Scratch

Wes64 wrote:

CN12 wrote:

CheeseMunchy wrote:

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?

no, he's saying that the action of not trying to start a flame war inevitably leads to a flame war

I said I'm not trying to start one (i.e. I'm not making an active effort), while I'm not specifically trying to avoid it either.

Wes64 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Wes64 wrote:

no, he's saying that the action of not trying to start a flame war inevitably leads to a flame war

I said I'm not trying to start one (i.e. I'm not making an active effort), while I'm not specifically trying to avoid it either.

ok, but i was referring to CN12's misinterpretation of CheeseMunchy's comment, not your comment

Oh. I thought it was referring to a couple of my comments (hard to tell when things get lost in quote depth limits  ).

CN12 wrote:

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.

I don't believe stuff when there isn't a good reason to.
Like, I don't believe Romney when he says that cutting taxes, keeping social security, keeping medicare, and increasing the size of the military is revenue neutral, just for one example.

This flamewar is going to be giant. And verrrryyy political.

CheeseMunchy wrote:

CN12 wrote:

This flamewar is going to be giant. And verrrryyy political.

I don't see any flame war here... and I don't see one coming, at the moment.

I thought I saw one coming.

CheeseMunchy wrote:

CN12 wrote:

CheeseMunchy wrote:

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?

Incorrect.
I was saying that jvvg's rude remark could lead to a flame war.

Maybe I didn't see a flamewar coming.

LETS GET BACK ON TOPIC HERE WE DON'T WANT THIS TOPIC CLOSED!!!

Like mah new signature? 

Last edited by CN12 (2012-10-14 20:54:11)

CN12 wrote:

Like mah new signature? 

No, because I don't see why you'd vote for him? I'm all for opinions, but you haven't stated anything that hasn't gotten shut down easily. Could you perhaps paraphrase why?

Last edited by stevetheipad (2012-10-14 21:22:50)

jvvg wrote:

stevetheipad wrote:

CN12 wrote:

Like mah new signature? 

No, because I don't see why you'd vote for him? I'm all for opinions, but you haven't stated anything that hasn't gotten shut down easily. Could you perhaps paraphrase why?

Here's why:
Because you want to give big tax breaks to the rich while cutting benefits to the poor, removing tax loopholes for the middle class while not for the upper class, drive up the debt, and not help the 47% of people who Romney says his job is not to worry about.

Not true.

CN12 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

stevetheipad wrote:

No, because I don't see why you'd vote for him? I'm all for opinions, but you haven't stated anything that hasn't gotten shut down easily. Could you perhaps paraphrase why?

Here's why:
Because you want to give big tax breaks to the rich while cutting benefits to the poor, removing tax loopholes for the middle class while not for the upper class, drive up the debt, and not help the 47% of people who Romney says his job is not to worry about.

Not true.

He specifically said it's his job not to worry about the 47% of America who need to help him. (Source: the 47% recording, search it anywhere to find it)
I'm pretty sure that he means cutting benefits to the poor if he's "not worrying about them".
So yeah, it is true.

What exactly is Obama going to do if he is reelected? (I really don't keep up with the news.)

I'm voting for Obama, but there are some things I don't get about him:
He says he'll legalize gay marriage, why didn't he do that during his first term?
If you're answer is, it didn't get passed, then why does he think he can do it in the next 4 years?
Why doesn't he come up with a better excuse for him not completely curing the unemployment? Yes, it is impossible to do it in 4 years, but can't he come up with a better excuse then: "I didn't have enough time"?


Why didn't he say that Romney was lying (because he was lying) during the debate? What got him to not immediately say that Romney is lying?


Don't get me wrong, Obama is still a better candidate then Romney (in my opinion), but Obama still isn't near being the best candidate. I think Romney plans are just a screw-up (in my opinion), and so if I made this list for Romney, it'll be about 10X as large.

TorbyFork234 wrote:

He says he'll legalize gay marriage, why didn't he do that during his first term? If you're answer is, it didn't get passed, then why does he think he can do it in the next 4 years?

Just a note, President Obama only came out for gay marriage about halfway through his term, and he never really pushed for it. Though I believe this was a mistake, the Congress and the Senate were both very evenly split and getting much of anything through  was difficult, much less an issue that takes back seat to the economy. 

Why doesn't he come up with a better excuse for him not completely curing the unemployment? Yes, it is impossible to do it in 4 years, but can't he come up with a better excuse then: "I didn't have enough time"?

Usually his "excuse" is the obstructionist Republicans in the House and Senate, which made the passage of any bills, even simple things like infrastructure spending, quite difficult.
Additionally, he has not "cured" unemployment, which, at its best before the recession, was about 5%, but it has gone back down to 7.8% and is on a downward slope. 

Why didn't he say that Romney was lying (because he was lying) during the debate? What got him to not immediately say that Romney is lying?

This is an interesting one, and I'm betting on two reasons.
First, the Obama campaign may have recommended a "presidential" attitude and not stooping to calling things malarky ( ), but he should have realized it wasn't working and been able to switch his attitude. Which is why I think reason two is just as important.
Second, I believe that Gov. Romney changed quite a few of his positions before the debate, shifting ever closer to the center. This would mean much of Mr. Obama's preperations came to naught, as his opponent didn't argue them anymore.