Page 5154 of 5213 FirstFirst ... 4154465450545104514451505151515251535154515551565157515851645204 ... LastLast
Results 77,296 to 77,310 of 78195
  1. #77296
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Candy corn goes stale faster than any other candy.
    It's that weirdo consistency. I'd argue that they are never "Fresh".

  2. #77297
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    2,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazirai View Post
    Or Get attacked by Rogue Candy Corn Agents.
    And pelted by Candy Corn Oreos (yes, allegedly they exist, Nabisco has no shame).
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  3. #77298
    Astonishing Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    4,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    It's that weirdo consistency. I'd argue that they are never "Fresh".
    I might be persuaded to agree with you on that point.

  4. #77299
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    11,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    If you are lucky enough to ask this question honestly, don't sweat what Candy Corn is. Just count your blessings.
    Agreed. This is a classic example of ignorance being bliss.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  5. #77300
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    6,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Plus candy corn M&Ms and candy corn Hostess cupcakes. They don't specifically taste like candy corn though.

    There's also Hershey's bar with candy corn in it. White chocolate I think.
    Ruining white chocolate by putting candy corn in it? Torch and pitchfork time!

    Although it probably isn't actual white chocolate, half the stuff called that in the States is 'milk flavored confection.' Whenever I go into a candy shop now, the first thing I do is grab one of the white chocolate items and read the ingredient list - if I dont see the words 'cocoa butter' on it, I leave the store. If you can't get the basics right, I can't trust you to do anything complex, either.

  6. #77301
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,131

    Default

    All this talk about candy corn makes me want to replay Costume Quest.

  7. #77302
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Now that I think about it, I saw a bag or "Witch's Teeth" in a drug store the other day.

    They are member of the "Candy Corn" family that is about double the size of the standard stuff that is white with the narrow end colored green. When I grabbed the bag to see, every single piece felt like you could pound it into a two by four.

  8. #77303
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Since this has come up before...

    http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-...-obama-center/

    Activists camp out for spot to voice concern over Obama Center

    South Side community activists camped out in front of the Hyatt Regency at McCormick Place on Wednesday, 24 hours before top Obama Foundation officials will hold a public meeting at the hotel to discuss their program and design ideas for the Obama Presidential Center.

    The dozen campers said they had to stake out an early spot to speak at the meeting because foundation officials haven’t heeded their calls for a community benefits agreement — a contract holding officials accountable for minority hiring, local business investment and other provisions as the Jackson Park center is constructed.

    Organizer Jawanza Malone said “the community is not at the table” for design plans. “The people making the decisions aren’t from Chicago. They don’t live in the neighborhood. They don’t have skin in the game.

    “They’re saying the right things, that they want to invest in the community,” Malone said. “We want them to put that in writing. We want the beneficiaries to be our local schools, our local businesses, our local residents.”

    In a statement, the Obama Foundation said it has met with “thousands of people representing different constituencies, viewpoints and neighborhoods,” including CBA activists.

    Thursday’s public meeting comes as the foundation’s design plans are being finalized in order to submit them to the Chicago Plan Commission by the end of the year and with some proposed elements, such as street closings, controversial.

    “The Obama Foundation believes that the best way to ensure the Obama Presidential Center benefits the South Side community and beyond is through an ongoing dialogue with local residents,” said Michael Strautmanis, the foundation’s vice president for civic engagement.

    “We believe that change on the South Side is developed by a real commitment to building trust and relationships. That has been our mission — not just in the planning and development stages of the OPC, but throughout this entire process,” Strautmanis said.

    Malone said his group, the Obama Library South Side Community Benefits Agreement Coalition, was told that a CBA was not “the right tool.”

    “That’s because they don’t want to be held accountable,” Malone said.

    Woodlawn resident Jeanette Taylor settled down into a lawn chair outside the hotel Wednesday evening. She said a key concern for residents currently living near the center is the possibility of skyrocketing property values, taxes and rent costs.

    “How are you going to prevent seniors from being priced out of the neighborhood where they’ve been their whole lives?” she said. “There needs to be a property tax freeze.”

    Strautmanis will be joined at Thursday’s meeting by the museum’s director, lead architects and landscape designer. Doors will open at 5 p.m. with the discussion to start at 5:45 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency, 2233 S. King Drive.

    The Chicago Park District also will hold hearings about the center on Sept. 21 and 25.

  9. #77304
    Mighty Member mojotastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Somehow this candycorn talk have united everyone, i am impress.

  10. #77305
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    11,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojotastic View Post
    Somehow this candycorn talk have united everyone, i am impress.
    That makes two of us. Even when I was a kid, I thought candy corn was pure shit and I wouldn't touch the stuff. The only food that's worse is fruitcake.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  11. #77306
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    To me, it mostly comes down to being surprised every year that the "Candy Corn" family manages to stay on the shelves.

    Think about every decent candy that has gone away while Candy Corn just keeps coming back like Michael Myers.

  12. #77307
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    To me, it mostly comes down to being surprised every year that the "Candy Corn" family manages to stay on the shelves.

    Think about every decent candy that has gone away while Candy Corn just keeps coming back like Michael Myers.
    I remember commercials for a fruit taffy candy in the 80's that was 2 colored/flavored and where giant fruit would fall on you from the skies. Had tons of ads back in Marvel Comics at the time too, with more people buried under an avalanche of flavor.

    Thems was the days, risking your life for the sweet taste of freedom!

  13. #77308
    Spectacular Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Biden's fine. He's tied to Obama. He's about as close as you can get to the establishment without pissing off the left. He's also pretty hard to attack.. Sanders wouldn't have an enthusiasm gap either. He's be the hardest to beat imo unless the establishment remains bitter over 2016.
    I don't really know what people mean by the "establishment" here. The issue is that the DNC won't be able to use the same kind of tricks that they used the first time. Now, to be clear, I'm not subscribing to any weird conspiracy theories that the DNC hijacked the nomination from Bernie Sanders by manipulating votes or what have you. But they did schedule debates purposely to leave Hillary Clinton as the only household name for Democrats going into the primaries. Bernie Sanders, now, has a lot of name recognition. If the DNC, which is run by a left-leaning establishment guy in Tom Perez, doesn't want Sanders to lead the ticket in 2020, they're going to have to give more debates--not less. Unless they put all their chips behind Biden...which seems like an odd choice to me. Democrats have done better when they promote fresh faces. Starting with John F. Kennedy, Democrats have only won the presidency with a perceived up-and-comer.

    As for centrist Democrats that rarely turn out in the numbers that progressives do during primaries, which nearly handed Bernie Sanders the nomination last year, I'm sure that they would be okay with Biden. Of course, many of them, by 2020, will likely be willing to put someone with a (D) behind their name in office rather than deal with another four years of Donald Trump. If Sanders can sell himself as the "I-would've-won" candidate, he might have a decent shot of swaying the Hillary voters to his side.

    Warren would be perfect too.
    The fact that it seems incredibly clear that she is running is actually what gives me pause that Bernie Sanders will. I think he saw a vacancy in 2016 and wanted to at least pull Clinton to the left with him. I don't think he actually anticipated his odds were that great--but he struck a cord with some people. That's great. That's what politicians should do. Still, I think he and Warren are close enough in ideology--and him getting up there in age--I think that he will let her take it and run one last campaign for re-election to the Senate in 2018 before retiring.

    As for Warren, there are a few problems that I have with her--though they are pretty similar to those that I had with Bernie Sanders.

    The younger potentials already look weak. Gillibrand and Booker are despised by the left wing and don't have the pedigree to get past it.
    This is quite clear. I think they recognize it too. They've been trying to appear more progressive than they actually have been in the past. They already are branded as corporatists so I don't anticipate them being able to shake it before the election really winds up in 2019. Personally, I'm not bugged by it. I never really liked Gillibrand and Booker never really had the charismatic presence to sell me on the idea that he would be a good candidate in 2020.

    Harris could pull the freshfaced Obama role, maybe, but that's assuming she's embraced by the left.
    I think that she is actually my favorite of the bunch. As I said, Democrats have only won the presidency with fresh faces. In recent years, neither party has been able to run a previously failed candidate, primary or otherwise, to take the White House. Romney came close but Reagan and Nixon are the only real standouts of the last hundred years. I think that she is smart, has a similar charisma to Obama, and seems to be the first to jump aboard more progressive causes. Hell, she even proposes some of them herself before Sanders can get around to it. I think that she will be able to unite the party in a similar way to how Obama was able to going into 2008. I don't think anyone will really be able to question her record when she's the third or fourth person to sign onto progressive causes, right after Sanders and Warren.

    Democrats want the White House their best shots are Biden, Sanders or Warren. They'll blow it though
    I firmly disagree with this idea. These guys are oldhat. Again, Harris has a similar "come-out-of-nowhere" swagger about her like Obama had. She's young and has the ideas to back her up. My biggest concern is the idea that many Conservatives might sneer and be effective with saying that it was "identity politics" that got her there. They had the same laugh about Hillary Clinton and I think Clinton suffered for it (though she suffered for multiple other reasons, many of which were her fault).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazirai View Post
    I SINCERELY wish to thank Bernie Sanders and ALL Progressive and Corporate Democrats that support this.
    THIS is my Litmus test for who I'm voting for.
    Do I trust the Corporatists who support this bill? NAW!
    BUT, even if they are doing it for purely political reasons. I support them and will hold them accountable to make sure they vote their words.
    But will still get primaried. Yes to corporate types I make no sense there. But to Liberals, Progressives, and Independents they get it.
    My concern with this single payer plan has never been that it is too "socialist" or "pie-in-the-sky". Those were crappy excuses not to do it and they still are. The idea that we can't ensure that people have access to health care, regardless of how much they make, when we spend more than any other advanced nation for it is totally ludicrous to me. We can easily pay for it. No one will see that much of a difference in the long run, should the plan be adopted, in how much they spend on health care. It'll just be paid for in our taxes rather than a monthly bill. In fact, costs are likely to go down. After all, a big problem with insurance, as is, is the lack of a large enough insurance pool paying into it. Many healthy people, particularly in states that didn't set up exchanges, have opted to pay the penalty than get health insurance because of costs going up (as they do) because they don't think they need it. Increasing the pool to include these people will only help off-set costs. This isn't even to mention that costs will likely go down with the removal of a middle-man artificially driving up costs in order to make a hefty profit.

    However, my concern is that this feature is actually a bug. The health care industry makes up 18% of our total GDP. The U.K.'s health care industry, which also includes all public hospitals by the way, only makes up 12% of their GDP. A lot of this difference can be attributed to the fact that the health care industry in the United States is privatized--which means that there are more jobs as a result of increased competition and people there to be in charge of marketing and driving profits. That's a lot of people that are employed just around the industry--to keep the industry going.

    With a single payer health care system, it would be irrational for the government to absorb the whole of it one-to-one. After all, the government wouldn't need to market its plans to beat out competitors. They would be a non-profit monopoly. They don't need to worry about driving up profits--they are concerned about keeping costs low and ensuring that people get the care that they paid for through taxes. Even if the new single payer system only results in a net decrease of half of the difference between us and the U.K. (which, let's face it, is optimistic given the nature of the two systems), we'd be looking at an overnight decrease of 3% in our GDP.

    Any decrease in the GDP will trigger a recession pretty immediately. Democrats are going to have to be willing to take the hit on that and say that it was for the benefit of having a health care system that actually benefits people. I'm dubious that they will be willing to do it--especially given current economic projections. The economy runs on boom and bust cycles. Obama inherited a huge bust cycle (this is one of the many reasons why I think he was hesitant to do anything more than the ACA) and managed to create a moderate boom out of it by the time he left office. Trump inherited a relatively flourishing economy.

    It'll likely go bust, for reasons unrelated to Trump, but he likely will be more hesitant to use government and the thinkings of Keynesian Economic Theory which enabled Obama the success he had in his first couple of years to prevent the temporary bust from becoming a protracted recession. When that happens, and it likely will before 2020, Democrats will have to make a choice about whether health care or the economy is more important. Obama decided not to choose and to do both--although he moderated himself on both of them, much to the dismay of progressives. I doubt that any of the Democrats will be willing to make that same choice, especially when the ACA is still there to be fixed up.

    Personally, I think incrementalism isn't a four letter word. We should reduce the Medicare eligibility age to fifty, to further get those that need health care out of the private marketplace. We should up spending in Medicaid and Medicare both in order to ensure that they can be more competitive with marketplace plans. We should once again try to force states to accept the Medicaid expansion but, this time, make it less coercive so it doesn't get killed by even liberal justices on the Supreme Court. From there, premiums will decrease on the private market because older and sicker individuals will now have government health care and younger, healthier individuals will be able to hop on board for a lower cost, which will allow the individual mandate to work better. For those that are sick that are left to private insurance, they will also receive lower costs because there will be an influx of cash that can be used to support them.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  14. #77309
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    I think that she is actually my favorite of the bunch. As I said, Democrats have only won the presidency with fresh faces. In recent years, neither party has been able to run a previously failed candidate, primary or otherwise, to take the White House. Romney came close but Reagan and Nixon are the only real standouts of the last hundred years. I think that she is smart, has a similar charisma to Obama, and seems to be the first to jump aboard more progressive causes. Hell, she even proposes some of them herself before Sanders can get around to it. I think that she will be able to unite the party in a similar way to how Obama was able to going into 2008. I don't think anyone will really be able to question her record when she's the third or fourth person to sign onto progressive causes, right after Sanders and Warren.
    I wouldn't be so sure about that.

    She has a pretty obvious issue that non-Republicans have raised.

  15. #77310
    Spectacular Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    I remember commercials for a fruit taffy candy in the 80's that was 2 colored/flavored and where giant fruit would fall on you from the skies. Had tons of ads back in Marvel Comics at the time too, with more people buried under an avalanche of flavor.

    Thems was the days, risking your life for the sweet taste of freedom!
    Bonkers candy!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "God once spoke through burning bushes. Now, He seems to prefer speaking through flaming a**holes." - Uncredited Internet Genius

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •