>> ^Auger8:

Sorry should have added the Cheezburger description I guess, it's from the Perpetual Testing Initiative. It's fixed now.


Ah, that explains it then. Haven't played around with the PTI yet.

Thanks for the explanation.

where is this from? I don't remember any of this from the game.

Oh yeah: Malkovitch, malkovitch!

For some reason I keep thinking "Jeremiah".

Well, I hope this will have a plot beyond people shouting at each other and glitzy action sequences.

Indeed it is *dead private.

"Embedding disabled by request" *dead

*blocked

Do that for 5 minutes and the dog will be so pooped you won't have to go foir a walk anymore.

>> ^CaptainPlanet:

what the fuck is an angry muffin? these fucking nick names are making me a sad burrito


With that attitude you'll never be anyones cuddle croissant!

*dupeof http://videosift.com/video/Bungee-cord-snaps-woman-falls-350-feet-and-lives

*blocked

Officer, I'm telling you! It's them commie alien terrorist UFOs again!

>> ^lwi:

>> ^transporter:
science needs to take a look at this guy's head

why? there's nothing in it.


Ah, you're forgetting vacuum fluctuations.

The question is: is his skull so thick as to generate a casimir effect? In which case you can forget the power drill, the drill bit would just break off.

Dong?

>> ^marinara:

lefties wonder why I am skeptical of government help


In a corporate run world, she would have been stuck into a forced labor camp and their relatives would have to pay money for information requests and visiting rights (q.v. privately owned US prisons). Doesn't sound much better to me.

Don't boil it down to "big gouvernment". Boil it down to "intransparent powerstructures". Those are to be feared and fought no matter if public or private.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Iowa has picked 6 of 8 of the last nominees of both parties (including unopposed 2nd term seekers) which is a decent track record.


That sounds a bit like number-fudging If you only have one choice, you could argue an inherent strong correlation of candidate and outcome, so no real point in counting those.

Throwing out the unopposed candidates and going back to 1980, we have 5 of 7 correct picks on the democratic side and 2 of 5 correct picks on the republican side. So in sum 7 of 12 or about 58% where there was an actual choice.

So just from the numbers, I would argue that there isn't that strong of a connection between Iowa caucus winners and chosen candidates. The abrupt about-face of the media (as presented here) is strange though.

Edit: Speeling