Scratch

Mokat wrote:

OrcaCat wrote:

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

Nice job. I hate it that the Obama supporters are so desperate, they put "Obama 2012" in their signatures. No offense, Obama.

"No offense" doesn't excuse you nor does it make it any less of an insult

You're kinda right. It is used to tell people if they thought something was offensive they are wrong.

And besides, what would Obama do if he found out someone didn't like him and told the world so on a silly little forum?

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Mokat wrote:

"No offense" doesn't excuse you nor does it make what you just said any less of an insult

I also see how a bunch of Romney supporters put it in their sig. I guess that means they're desperate too?

I haven't seen it in any Romney supporters signature, guess they don't need to tell the world how wonderful he is.

MathWizz and cartooncreator are the first two I can think of off the top of my head. They both have it in their sigs.

Also, I'm not desperate, I just want people to be involved in politics. It affects us, and we should all know about it.

Claude_Monet wrote:

'We have no purpose being in the middle east'
No purpose? They killed 3,000 Americans in two hours! I should think we have every right to be in there.

Three problems with this, sir.
1. "They" are Al-Queda, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps the Afghanistan war was needed to truly attack Al-Queda, but it's still wrong to not pay for said war.
2. If a citizen of one country is killed by a citizen of another, that does not give the nation the right to attack. If this is the sole requirement, the United States would be at war with Pakistan - But we're not.
3. Domestic terrorism poses a far greater threat than foreign terrorism, but this issue has barely any of the attention of international terror. Why? Not least because domestic terror almost always involves guns and conservatives. If increasing gun control helps prevent domestic terrorism, it's not going to be a bipartisan effort.

http://www.praegus.org/2011/08/01/domestic-terrorism-vs-international-terrorism/

'But Osama bin laden is dead! Everything is dandy!'
Dandy? Let me ask you something, was the Arab spring 'dandy'? How about a month ago, when the ambassador was dead, was that dandy?
'Well, it was all bush's fault he died'
No. NOTHING bush did would've resulted in that, and even if it was, Obama could have stopped it before anyone was fatally hurt. They were 30 minutes away from an American millitary settlement, nothing happened.
'No! I heard on MSNBC that... and I did no further research to back it up! It must be true!'
No, anything from MSNBC is generally biased and unresearched, like the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Cite ONE source, one CREDIBLE source, and I will respond. 

OverPowered wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

'We have no purpose being in the middle east'
No purpose? They killed 3,000 Americans in two hours! I should think we have every right to be in there.

Three problems with this, sir.
1. "They" are Al-Queda, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps the Afghanistan war was needed to truly attack Al-Queda, but it's still wrong to not pay for said war.
2. If a citizen of one country is killed by a citizen of another, that does not give the nation the right to attack. If this is the sole requirement, the United States would be at war with Pakistan - But we're not.
3. Domestic terrorism poses a far greater threat than foreign terrorism, but this issue has barely any of the attention of international terror. Why? Not least because domestic terror almost always involves guns and conservatives. If increasing gun control helps prevent domestic terrorism, it's not going to be a bipartisan effort.

http://www.praegus.org/2011/08/01/domestic-terrorism-vs-international-terrorism/

'But Osama bin laden is dead! Everything is dandy!'
Dandy? Let me ask you something, was the Arab spring 'dandy'? How about a month ago, when the ambassador was dead, was that dandy?
'Well, it was all bush's fault he died'
No. NOTHING bush did would've resulted in that, and even if it was, Obama could have stopped it before anyone was fatally hurt. They were 30 minutes away from an American millitary settlement, nothing happened.
'No! I heard on MSNBC that... and I did no further research to back it up! It must be true!'
No, anything from MSNBC is generally biased and unresearched, like the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Cite ONE source, one CREDIBLE source, and I will respond. 

1. Oh, I understand
2. We're a nation, we are not governed by any super-nation and we can attack whoever we please.
3. Well great job assuming all people who own guns fly a 'don't tread on me' flag. In fact, my grandfather who is a liberal extremist owns a gun and I can list about 5 others.

3b. True, and we have police and SWAT who have better guns, one reason why columbine never got repeated.

Sadly, I cannot post a link to an article for now, and probably won't be able to until the election is over so you're going to have to do your own work.

videogame9 wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

alldaykade28471 wrote:

Proof?

Walk outside for a couple hours in a urban area, they're not too hard to find.

"urban"

not everyone lives in a huge superpopulated skyscraper labyrinth, you know

Urban as in not rural

And I'm pretty sure places like Detroit aren't farmland 

Mokat wrote:

videogame9 wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

Walk outside for a couple hours in a urban area, they're not too hard to find.

"urban"

not everyone lives in a huge superpopulated skyscraper labyrinth, you know

On my way home from school I saw 5 or more hiring signs

I usually see 0-1, and it's about 5 miles down a street with stores all along it.
The signs I do see are usually for really bad jobs, like those guys advertising the store standing outside with the sign.

veggieman001 wrote:

oh cool

ok so on another forum i go on, we had a thread about the election and we were using and i thought it was pretty cool to see people's results

if anyone cares, my results are

another thing to note is that if you don't want people to know what state you live in, don't link to your results

Cool

http://www.isidewith.com/results/179865758

zubblewu wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

zubblewu wrote:

So it's good to have people who were born billionaires and haven't lifted a finger in their lives, and people who live on the street who work hard very day, and have most/all of their lives? Where is the logic in that?

People can't be born billionaires. Most work hard for it, and some inherit it from their parents who work hard after they die, after the child has probably been pressured into being perfect.

And yes, poverty is sad, but if you're poor because you were too lazy too get up and find work, then you should be frowned at especially since there is a job hiring in a two mile radius of any city.

Being born into a billionaire family is pretty much being born a billionaire. And not all do, granted, but some people who inherit billions don't do anything to earn it or work or anything. I didn't say anything about numbers, but it is a case that happense.
True, the person inheriting didn't work hard but the person they were inheriting from did. That's like saying 'Well, this newborn baby is selfish. It did nothing to help the mother nurture itself, it just laid there for 8 months'

And more than half of people who are homeless or dirt poor do work hard but can't get a job, let alone a good, well paying one, or are mentally I'll and can't. And any city? So does that mean that when I built a tiny little city way in the woods once while I was on vacation and there are no buildings within 2 miles there's a job hiring opporotunity? Granted, it's not a big city, not even any place big enough for a human to fit in, but you can still call it a city  That would be a settlement, and if it was big, you would need people to work in the brand new buildings, so you would have work within a two mile radius

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

oh cool

ok so on another forum i go on, we had a thread about the election and we were using and i thought it was pretty cool to see people's results

if anyone cares, my results are

another thing to note is that if you don't want people to know what state you live in, don't link to your results

Cool

http://www.isidewith.com/results/179865758

http://www.isidewith.com/results/179901092

You should pressure people to vote for Jill stein.

jvvg wrote:

CN12 wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

But it doesn't outweigh what he has done.

Which is?...

Let's see...
-Ending one of the wars (Iraq)
-Saving the auto industry
-Preventing the economy from totally collapsing
He didn't do this... It is collapsed.
-Killing Osama Bin Laden and several other leaders of Al Quaeda
-Expanding healthcare to a lot more Americans
-Reduce unemployment
...and a lot more but I'm too lazy to list the rest of it

I would tell you a lot more faulties, but I am on my iPod, so...

Claude_Monet wrote:

zubblewu wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

People can't be born billionaires. Most work hard for it, and some inherit it from their parents who work hard after they die, after the child has probably been pressured into being perfect.

And yes, poverty is sad, but if you're poor because you were too lazy too get up and find work, then you should be frowned at especially since there is a job hiring in a two mile radius of any city.

Being born into a billionaire family is pretty much being born a billionaire. And not all do, granted, but some people who inherit billions don't do anything to earn it or work or anything. I didn't say anything about numbers, but it is a case that happense.
True, the person inheriting didn't work hard but the person they were inheriting from did. That's like saying 'Well, this newborn baby is selfish. It did nothing to help the mother nurture itself, it just laid there for 8 months' Not really. If you come to the age where you can work to earn your money but don't because you're already rolling in it, it's your fault, and you don't deserve it. If you work hard and carry on a legacy or start your own, okay fine. But not if you did nothing to earn it.

And more than half of people who are homeless or dirt poor do work hard but can't get a job, let alone a good, well paying one, or are mentally I'll and can't. And any city? So does that mean that when I built a tiny little city way in the woods once while I was on vacation and there are no buildings within 2 miles there's a job hiring opporotunity? Granted, it's not a big city, not even any place big enough for a human to fit in, but you can still call it a city  That would be a settlement, and if it was big, you would need people to work in the brand new buildings, so you would have work within a two mile radius On the scale it was it would have been large enough to constitute a city, yet its still small enough to have all the hiring opporotunities filled. And who said all cities have buildings within 2 miles of them? Many urban areas are full these days, or even overfull. And many jobs require special knowledge of the profession. Not everyone has the same skill sets.