I've been seeing and hearing the word "objective" a lot more lately. What's odd is, most people are wrong about its definition. I'm not trying to be a grammar gestapo here, I'm just noticing a horrible little trend. Come to think of it, the first place I really saw the word "objective" in force was on House. Maybe that has something to do with it. Here's the definition, in case you were wondering. Oh and to be awesome, I tried to present this analysis as objectively as possible.

adj.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. 1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1.
   2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar.
   1. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
   2. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar.
   1. The objective case.
   2. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens; Also called object lens

[QUOTE="kingfire11"][QUOTE="doubleajunkie"]

[QUOTE="kingfire11"]I'm Tom Cruse.doubleajunkie

You sure are, 'cause you definitely know how to spell your name the right way.

Cool actors like me don't care about spelling.

Whatever, if you were a famous actor, you'd want your name spelled right so everyone would know about you. And who the heck spells their last name wrong?! An idiot.

Wow, you're really getting worked up over this aren't you?

I'm just sticking up for you, Tom!

Love,

Brad Pit

Lastly No Obama is subject to Lobbists he loves them.....and NO Obama can't CHANGE anything....it takes more then just being President to make change....that's why we have a beautiful thing called "Checks & Balances"mechwarrior_bob

That's true. The real genius of the USA is not the freedom... it's the checks and balances.

Here's how I think it will work. Right now, we aren't hearing much from McCain which is why we have the illusion that he has no chance. As soon as the election heats up, McCain is all of sudden going to go in strong and use the money he's been saving to decimate Obama's campaign, which will be short on cash because of his monstrous spending against Clinton. McCain is doing something of a Macintosh. A few years ago, most people didn't even know what a Mac is but now it's a household name. Most people knew it was there, but it wasn't anything big. Today, it's a major contender in the computer industry. I think McCain will do the same. As for who will win... I can't say for sure. I think McCain will win, but that's more of my opinion.

If Hillary isn't VP, then the democrats will be divided like crazy with so many of Hillary's voters voting for McCain. We'll just have to see.

[QUOTE="darthzew"]

Hmm... Now, we should take Mexico just to alleviate the illegal imegration problem, but that leaves us sharing a border with Guatemala. Nah. We could take Cuba just to get a hold of their cigars, but then we'd have to build a bridge from there to Miami: not a good cost-benefit situation. We could always do Puerto Rico, like everyone says, but naw, let's not mess with tradition. You know, anything we actually try doing is going to result in us being called fascist, imperialist pigs.

I think Canada is next in line to be a US State. Soon, Quebec is going to rebel and Canada is going to have no real military to deal with the angry almost-French people and they'll ask for our help. We'll help them after a few years of destruction and then after we've saved them... we'll take over.

DivergeUnify

Yes, every country does. Thank you for telling us that. However, Canada has a tiny military that does very little. Either way, I couldn't care less: it was a joke.

Hmm... Now, we should take Mexico just to alleviate the illegal imegration problem, but that leaves us sharing a border with Guatemala. Nah. We could take Cuba just to get a hold of their cigars, but then we'd have to build a bridge from there to Miami: not a good cost-benefit situation. We could always do Puerto Rico, like everyone says, but naw, let's not mess with tradition. You know, anything we actually try doing is going to result in us being called fascist, imperialist pigs.

I think Canada is next in line to be a US State. Soon, Quebec is going to rebel and Canada is going to have no real military to deal with the angry almost-French people and they'll ask for our help. We'll help them after a few years of destruction and then after we've saved them... we'll take over.

I don't care. Gender means nothing.WSGRandomPerson

Actually, gender means:

n.

1. Grammar.
   1. A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.
   2. One category of such a set.
   3. The classification of a word or grammatical form in such a category.
   4. The distinguishing form or forms used.
2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.
3. 1. The condition of being female or male; sex.
   2. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

[QUOTE="Aquat1cF1sh"]I think both should be treated equally when it comes to things that are available to both. But as far as other stuff, let women remain bikini models and let men be the soldiers in war.the1stfandb

Women can't be soilders? I thought they could, at least in the US.

They can. But they aren't allowed in SpecOps and usually aren't given front-lines positions. They are allowed to be nurses and noncombat roles like that.