taks Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 sounds morrowindish to me... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 "B.t.w. what does "Sarjahurmaaja" mean, does it translate into something, or does it just sound "Finnish" ?" It's a play on words along the lines of "cereal killer". 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 "B.t.w. what does "Sarjahurmaaja" mean, does it translate into something, or does it just sound "Finnish" ?" It's a play on words along the lines of "cereal killer". Cereal Killer ? Fear the deadly breakfast! “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Child of Flame Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Ok, guess you have a point there. I'd like for them to drop dead. Oh, those notorious Finnish anarchists! Look at the bright side, as bad a thing as empire building is, no empire lasts. The Roman empire grew complacent, diluted with foreign ideas and ethnic groups in their armies and edministration, the Spanish empire grew complacent, navel fixated and convinced of their own superiority. The various Chinese, Indian, pre-Columbian, British etc. did the same. Even a recent one like the communist Soviet empire choked to death in paranoia and overspending on their military budgets to sustain their global ambitions (and literally fell apart, when the infrastructure couldn't carry the weight anymore). Preprogrammed selfdestruction seems to be part of any empire, it's just that you can't really set your watch after it B.t.w. what does "Sarjahurmaaja" mean, does it translate into something, or does it just sound "Finnish" ? B) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More true than most realize. I've read a paper by some historical analyst, that it's set up something like this: Anarchy--->Small Tribal and/or Feudal governments--->Democracy--->Empire---Back to Anarchy, or sometimes centralized government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 "Fear the deadly breakfast!" 'Along the lines', meaning the basic idea is somewhat similar. It doesn't mean cereal killer. edit: Btw, I don't get the "Oh, those notorious Finnish anarchists!" joke. Is it reference to something or what? I just don't get it. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deganawida Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Update from the AP. Not precisely sure what this means yet. A cursory glance through the double-speak seems to suggest that recount calls are going to be made as soon as polls close in the "battleground" states. Interesting. This comes after 5 of 6 polls show Bush maintaining a 4-point lead of Kerry. If what I fear comes true, then elections will mean ____-all and our presidents will be picked in the courts from now on. Hell, voter fraud or disenfranchisement can be called on almost anything, even if there is little or no proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 the kerry camp has decided it will just declare "victory" in the case of a close election. of course, this means nothing in the end, but it does help opinion... the funny part about it all is that realistically, with a voting population as large as that in the US, 1% error occurs based purely on counting failures. nothing we can do about it. odd that 547 (or whatever) votes made the difference in the end last time... i'd go into some long, drawn out reasons why but it serves no purpose... on we vote! taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Third party candidates never win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tell that to Bernie Sanders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecthelion15 Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Third party candidates never win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tell that to Bernie Sanders... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Better yet, tell that to Ralph Nader; that guy just doesn't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Third party candidates never win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tell that to Bernie Sanders... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Better yet, tell that to Ralph Nader; that guy just doesn't get it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe if third party candidates were actually treated like they were running, they might have a chance. When they aren't included in debates and they aren't covered in the news, of course no one is going to vote for them, because no one has heard of them. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now