This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Zelda Projects / Re: The legend of zelda - Ocean legends 3D - Stuck! need help,read-->

« on: August 05, 2011, 08:06:08 pm »

Yeah, I think some proportion should be worked on.  But generally, it looks pretty f*cking awesome.

2

Entertainment / Re: X-Men First Class

« on: February 11, 2011, 06:39:38 am »

I think they're rebooting franchises all too quickly nowadays (this is a reboot, right?).  Is that better or worse than making a gazillion sequels to Rocky?  I don't know.  But I liked the first two movies, so I'm hoping I'll like this.

3

Zelda Projects / Re: [SCREENS] TLOZ: Chaos Rising

« on: September 30, 2010, 03:44:16 pm »

Much better!

4

Zelda Projects / Re: [SCREENS] TLOZ: Chaos Rising

« on: September 28, 2010, 08:25:24 pm »

Looks sharp -- but that shot of a dungeon looks a bit plain.  It's all apart of the "style," though, so it works.  I hope you make some good progress!

5

Updates / Re: z3 2010

« on: March 04, 2010, 09:32:44 pm »

2AWESOME4APOSSUM?!?!?!? When did you get here?

Just yesterday.  A lot's happened since I was last here ... I discovered I have OCD, I got married, and I've started trying to write for a living.  (Easy way to go broke, but a lot more fun than paying your way through college by telemarketing.)

Who else can admit to that... I'm not the only one who got a boner for Possum's name showing up again did I?

... oh my gosh.

*waves mace around at Breedlove*

Anyhow, nice to see everyone again!  The name changes are throwing me off, as usual, but I'm sure I'll get used to it.

Z3 is an Expo and if a developer decides to have a "book" in his booth then there shouldn't be a problem since an expo is not a competition even when there are awards... the awards are just looks what the people looking at all booths think is the best of each category, that doesn't concern the overall quality.

I completely agree.

More than anything, z3 was first and foremost a vanity event we used for recruiting.  Members were supposed to get all reinvigorated with their projects, and set up a nice little booth that would make them feel good about themselves.

In the meantime, I tried to recruit old members and people I hoped who'd become future members.  (I think Lupin was my only success there ...)

True, some people may be in it for the mass-attention, but I think those who are really going somewhere with their projects are in it for the one or two genuine compliments.

On the other hand, I definitely do think that there should be a consistent standard of content in the booths.  It's a tricky question, but I think discussing it is healthy.

6

Updates / Re: z3 2010

« on: March 03, 2010, 09:41:10 pm »

I noticed that on most "fan forums" people get really into it releasing huge PDF files... but no one here has ever really been enthused about that sort of thing.  I was just thinking aloud.

Yeah, ZFGC has always had a difficult time with expansion (that's what z3 was supposed to be for in the first place -- lol).  *Thinks back to 2007.*  The difficult thing about this sort of event is how reliant it is on member participation.  Remember that delay we had year one?

Mass sign-up and a low turnout is all apart of the game.  You're gonna have that no matter what.  Even if the "booth" was required to be sent as apart of the application, most people are gonna ignore it and send in worthless applications anyway.

All the same... a positive attitude is the first step.

7

Updates / Re: z3 2010

« on: March 03, 2010, 06:40:44 pm »

I remember, at one point we talked about including fan fiction and other "projects" that were not necessarily game-intensive.  I'm not sure if there's much of a base for that here, but it might be a recruiting opportunity.

An application-form is a must, in my opinion.  When people have to fill something out, it at least improves how they look at their presentations.

8

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 03, 2008, 07:12:47 pm »

That's fine, no one is forcing you to continue.  I've addressed almost every word you've said, so I don't see what the problem is, but you haven't addressed anywhere near everything I've said just in response to what you've said.

Cheers!

9

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 03, 2008, 06:46:40 pm »

You are acting like the whole point of my message was wrapped up in criticizing a spelling mistake and you are so hinged to that because you cannot otherwise make an argument.  I used it as a hook and then stated why I went there -

I assume you're talking about this part:

that does not mean that I know nothing about religion or that you can act superior over me in your knowledge of such a thing.

Which I addressed.  I love to study all kinds of religions.  With your lack of knowledge, yes, I was asserting my knowledge was superior to yours in the subject of religions.  I stand by that.

you were acting like I did not know anything about Christianity when you yourself only see Atheism as vacuous.

But if you'll remember *my* argument was that to apply your sense of logic, being an atheist, to a Christian family is a fallacy.  Instead of accepting that fact, you went to point out a mispelling I made to make me look illiterate and stupid.

You had to look up something on my Facebook in an attempt to downplay what I believe;

Instead of just saying "well, you're an atheist, so you probably don't understand something you don't care about", I cited where I learned where you were an atheist, just in case you tried to argue *that*.

10

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 03, 2008, 05:24:34 pm »

I mentioned his grammar once only after he made a bad claim against me; it's like you missed all of what else I was saying.

Which wasn't much, admittedly.

Yes, let us all frame this as an attack on you, you are the one being persecuted.  I only "attacked" your grammar because it highlighted your hypocrisy - claiming that I did not know about any other religion simply because I define myself as being an atheist, you probably would have criticize me if I misspelled Christianity because you thought I did not know anything about it.

Well, no.  When I attack someone's intelligence, I don't do it by saying, "You spelled that wrong, you're obviously an idiot."  I explain to them why I think they're an idiot... it's possible I'd use the spelling as an afterthought... but I've responded to everything you've said, and the main point seems to be trying to make me look stupid with stuff that really has nothing to do with our argument at all.

Everyone is born an atheist,

What about the "God gene"?  (The one that scientists say makes one desire religion?)  I haven't seen really enough evidence for it, but I wouldn't be surprised at all, if it actually *did* exist.  Despite it being a pointless argument made by some atheists (not meaning to generalize here, since I have to phrase everything in a politically correct way).

and if I am wrong when I die and if it turns out that there is a god, his or her denial of me based on my earthly knowledge would make me sympathize with the devil.  The devil probably does things because he knows that all Christians will do is sing, dance, and pray about it rather than do anything substantial; I bet he does it for shits and giggles.

At least my sect of Christianity believes God will put you where you're most comfortable.  If you don't want to be with Him, he won't put you with Him.  He'll let you be in a place with others like you.  It's an interesting thought, I don't think you've considered before that I thought you might find interesting.

In logic, it is said that you cannot prove non-existence, but also that the burden of proof lies on those trying to prove something.

Religion doesn't have the burden of trying to make itself a scientific theory.  Who cares if there's no disprovability?

The idea of evolution-- the reason it's not a scientific theory is because there is no standard of disprovability upon which it can be measured by.  (Which is a standard it MUST have by defintion-- it's what makes it a theory.)

This is why the Pope doesn't use science, because it's *not* science.  This is also why evolutionism seems more of a religion than science to me.

With that last statement, one would wonder why I am an atheist if I could not prove that gods didn't exist - well even if they did, they wouldn't be having an impact on my life so they would be as good as gone and the Bible contradicts itself enough to make it unreasonable.

The Bible that was written, translated and handed down for generations by... humans?  The not-supernatural kind?

As for my quote, if you know so much to deny all other gods and just believe in one, what would you think if you were wrong and Ra or whoever was pissed at you.  Wouldn't that be unfair?

I think so, but I don't believe in Ra.  I believe in a God who wouldn't be missed off if you had geniune misinformation in your life.

As for the Republican Convention, I am just happy that Bush is speaking as his presence to the party reinvigorates my side.

You'll notice a major focus was put on differences between him and McCain.  I don't think it was counterproductive by much.  cakefarts's trying to frame him as just another Bushy, and the entire point of last night (and Lieberman's excellent speech) was that McCain is an independent man.  Obviously the theme was that he "puts his country before party" and knows how bipartisanship works.  I think that if geniune undecideds matter (although they're probably negligable), that this would have worked as a really strong argument in favor of McCain/Palin.

Language is a fickle !@#$% at best.

Well the exact defining of what atheism was, is your argument.  Let me quote your first post (what I've been reacting to):

I just have to say this, possum, because of a comment of yours about respecting Atheist 'beliefs': Atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods or divine powers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, absence of belief and belief in an absence are two separate things.

Well, I don't respect the belief that there "is no God (or "a god" or "supreme being", etc.)".

As far as I can tell, that's what atheism is.  But if it's a mere lack of belief, then whatever.  It really doesn't matter to me.

11

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 02, 2008, 10:10:34 pm »

You're an atheist too you know, you just believe in one more god than I do.  Anyway, most of the talk on the television seems to be getting away from Bristol Palin and back to covering the Republican convention, other storms going on, etc. 

Some of the definitions above refer to "God" (I can assume to mean what Christianity believes in), others "a god" or "supreme being(s)".  Yes, Christianity differs from Buddhism, Islam and so forth, but in the end, we all believe in some kind of supreme being(s).  Atheism denies this belief generally (with one exception in the above definitions that makes it specific to denying Christianity, in which case I *still* wouldn't be an atheist).  At least, according to the definitions I pulled off the intarweb.

[EDIT] Gotta love technicalities... next my poor grammar is going to be attacked.

12

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 02, 2008, 09:43:03 pm »

Well... your post completely disreguards me pulling out all those definitions from random sources (do you need more?  I have yet to find any kind of "official" source that defines it as you do-- prominent Christians don't define what Christianity is, so I don't know why prominent atheists would define what atheism is).  But whatever.  It's not worth discussing anyway.  I still don't respect athiesm, so paint me as whatever you'd like, people can form their own opinions about mine.

13

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 02, 2008, 04:04:49 pm »

I just have to say this, possum, because of a comment of yours about respecting Atheist 'beliefs': Atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods or divine powers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, absence of belief and belief in an absence are two separate things.

As far as I'm aware, that's not how society uses it.  Someone who has a 'lack of belief' is called 'agnostic' (basically someone who probably *does* know, but they just want to act noncommital).  Someone who has the audacity to say that there is no God, and that they know this for a fact is an 'atheist'.

Anyhow, even if we're looking at dictionary definitions... the only one coming from dictionary.com is:

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Disbelief is a belief in and of itself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

"one who believes that there is no deity"

Again, the only definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)
Adj. 1. atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistical, atheistic

Hmm...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist

"a person who believes that there is no God"

It would help if people didn't try to "zing" me with spelling and definitions, and tried to make me look bad on the actual substance that I'm supposedly all wrong about.

The problem that I have with aspects of Christianity is that there are those who think that it makes them good just to follow it and there are those who see others who follow it as inherently good.

Sometimes the reason religious people follow things based on "faith", is because religion gives us guidelines where we won't have to learn by trial and error, but we base our own judgement on the trials and errors of others.  Religion doesn't make one a good person.  Someone doing something simply because of their religion isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't necessarily do them good either.  You know?

I don't see why the lack of understanding of others (people believing their good simply because they're religious... a hypocracy in and of itself), should scare you away from something, so many people have come to find is good.

But again, this is a personal decision.

14

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 02, 2008, 01:39:23 am »

And don't act like you respect atheism, it's quite obvious you like to tout that you can understand atheism because it's below you, but obviously an atheist could never understand any sort of religion.

I didn't even imply that in the subtext!  By saying that 4Sword didn't grasp a religious person's mind, I never said I knew what an atheist's logic would consist of.  Just saying it wouldn't work when applied to a believer of Christianity.  Athiests can understand religion if they explore them fully.

And I never acted like I respect atheism: because I don't.  I respect atheists as individuals.  But I don't respect their beliefs... just their freedom to have them (which is more than I can say of you, so let's just accept that while I might be "hypocritical", you're obviously doing nothing wrong, because you're not holding yourself to the same standard that I'm trying to hold... much like I mentioned earlier in this thread: that's crap).

If this were a personal situation like you say, what repercussions would you expect if she got an abortion and didn't get married?

None in America.  Or if you're talking about the election, there might be one person who switches their vote (not exaggerating by much).

Who has she wronged?
God, her mother, or the republican party?

Respect for herself, the child inside her and her creator, sure... so I'd say possibly the first two on your list.  Especially when she's still a dependent... (not 18)

Your spelling is not making you look bad as much as your insistence on arguing nuances for the sake of arguing makes you look stubborn.

What nuances are you reffering to?

Besides, DICK Cheney's daughter ended up being a lesbian but he got used to it.

That's fine.

As for the nine-page paper you are referring to on Kate Chopin that you let me use that one time, I am not happy that I resorted to doing that, but then again I cannot change it; if I remember right though, that happened around the time I was suspended from school for making death threats.  I could have written the paper myself, it wasn't because I was lazy it was just that I was going through a lot then.

That doesn't make it right for me to have done it.  You know?  It was wrong, and could I do it over differently, I would.  I *still* feel guilty about it, because I was dishonest.  Forget my soul (and the whole religion aspect), it diminishes the person I *am*.

15

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 02, 2008, 12:51:47 am »

I find it quite pathetic you have to challenge my *spelling* to make me look bad.

And from my standpoint, marriage for the sake of convenience as a means to correct a mistake is a little laughable - I only believe that people who love each other should be married.  If she loves the guy, then I am alright with that, but at her age she might not know what love is anyway.

Well, quite obviously there are situations in which one should not get married when they have been impregnated.  It's a personal decision, clearly.

In Christianity, repentence is a subjective thing.  Usually it involves making amends with the person(s) you have wronged, and doing your best never to do it again.

In example, say you have helped someone cheat on a school assignment quite a while ago.  You know it was wrong and you should never had done it.  Obviously you cannot really make ammends when it's so far in the past, so you just vow to never do it again, and settle the rest in a personal sort of way and do your best to never do anything like it again, and be a better person now and in the future.

Quit it with the atheist bashing possum, it isn't easy points like you think.

When did I bash atheists?

I just don't get why she has to keep the baby and get married, those are two huge decisions that should require years of decision and not used in an effort to clean up what is a stupid teenage mess.

The marriage is a personal thing, and if she was giving the kid up for adoption, I doubt conservatives would have a hard time, either.

16

Other Discussion / Re: Palin McCain's VP...

« on: September 02, 2008, 12:44:45 am »

Oh, and Palin once said that Hillary Clinton was a whiner.  As for what she has done in Alaska, it was only two years in an executive position.

So now she was never a mayor?  I'll have to remind you that it was first the pro-cakefarts groups who simply reffered to her as a "mayor of a city of less than 9,000" or something like that... (can't remember the exact quote).

I am willing to bet that Alaska will go blue this season.. it wont be very significant to who gets those votes, but no one will vote for that ticket... from Alaska.

Have you seen just the raw numbers of her popularity?  I've only talked to two people from Alaska about this personally, but everything I've seen points toward Alaska loving her.

I do not personally feel that Palin can do that, her 1 year and nine months as an executive of one of the Nation's smallest (in population) States does not give her that much executive experience.

Again, she was a mayor.  Why do people not count this towards having executive experience?

Not because she is a woman, this has nothing to do with her being a woman at all, really, it has to do with 'wait... who?'.

Normally people are unfamiliar with the Vice Presidential picks nationwide.  DICK Cheney, typical example, although known well within the world of oil.  Dan Quayle perhaps.  Shouldst I make a list?

She came in to 'clean up the government', she's under investigation by her own legislature for firing the guy who refused to fire her ex-brother in law.

Which really has no comparison to Rezko and Bill Ayers... and people outrageously forgave cakefarts for that and forgot about them completely.  (Although it really helped that no one really talked about that after the primaries were actually started.)

Oh, and Palin once said that Hillary Clinton was a whiner.

She is... a whiner I like, but a whiner all the same.  McCain's a whiner too.  And cakefarts is.

If I or anyone was elected governor of some state, in two years they or I will have done a few things which could count as "experience".

As opposed to... what?  Two years being a governor is enough to screw it up... it's also enough to do some good things.  Cutting taxes, being commander in chief over a state that HAS to have good foreign relations, because it's right next to two other countries.  Shall I make a list?

As for senatorial experience, if you are going to add the executive experience of Palin into your equations for the ticket, then consider that Biden has a lot of Senate experience too.

Then let's also factor in Palin's OTHER executive experience, shall we?

What has she done? She joined the people shes trying to clean up, the neoconservatives. she abandoned the people who voted her in, the people who entrusted themselves to her.

I have to be honest here: what are you talking about?  I'm trying to understand so hard... but I see no evidence of what you're trying to say.

Here's a hilarious side-by-side comparison of the GOP's VP candidate, and the dems Presidential candidate (obviously biased, but it'll give you an idea of some of Palin's accomplishments):
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-vs-barack-cakefarts/

[EDIT] And for anyone who actually cares about the facts (probably nobody on this forum), here's *another* major, huge, huge legislative accomplishment for Palin that points to her foreign policy experience as Canada had to be negotiated with:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303693123946167&kw=palin

17

Debates / Re: Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant

« on: September 02, 2008, 12:21:18 am »

I love the argument that "obviously a religious family who has a child who does something immoral is SO hypocritical!"  But it's not a big deal when an ultra-liberal does this, because they're a democrat and don't believe in such a thing as immorality so at least they're not hypocritical when they're immoral.

I think it's sad she's pregnant, like every other teenage pregnancy out of wedlock.

There goes McCain's Religious Right Wing vote....

ROFL!  Because of the potential VP's *daughter*?  No one cares about this except the dems.

Yet another teenage mother, this is new and exciting news.

Not only a teenage mother, but a pregnant daughter of a public figure!  This has never happened before!

I bet if Sarah Palin wasn't an overly religious, right-wing person though who educated her daughter about birth control that this wouldn't have happened - but really, her mom telling her not to !@#$% around when her mom has five kids is just setting a bad example.

There's a huge gap in your logic there... then again, your facebook does say "athiest"... so I suppose you can't be expected to understand something you don't care about.

I love religion.  I love learning new and exciting things about them.  Heck, I've even read the Qur'an.  (No, not converting to Islam anytime soon.)

I'm not trying to be self-righteous, but I *am* trying to say: I like to be educated in the things I discuss.  So of course, when you understand that a Christian woman believes in only having sex after marriage, with the one they are married to... there is no hypocracy in teaching your child to do the same.

So you're using an athiest's standard of logic and applying it to a Christian family.  That doesn't work and is a fallacy in and of itself.

Oddly religious right wingers are happy that the girl is not going to abort the baby and that she is getting married, so they could care less that she is underage.

It's what we religious folks call "repentence".  Fixing a mistake.  Getting married and taking responsibility for what you've done.

Tell me... are you familiar with the Bible?

18

Other Discussion / Re: Palin McCain's VP...

« on: August 30, 2008, 01:44:39 am »

So you're saying a brand-new senator has better credentials for an executive office than someone who's headed an executive office?

I think that it's better to vote for someone who doesn't vote with Bush 100% of the time.

You're not talking about Palin are you?  She's a governor.  Not someone who can vote with Bush.  And if you're reffering to McCain, even Chris Matthews knows that isn't true.  Either way, I'm thoroughly embarrassed for you.

Executive experience in Alaska must be really challenging considering that for the most part areas are independent of other areas and the population is not that big.

Do your research before judging (like me!).  She's a reformer.  She was a virtual unknown and brought in to clean up Alaska's political situation.  And the people absolutely love what she's done.  And she has done an amazing job.

I have one point to retract... I think she was a better pick than I initially thought.  She is an incredible speaker with an immense respect for life and everything good.  I'm severely impressed with her ability to speak and relate issues to her own life.

cakefarts was a state senator for a significant number of years and to ignore this is just to be an ass.

To be a state senator is not to have executive experience.  If you'll remember, as much as I liked Hillary, my big problem with her was that she never really got elected into an executive office.  This is why my original candidate was Rudy Giuliani, and why I ended up voting for a governor in the primary (Romney... didn't like him, but he had executive experience and ideas that surpassed those who were still left).

And besides, if senatorial experience counts (and it really shouldn't), the McCain campaign STILL beats cakefarts.  And this is coming from someone who doesn't particularly care for either of them.

McCain has no executive experience, Palin has a few years, cakefarts has no executive experience, Biden doesn't have executive experience per say but his other experience trumps these concerns.

Such as?

Let me tell you what.  I can name you dozens of accomplishments of Governor Palin (and I haven't even researched her *thoroughly*), but I still have yet to see an cakefarts supporter name *one* legislative accomplishment that cakefarts has done.  Because he hasn't had any meaningful (if any) legislative accomplishments.

If we're talking major accomplishments in politics McCain beats cakefarts and you know what... his VP also beats cakefarts!

Care to start this debate, or shall I call it off?

I watched prolly 90% of the DNC and the only mention of American whining when cakefarts was quoting a surrogate of the McCain Campaign who first said that America was full of whiners then said how wrong it was for the republican campaign to call the American public that.

First of all, not to be a jerk on technicalities, but most of the convention wasn't even broadcasted on major news networks (c-span maybe, but I don't know).  Second, I watched every major speech (Bill Clinton's actually being my favorite... surprisingly) and they were all being whiners... which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but it sure is a drastic change from "hope" and "change".

From my experience, the American people doesn't vote their fears.  And I think that's why the Dem's convention hasn't made a dent in the polls.  Then again, with McCain speaking, I'm not sure the GOP's even will this year...

...unless people get to know Governor Palin.  She is an absolutely delightful speaker.  I thought cakefarts did good by choosing Biden (I almost didn't watch his speech... figured I'd probably already heard it in history class somewhere ), but McCain managed to outdo him.

Still think it would have been better for his campaign had it been Romney, but I like this woman a whole lot better, personally.

[Edit] Oh, I see... you're talking about me saying Dems say the American people whine... woops.  I feel really stupid now.  Shame on the McCain adviser for calling us a "nation of whiners".  But it wasn't limited to that... hold up.  I'll edit some more in this post soon.

19

Other Discussion / Re: Palin McCain's VP...

« on: August 29, 2008, 04:44:29 pm »

really cakefarts has a little more accumulated service.

So you're saying a brand-new senator has better credentials for an executive office than someone who's headed an executive office?

Also, you said Democrats call people whiners, that is funny because Repubicans said that directly about the American people whining.

I was reffering to the DNC convention... we can compare once the GOP one starts.

20

Other Discussion / Palin McCain's VP...

« on: August 29, 2008, 04:23:17 pm »

Well, he's managed to do something smarter than I've grown to expect (as far as political calculations go, McCain is a dipwad) by selecting a woman, but let's face it: anyone who wanted Hillary as VP isn't going to vote McCain/Palin anyway.  Yes, it's nice to see a woman on the ticket (a very, VERY popular woman from a very, VERY conservative state), but this was McCain's chance to laugh in cakefarts's face.

In 2004, George W. Bush got an 18-point bounce in the polls (extremely temporary, of course) after the GOP convention.  Well, the dems aren't as good as putting on a show (because it consists of more whining, and calling Americans whiners than anything else... although I must admit, Bill Clinton's speech was actually really good if you have a left-leaning perspective... he had some good zingers in there) and on the first day Barack cakefarts was up a point, and the next went down two.  McCain's pretty consistently only a point behind.

From my point of view, you want a VP who's good with foreign relations, or at least has the potential to be.  My choice would have been Lieberman, who obviously would scare off social conservatives, and those who are afraid of people older and wiser than them (two-old man ticket isn't what people are looking for this year).  But he's the best choice (as much as I sometimes dislike his politics).

However, from a purely Republican point of view (and I am a Republican), Mitt Romney would have been the best choice.  It would give McCain a very solid bounce, would make the convention buzzing with absolute giddyness, and it would show how electable McCain would be (my only problem is that Romney doesn't know anything but domestic policy, but he is very good at managing... I've actually talked to his boss during the 2002 winter olympics, and he told me how fantabulous he actually was).

Well... I guess she's better than Crist.  But really, it should have been Romney.