely right, I'd say. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]And if the utter disingenous nature of this does not alarm people, then I think something is wrong.[/font][/QUOTE] Welcome to America! :bow:[/font]

[font=Arial]The New York Times is my homepage, so I see the headlines even if I'm intending to surf other things. Generally, I'll read the front page stories, and then I go to the US Politics section and devour that (especially because this is an exciting election). They also have these really awesome slideshows that accompany articles... the photographers for NYT are exceptional. Sometimes if I'm extremely bored, I'll go read articles on BBC online. Generally I do this to get a balanced perspective on domestic politics... sometimes we get so wrapped up in things here, we fail to take a step back and observe it more objectively. So if I feel a story has become convoluted or skewed, I check it against its BBC counterpart. Wow, I'm a really boring person lol.[/font]

[quote name='Shy'][size=1]Were you unofficially sexy before? Fun pictures, but a little too much eyeshadow, dear. Looking in this thread makes me feel like a pedophile! Still, I think OB was much hotter when I was in high school. Sigh. -Shy[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Overkill, perhaps? [quote name='Anomaly'][FONT="Garamond"]my best friend is rly hot =3 [URL=http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0201fp0.jpg][IMG]http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/176/img0201fp0.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/FONT][/QUOTE] :bow: I agree wholeheartedly.[/font]

[quote name='James']It was not so much a case of the media actively attacking his opponent, it was more that he received continuous favourable coverage.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]True, but at the same time it was Clinton who received the majority of favorable coverage early in the election cycle. She was essentially crowned the ?entitled? and supposed victor months in advance, which is why the outcome is so jarring for many Americans. [QUOTE]I'm not entirely sure why everyone thinks that Obama inherently represents change. Is it simply because he's black? Or because he is considered to be a political outsider?[/QUOTE] It?s not that he?s black ? it?s that he?s both black [i]and[/i] mixed. Socially, he?s considered black but technically he?s 50% black and 50% white. It?s a physical unity of races that accompanies a man talking of unity amongst Americans. It?s the American dream of a kid from a normal home rising through the ranks of society due to his own hard work. It?s his lack of Washington involvement/experience. It?s his disavowal of lobbyists in his campaign and reliance on small donors. He?s offering a movement away from the current policies and outlook of the US government. And people are responding to this. [QUOTE]Neither of these things - nor any number of speeches that contain the word "change" - are representative of true political change. In many respects, Obama has advocated maintenance of the status quo.[/QUOTE] Sure, but Obama has advocated the status quo insofar as it is obligatory to do so to have even a remote chance at the Presidency. You have to be Christian, you have to be pro-Israel, you have to verbally manhandle Iran, etc. This is simply what the people want, and you have to honor that. If you aren?t willing to compromise a few of your values, you won?t be able to get into office and affect greater and more substantial change. If you look at some of his other policies, I would say it?s tough for you to argue he?s largely advocating the status quo. For instance, look up his policies on talks with foreign hostile powers or his response to Pakistan. Both of these stances received criticism, but they?re definitely departures from the status quo in Washington. [QUOTE]Obama does represent change in some genuine respects, however, my point is that "change" is regularly thrown around without consideration to its meaning or context. By contrast, we're always told that the Clintons simply can't represent change. Why? Because, I assume, there has already been a Clinton in office (and Hillary has had prominent political roles in the past).[/QUOTE] It?s called branding, and Clinton simply lost the battle. ?Change? is thrown around because it encapsulates the American zeitgeist at this instant. People, in one respect or another, are discontent with the Bush Administration. But Obama?s wildly successful and shrewd campaign slogan should not make you doubt his ability to be an agent of substantial and meaningful change? I?m not even sure how you could say that, as the two are not mutually exclusive. And let?s be fair, Clinton [i]does[/i] have a voting record (and stances on issues) closer to the status quo. Again, look at her position on talking to foreign hostile countries and compare it to Obama?s. [QUOTE]This alone should never be the basis upon which we decide that a candidate does not stand for genuine political change. It is highly naive for many out there to suggest that these qualities and true political change are mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE] You?re absolutely right, but an unfortunate percentage of politics is not rational. A lot of it has to do with association and perception, and Obama won that fight. Whether or not he?s a more effective leader has to do with the candidate?s presentation of themselves to the public? that?s all the public has to base their judgment upon. [QUOTE]How can you criticise someone's fundamental policy approach for months and yet find them suitable to be your Vice President?[/QUOTE] Generally speaking, that?s how it works in America. Runner up usually gets the VP nomination as a sort of reconciliatory gesture.[/font]

[quote name='Darren']Barack Obama is the projected nominee. :([/QUOTE] [font=Arial]:bow: I'm excited that what was once assumed has now been made final. No longer will Clinton be able to keep the Democratic party divided by stubbornly remaining in the race. The party can at long last begin its reconciliation process and focus its energies on defeating McCain. Mostly I'm relieved that this contest is not going to drag all the way to the DNC, which would almost guarantee McCain a victory. Going to the convention behind a ticket will be much more beneficial than going in and fighting. Not entirely sure if Obama should pick Clinton as a running mate. I think Obama should pick a running mate who could carry a few key states for him (ones that Dems don't win by default anyway). So Governor Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) might be a very prudent decision -- not only could he attract blue-collar voters, and let's be frank, white people, he would give Obama control over a very populous swing state. Taking Clinton as a running mate means taking a lot of political baggage from the 90s, which totally contradicts his message of 'change in Washington.' The Clintons [i]define and typify[/i] the Democratic political establishment of the modern era, and to associate with that would hamstring him. Further, I have a feeling Bill would try to muscle his way into the decision-making process... imagine having three executives! Heh. Overall, I don't think their personalities and images are compatible.[/font]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Whether or not that fix is hardcore or not doesn't matter, the point is... just like anything,[I] it is a fix[/I]. Whether it's physical or mental doesn't matter. On some level it is addicting or you wouldn't bother to smoke it. It's not like water and food that you need to survive. And how many there are of you who claim you are responsible enough for it is also irrelevant in my opinion. None of you are qualified to truly judge if it's a safe drug to make legal or not.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]To be frank, this is ridiculous. Your language is far too strong -- to assert that people who participate in an activity not 100% essential to base survival are "addicted" on some level is silly. What about reading a good book, or eating a candy bar? You don't get "addicted" to those, you simply enjoy them due to an association of pleasure (satisfaction, a sweet taste, etc). Addiction implies substance dependence, and insofar as a candy bar is "addicting," so is marijuana. Even if one joint has as much carcinogenic content as a pack of cigarettes (which I highly doubt, but whatever), I would not say the risk to health is enough to warrant the criminalization of it, because let’s be honest, the reason it’s illegal is not due to health concerns. The government (and by extension, police) is not busting kids for possession of marijuana because they’re afraid their citizens will contract cancer. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll know and understand that the criminalization of marijuana is due to its perception as “addictive” or “dangerous” and its status as a purported gateway drug. And of course like most things taken in excess it is unhealthy (ex: alcohol). I can’t stress this enough, folks, moderation. Epitome, most of the sources you listed have an agenda outside of presenting nonpartisan medical/sociological information to the public. Those agendas (supporting the drug war, deterring children from drugs via scare tactics, deterring drug users via scare tactics, etc) leave me skeptical at best. By the same line of logic, one should believe alcohol to be a “gateway drug.” After all, it is a depressant, it alters your state of mind (and most people would agree it is somewhat pleasant being tipsy). And by your logic, the drunkenness would stop being enough, and they might drink more or move onto drugs… but this does not happen in the vast majority of people. I can only conclude, therefore, that your previous experiences have left you [understandably] biased. But please do not assume that because it happened to you, it will happen to most others. Perhaps you are just predisposed to addiction. Generally speaking, I’m seeing that most arguments against weed legalization are personal morals, misinformation, or a poor previous experience. Not to say that having a moral code against drugs is bad or anything (lol), nor am I saying it’s wrong to judge things on past experience (that’s what humans are designed to do). But I am saying that if you look at the issue objectively, and take into account the fact that both cigarettes and alcohol are legal (and harmful and/or potentially dangerous in their own respects) it should yield at least tolerance for marijuana. I know that we’ll never persuade one another, but I guess I don’t see how one can feasibly maintain the position against marijuana when other potentially harmful things are out there and in widespread, legal circulation (and doing far more damage that weed is at the moment).[/font]

[quote name='Boo'][size=1]Yes, advocate responsibility, but don't let it be their own problem. It's also the job of the state to have as many people as possible functional in society. Someone who gets in trouble with drinking or drugs only ends up costing money and being useless for a big deal. So stating that "that's their problem" is not correct in anyway, but a ridiculous one.[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Right, but the use of marijuana does not render you a dysfunctional member of society either. Similarly, the use of alcohol does not straight-away make you an irresponsible person, there's an undeniable level of [i]self-moderation[/i] that's necessary. You can die if you don't drink responsibly -- but does the state ban booze? No, because it trusts that citizens will look out for their best interests. The state certainly could simply ban it, but instead it assumes that people will not abuse the substance and still go to work/school, pay bills, and run families properly. People drink, life goes on. Few are showing up to work drunk, few are neglecting to pay the bills because of alcohol, etc. There is simply no reason to believe that weed cannot and will not abide by that same principle. All I'm trying to say is that marijuana should be similarly self-regulated. If you enjoy it, go ahead and smoke it. If you do not, stay away. Citizens should have the maturity to smoke when appropriate and abstain when not rather than have the government tell them what is morally fitting.[/font]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']Being in the NationalGuard I've had the chance to experiencecuisine from all over the world. Japanese, Korean, Mexican, Polynesian, and Chinese. There's a HUGE difference between what you get in the States. The "Americanized" versions of different cuisines don't compare to what you get in the host nations.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Definitely true. I go to school in NYC so there are a wealth of first/second generation immigrants with authentic restaurants, most notably the Chinese. The difference between "real" and "Americanized" cuisine is simply astonishing. I have a broad palate, so I like all sorts of stuff. Gyros (Greece), falafel (Middle East), sushi (Japan), American Chinese food, burritos (Latin America), and all sorts of American stuff are great. There's nothing like a stuffed turkey alongside mashed potatoes, green beans, macaroni, and dinner rolls.[/font]

[font=Arial]Pot is not a gateway drug in and of itself. There is nothing intrinsic to it that compels people to take up heroin, painkillers, cocaine, crack, etc. The only reason it is a gateway drug is [i]because it?s illegal[/i]. Its illegality forces kids to interact with a network of drug dealers who happen to have harder drugs on them as well ? without this compulsion (i.e. if you were growing it yourself or buying it from a store) there would not be a ?gateway? effect. Also, some people who do pot generally have no qualms with trying harder drugs to begin with, so to blame their further experimentation on marijuana is an attribution error. This is to say that their personality (or upbringing) more or less predisposes them to try riskier things. Remember: correlation is not causation. I don?t think anyone?s advocating use of pot in a restaurant, mall, or shop. Cigarettes aren?t allowed there, and I don?t think pot should be either. However, the freedom to smoke at, say, one?s house should not be denied. This isn?t a matter of ?I don?t want to get busted,? it is a matter of not criminalizing harmless behavior; I personally believe this is a central principle of a democratic society founded upon the idea of ?liberty?. I supported the legalization of marijuana before I tried it, and I still do. To assert that people want to legalize marijuana simply to evade legal repercussions is hilariously reductionist ? please do not dismiss the possibility that some people believe others should be able to do what they want, so long as they do not harm others. Sure, weed might make some people lazy or boring. But alcohol can make some people violent and dangerous to themselves or others. So to use that as a critique simply doesn?t make sense (unless you also support prohibition). And honestly, if someone stops caring about their schoolwork because they wanted to try weed, that?s their problem. Just as it?s the student?s own problem if they become an alcoholic and neglect schoolwork, the state should not have to look out for all our poor decisions and personal mistakes. Advocate responsibility and moderation, not bans and censorship for ?the greater good.?[/font]

[font=Arial]First, I am a casual smoker of mary jane. I'm actually beginning to prefer it to alcohol - being high is much more fun than being drunk in my opinion. I also think it should be legalized. Primarily, it's not as dangerous as alcohol and not as addictive as cigarettes/alcohol... and alcohol/cigarettes are status quo in our society. I think marijuana hasn't been legalized due to the dissemination of dubious information and the perception of it being a "youth" drug. It would also be extremely hard to regulate if it were legalized, thus there is no business interest backing the cause. If marijuana were legalized, people would probably begin growing it in greater numbers privately (and thus no company could really reap much benefit).[/font]

[quote name='MistressRoxie'][color=#9933ff][size=1]I'm also as mystified as Shy - why does it only cost you $25? Back when gas was $2.95, it cost me $40 to fill up. Now it costs $50.[/size][/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]It's like a Honda Civic or something equally generic... it doesn't get entire full off $25, but it's close enough. [QUOTE][color=#9933ff][size=1]I'm not sure that I'm reading that second sentence correctly, but my personal opinion is that the Big Oil companies are pretty much price gouging us, slightly because of oil speculation about how much we have left, and mostly because they can. My Poli Sci Prof. was relaying the summary of a congressional meeting to the class in which the five big oil companies talked to congress, because gas prices were rising. Some smart senator asked the question "Have you ever considered lowering your prices?" They were all stunned into silence before one of them started stuttering about how it's "more complicated than that, and there's a lot of research and calculations that would have to go in before making such a decision," and blah blah blah. Bull, I say. Come on, in the floundering economy where everything is seeing a downturn, why, then are oil companies making record profits?? I also agree that if we switch to more fuel efficient cars, or just use less gas, we will eliminate a major contributor to the depletion of gas, that we can use to make those plastics, and lengthen the time needed to wean ourselves off of gas (because we've got to do it eventually, anyway). I'd go into a discussion of alternative energy (pros, cons, what they are), but that's probably best left for another thread. The long and short of it is: There's no easy solution, because if there was, we'd be doing it.[/size][/color][/QUOTE] Well, the Saudis (IMHO) are rising their prices because of a greater demand. Perhaps my logic is faulty, but if a commodity is in high demand with lower supply, it becomes more valuable. Similarly, Big Oil is rising its prices to capitalize on a low-supply/high-demand market. Saudis sell to Big Oil high, Big Oil sells high for a comfortable margin of profit. Of course Big Oil could easily lower prices and reap an obscene profit still. But they're price gouging, and since they're in cozy with the GOP, things will continue until the American public can no longer afford to drive (thus resulting in widespread economic collapse). Cheers! :D[/font]