stevetheipad wrote:
soupoftomato wrote:
Mokat wrote:
The country fell into a recession when Obama was president, so why re-elect him?
BIG RED LETTERS SO PEOPLE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO ME
The recession became labelled a recession in 2008, under Bush.
Here is the graph of unemployment over several years.
The unemployment rate starts an alarming climb in 2008, then continues for a bit in 2009. This is because, in 2009, Obama had inherited a worsening situation.
Now there has been a continuous decrease in the Unemployment rate under Obama.
The source is the actual U.S. Government's statistics.One of the few cases where red letters in all caps is needed.
The other is in literary fiction.
HOW ELSE WILL PEOPLE TAKE YOUR MORALS SERIOUSLY
Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-13 20:05:34)
Offline
CN12 wrote:
zubblewu wrote:
CN12 wrote:
Romney is less of a nutcase, obviously.
Sources? I believe your spellcheck may be messed up if it turns more into less.
My spellcheck is fine. You might want to rethink your vote because Romney is better.
So you're saying that because I'm right and have turned almost everything you've said against you and you haven't been able to come up with a good response to most of what I've said, I should change my vote?
Uh, no.
Also, I can't vote. You can probably imagine that I'm younger than 18. So, 1. you're wrong and you should change your vote and 2. I can't vote so it's hard to change it (although I appreciate the fact that you think I'm that old).
Last edited by jvvg (2012-10-13 22:03:44)
Offline
CN12 (part of zubblewu's post, but got cut off) wrote:
Romney is less of a nutcase, obviously.
jvvg wrote:
CN12 wrote:
zubblewu wrote:
Sources? I believe your spellcheck may be messed up if it turns more into less.
My spellcheck is fine. You might want to rethink your vote because Romney is better.
So you're saying that because I'm right and have turned almost everything you've said against you and you haven't been able to come up with a good response to most of what I've said, I should change my vote?
Uh, no.
Also, I can't vote. You can probably imagine that I'm younger than 18. So, 1. you're wrong and you should change your vote and 2. I can't vote so it's hard to change it (although I appreciate the fact that you think I'm that old).
Please stop it with the remarks about eachother and the insulting going on, such as the things highlighted in red. I don't want this topic to be closed...
Offline
TorbyFork234 wrote:
CN12 (part of zubblewu's post, but got cut off) wrote:
Romney is less of a nutcase, obviously.
jvvg wrote:
CN12 wrote:
My spellcheck is fine. You might want to rethink your vote because Romney is better.So you're saying that because I'm right and have turned almost everything you've said against you and you haven't been able to come up with a good response to most of what I've said, I should change my vote?
Uh, no.
Also, I can't vote. You can probably imagine that I'm younger than 18. So, 1. you're wrong and you should change your vote and 2. I can't vote so it's hard to change it (although I appreciate the fact that you think I'm that old).Please stop it with the remarks about eachother and the insulting going on, such as the things highlighted in red. I don't want this topic to be closed...
The topic is going to get closed either way.
Offline
jvvg wrote:
TorbyFork234 wrote:
CN12 (part of zubblewu's post, but got cut off) wrote:
Romney is less of a nutcase, obviously.
jvvg wrote:
So you're saying that because I'm right and have turned almost everything you've said against you and you haven't been able to come up with a good response to most of what I've said, I should change my vote?
Uh, no.
Also, I can't vote. You can probably imagine that I'm younger than 18. So, 1. you're wrong and you should change your vote and 2. I can't vote so it's hard to change it (although I appreciate the fact that you think I'm that old).Please stop it with the remarks about eachother and the insulting going on, such as the things highlighted in red. I don't want this topic to be closed...
The topic is going to get closed either way.
Not if we keep the insulting (or flaming, not really good at internet terms), to a minimum.
Offline
CN12 wrote:
jvvg wrote:
cartooncreator wrote:
Yeah, and Biden is the one who is spouting lies! The economy is much worse than when Bush was in office; we are TRILLIONS in debt, have more people on food stamps, etc! Obama said he would unite the United States; unite my eye!!! He has created class warfare, has split the country, and he is the one to blame for all of this!!! #Nobama
*Laughs like Biden at cartooncreator*
The economy has improved a lot. A lot more businesses are doing better, the unemployment is better, etc. The high debt is a result of Republicans refusing to cooperate with the President.
And, about "creating class warfare", Romney wants to give big tax breaks to the rich (making them even richer) while taxing the middle class more (making them have less money). Talk about separating classes.Romney wants to give tax breaks to the rich so that they can help create jobs.
Because they can't use the millions of dollars they already have to create jobs? Millionaires do NOT need tax breaks. If you can justify cutting benefits to the poor and giving tax breaks to millionaires, I think you should double take your morals. Romney wants to build from the top-down, Obama wants to build from the bottom up.
Saw this on Reddit:
Good Guy Joe Biden:
Has strong, life-long religious beliefs and tenets
Doesn't believe they should be imposed on others
Last edited by 16Skittles (2012-10-13 22:24:42)
Offline
16Skittles wrote:
CN12 wrote:
jvvg wrote:
*Laughs like Biden at cartooncreator*
The economy has improved a lot. A lot more businesses are doing better, the unemployment is better, etc. The high debt is a result of Republicans refusing to cooperate with the President.
And, about "creating class warfare", Romney wants to give big tax breaks to the rich (making them even richer) while taxing the middle class more (making them have less money). Talk about separating classes.Romney wants to give tax breaks to the rich so that they can help create jobs.
Because they can't use the millions of dollars they already have to create jobs? Millionaires do NOT need tax breaks. If you can justify cutting benefits to the poor and giving tax breaks to millionaires, I think you should double take your morals. Romney wants to build from the top-down, Obama wants to build from the bottom up.
Saw this on Reddit:
Good Guy Joe Biden:
Has strong, life-long religious beliefs and tenets
Doesn't believe they should be imposed on others
Exactly. About building from the top down: its guaranteed to collapse before you finish. Bounding from the bottom up is a structurally sound way that's guaranteed to work eventually.
Offline
soupoftomato wrote:
BIG RED LETTERS SO PEOPLE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO ME
The recession became labelled a recession in 2008, under Bush.
Here is the graph of unemployment over several years.
The unemployment rate starts an alarming climb in 2008, then continues for a bit in 2009. This is because, in 2009, Obama had inherited a worsening situation.
Now there has been a continuous decrease in the Unemployment rate under Obama.
The source is the actual U.S. Government's statistics.
yo guys
this or whatever
Offline
soupoftomato wrote:
soupoftomato wrote:
BIG RED LETTERS SO PEOPLE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO ME
The recession became labelled a recession in 2008, under Bush.
Here is the graph of unemployment over several years.
The unemployment rate starts an alarming climb in 2008, then continues for a bit in 2009. This is because, in 2009, Obama had inherited a worsening situation.
Now there has been a continuous decrease in the Unemployment rate under Obama.
The source is the actual U.S. Government's statistics.yo guys
this or whatever
Gosh why would we trust our own government? Obviously Romney's the only one who could possibly be right about anything!
Offline
zubblewu wrote:
soupoftomato wrote:
soupoftomato wrote:
BIG RED LETTERS SO PEOPLE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO ME
The recession became labelled a recession in 2008, under Bush.
Here is the graph of unemployment over several years.
The unemployment rate starts an alarming climb in 2008, then continues for a bit in 2009. This is because, in 2009, Obama had inherited a worsening situation.
Now there has been a continuous decrease in the Unemployment rate under Obama.
The source is the actual U.S. Government's statistics.yo guys
this or whateverGosh why would we trust our own government? Obviously Romney's the only one who could possibly be right about anything!
No, he trusted the unemployment numbers when they were higher. Now that they're lower, he says that they were all made up.
So the government is totally reliable when it says something bad about Obama but not in the least bit reliable when it says something good about him.
Offline
Mitt Romney's Neighborhood. "Hey look - there's my tax returns in the land of make belief!"
Offline
Don't let this thread become a flamewar, try to keep it civil and productive. Letting people of all ages practice defending and expanding their views makes the world a more accepting, logical place.
But if you're gonna say something outrageous, at least cite it.
~~~~~
Apparently I need to cite my claim that the GOP is responsible for at least half of the national debt. Sorry, I assumed this was common knowledge.
Here it is:
Perr, Jon. 15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You To Know About Taxes and the Debt. Crooks and Liars. 02 September 2012. Web. 14 October 2012. <http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/15-things-gop-doesnt-want-you-know-about-taxes-debt>
Section Three of this article clearly states that policies implemented under singularly George W. Bush and the Republicans during that time led to a doubling of the national debt, and the article focused mainly on the massive costs of the double tax cuts, but it does mention the two wars and prescription drug plan that just made it worse.
~~~~~
The article also mentioned another important point, that of the comparison of Mr. Bush Jr. and his previous president, Mr. Clinton. To paraphrase:
Mr. Clinton, Democrat: 39.6 Tax Rates, 23 Million Jobs, 5.3 Tri/10yr Surplus, Economic Growth
Mr. Bush Jr., Republican: Tax Cuts, 1 Million Jobs, 1 Tri/1yr Defecit, Economic Recession, -8 Million Jobs
In other words, high taxes don't strangle growth, but taking money from the middle class and giving it to the upper class does. Democrats are better job creators than the fabled Republican Job Creators.
Offline
OverPowered wrote:
Don't let this thread become a flamewar, try to keep it civil and productive. Letting people of all ages practice defending and expanding their views makes the world a more accepting, logical place.
But if you're gonna say something outrageous, at least cite it.
~~~~~
Apparently I need to cite my claim that the GOP is responsible for at least half of the national debt. Sorry, I assumed this was common knowledge.
Nooo. :p
That's not what I meant.
I meant this part of what you said: "Republicans just don't like the debt because they know half of it is theirs"
Offline
CheeseMunchy wrote:
OverPowered wrote:
Don't let this thread become a flamewar, try to keep it civil and productive. Letting people of all ages practice defending and expanding their views makes the world a more accepting, logical place.
But if you're gonna say something outrageous, at least cite it.
~~~~~
Apparently I need to cite my claim that the GOP is responsible for at least half of the national debt. Sorry, I assumed this was common knowledge.Nooo. :p
That's not what I meant.
I meant this part of what you said: "Republicans just don't like the debt because they know half of it is theirs"
Oh, sorry. Lemme fix that...
The campaign season reason: Republicans love the debt because they can call Obama out on it, even if he's not actually the cause. ( )
The Bush reason: Republicans hate the debt because it's a reminder of the Bush Dubya years. -Shudder- ( )
Or, of course, the hopefully real reason: Republicans hate the debt because a significant portion of it is loaned to other countries and could cause a potential liability to U.S. national interests in the future, though threatening the U.S. economy is not a good way to make certain your country's economy stays intact, too... Anyways go 'Murica. :patriotic:
Is that what you meant? Cause otherwise I'm confuzzled
Offline
MasterOfTheGames wrote:
To be honest I couldn't care less who wins the election mostly because I don't even live in America but also because anyone who is in the government is a total nutcase and it reckon it's impossible to ever have a president/prime minister that anyone is happy with.
Let me remind you, then, that if you don't care about a forum topic - simply don't post on it. Regardless of your feelings about politicians, choosing them is very important and can have a big impact on your life and the lives of many other people. Putting down people for trying to discuss such an important choice logically is not helpful.
Offline
Paddle2See wrote:
MasterOfTheGames wrote:
To be honest I couldn't care less who wins the election mostly because I don't even live in America but also because anyone who is in the government is a total nutcase and it reckon it's impossible to ever have a president/prime minister that anyone is happy with.
Let me remind you, then, that if you don't care about a forum topic - simply don't post on it. Regardless of your feelings about politicians, choosing them is very important and can have a big impact on your life and the lives of many other people. Putting down people for trying to discuss such an important choice logically is not helpful.
^^^ This. The nutcase comment is also a wee bit disrespectful to anyone in the government that actually works for the welfare of his people.
But it IS a real issue when politics becomes a career for people and they care more about reelection than doing good, which is why I support term limits for most governing offices.
Offline
OverPowered wrote:
Paddle2See wrote:
MasterOfTheGames wrote:
To be honest I couldn't care less who wins the election mostly because I don't even live in America but also because anyone who is in the government is a total nutcase and it reckon it's impossible to ever have a president/prime minister that anyone is happy with.
Let me remind you, then, that if you don't care about a forum topic - simply don't post on it. Regardless of your feelings about politicians, choosing them is very important and can have a big impact on your life and the lives of many other people. Putting down people for trying to discuss such an important choice logically is not helpful.
^^^ This. The nutcase comment is also a wee bit disrespectful to anyone in the government that actually works for the welfare of his people.
But it IS a real issue when politics becomes a career for people and they care more about reelection than doing good, which is why I support term limits for most governing offices.
My brothers told me this, and I think it's worth posting here:
A shorter term limits corruption more, while a longer term makes people do more stuff that actually benefits people (even if they don't want it) and less stuff just to get re-elected.
Offline
Another thing I think is worth mentioning here:
The real irony of a representative democracy is that the people who have the most control of your life (e.g. your parents, your teachers, your boss), you don't elect.
Offline
CN12 wrote:
jvvg wrote:
jvvg wrote:
Mokat wrote:
+100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
-9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (see my above posts)
Mokat wrote:
-_-So your response for me not believing a total lie is that? Nice way to win a debate.
That's kinda rude...
Being semi-polite here many pages back didn't seem to work when telling people they were lying and didn't accept facts. So, people always say that when one approach isn't working, try another one. That's what I'm doing here. When debating someone who accepts facts and logic, be polite. When debating someone who doesn't, then don't bother.
nama wrote:
What would a 3 year old be doing on scratch?
That was sarcasm.
Offline
Mokat wrote:
jvvg wrote:
Mokat wrote:
-_-
So your response for me not believing a total lie is that? Nice way to win a debate.
At least I'm not starting a flame war.
No, but you were blatantly lying to me, which is also bad.
I'm also not trying to start a flame war, I'm getting my point across. Some people don't accept logic, so I have to use sarcasm instead.
Offline
You just won't believe anything that the Republicans say, will you. Everything they say you say is a total lie. I'll bet that even if they said Obama was great you would say that's a lie. That's not fair. Not everything. And the Democrats lie too. Like Biden SAYING that he voted AGAINST the Iraq and Afganistan wars even though he really voted for them.
Not trying to be rude here, just pointing out something.
Offline
this topic seems like it would be fun to read and laugh at in my spare time
im with obama on this one, just because of his support for the marriage of homosexuals
Offline
jvvg wrote:
Mokat wrote:
jvvg wrote:
So your response for me not believing a total lie is that? Nice way to win a debate.At least I'm not starting a flame war.
I'm also not trying to start a flame war,
Nevertheless, that's exactly what starts a flame war.
Offline
CheeseMunchy wrote:
jvvg wrote:
Mokat wrote:
At least I'm not starting a flame war.I'm also not trying to start a flame war,
Nevertheless, that's exactly what starts a flame war.
So are you saying that in order to NOT start a flamewar, you have to TRY to start a flamewar. Is that correct?
Offline