Scratch

luiysia wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

Why is being rich bad all of a sudden, if you are successful, you should be praised for being successful, correct?

People don't hate rich people, they hate greedy rich people. Like in A Christmas Carol, at first Scrooge is a miser and he's mean and terrible but then he's generous and kind and everyone likes him.

CN12 wrote:

CatPerson wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

Why is being rich bad all of a sudden, if you are successful, you should be praised for being successful, correct?

He isnt successful. If your succesful you would say "I worked hard to get this money! " , But Mitt Romney would say "I worked hard to be realated to extremely ritch people and get $81,000 every day! " 

No, he worked hard to help entrepreuners start businesses like Staples and Bright Horizons(I think thats what it was called)

which he used the money his family gave him 

MoreGamesNow wrote:

maxskywalker wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Why don't we just switch to one of those systems where

Every Political Party gets a spot in Congress (or whatever assembly) equal to the percentage of people in it

Because people are stupid and unwilling to do it.  Or because I don't know if it's ever been suggested in a good way.  And because I'm not QUITE sure how it would turn out.

That system is called "Proportional representation" and is actually used in many countries (e.g. Germany).

And Sweden right?

I hear they've legalized like everything in Sweden because small one-issue parties can get representation and then press their cause

Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-21 20:02:44)

why is it that the only candidates you see on tv are mitt romney and barrack obama while the other like 5 people never show up

luiysia wrote:

CatPerson wrote:

Mitt Romeny is not successful, Ill leave it there, hes just rich. Anyways. Even if his tax plans were decent, and his ideas were decent, and he did support gay marrage. I wouldnt vote for him. He strapped his family dog , an Irish Setter, to the topof the car while going on a 12 hour family trip    Just look at my sig. If dogs could vote, only like 18% of voters would be voting for him XD

Are you serious? You would base your vote on a poor decision he made years ago? What effect does that have on his ability to be President? Does it significantly reflect on his character? At most, it maybe shows that he was pretty dumb back then. Also, there are more Republicans than dogs in the US.

sure. Anyways, It was a joke. Im gonna try not to say anything back. because like Wiimaster said. I have to much "Attitude" Anyways Im quitting acratch, not because of this or anythings, just everything else...

16Skittles wrote:

777w wrote:

why is it that the only candidates you see on tv are mitt romney and barrack obama while the other like 5 people never show up

Ralph Nader, that's why. In the 2000 election it is believed that the democrats would have won (even though they did win  ) if Nader, the Green Party candidate, had not taken away votes from him. Since then, both parties have tried to keep third party candidates out of the spotlight, like by limiting their access to debates and such.

but uhm, thats basically removing any possible chance of one becoming president.

soupoftomato wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

maxskywalker wrote:

Because people are stupid and unwilling to do it.  Or because I don't know if it's ever been suggested in a good way.  And because I'm not QUITE sure how it would turn out.

That system is called "Proportional representation" and is actually used in many countries (e.g. Germany).

And Sweden right?

I hear they've legalized like everything in Sweden because small one-issue parties can get representation and then press their cause

According to the "Riksdagen" website (the name of the parliament of Sweden), that is correct.

http://www.riksdagen.se/en/How-the-Riks … Elections/

I don't know about Sweden in particular, but I believe there is a "5%" rule in Germany (a party must have at least 5% of the popular vote to get a seat).

luiysia wrote:

Are you serious? You would base your vote on a poor decision he made years ago? What effect does that have on his ability to be President? Does it significantly reflect on his character? At most, it maybe shows that he was pretty dumb back then.

Sure, he could have changed since then.
No, my problem is when he insults half the country, behind closed doors, and doesn't apologize. Seriously? -_-

Also, there are more Republicans than dogs in the US.

Only by a little. :3

Claude_Monet wrote:

luiysia wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

Why is being rich bad all of a sudden, if you are successful, you should be praised for being successful, correct?

People don't hate rich people, they hate greedy rich people. Like in A Christmas Carol, at first Scrooge is a miser and he's mean and terrible but then he's generous and kind and everyone likes him.

Being greedy and selfish is a natural event that really shouldn't be frowned upon as it is now. If you had some Ricin neatly packaged in little spray bottles, would you be ever so generous and, out of the goodness of your heart, hand them over to a shady guy who hasn't showered in a month?

If you say no, according to the writers of MSNBC, you're a loser who hates the world and should be put to death, all because you were selfish and wouldn't share your Ricin.

I should read my stuff before I post it, especially on an iPod.

yousmiledatme wrote:

yeah sure it's natural but so's braining animals with rocks, psychopaths (as in people who don't feel guilt-they don't murder often but they can lie without feeling guilty-i've forgotten the proper term) tend to have a chemical imbalance in their brains so murder shouldn't be looked down upon!!
that is literally the worst argument ever ;_;

actually, that's an okay argument. generally murderers should be rehabilitated not punished. it's generally to do with mental problems or bad upbringing.

Laternenpfahl wrote:

CN12, what is your answer to this

President Obama is moving us towards Energy Independence
Mitt Romney wants to be more dependent on fossil fuels

Why is everyone questioning me? Just because I prefer Romney?

I am not sure.

stevetheipad wrote:

CN12 wrote:

Laternenpfahl wrote:

CN12, what is your answer to this

President Obama is moving us towards Energy Independence
Mitt Romney wants to be more dependent on fossil fuels

Why is everyone questioning me? Just because I prefer Romney?

I am not sure.

This is not meant to be rude towards you, but: The points that you choose to express aren't valid; so we want to make sure people know that and make the right choice (Obama).

Well my choice is the right choice for me. I'm not changing, so don't even try to make me change my mind.