Y2HH

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 12, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) 1) Where has CFA been banned. Find 1 banning. CFA exists in Chicago, so dont say Chicago as there are ones here. 2) I have talked with SSM groups about it, and not one has ever said that CFA doesnt have the right to their opinion. 3) Not really, first I beat your argument soundly, then I concluded. I never insulted you, I said your statement was a joke, which it was. Nice try though with the woe is me routine. Let me fix the bolded part for you. "I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying the things you say are stupid." Isn't this semantics?

If you wanted awesome pictures of Tatooine, all you had to do was watch Star Wars in Blu-Ray, you didn't have to send an erector set robot up into space to do it. George Lucas already did this, only better...because he filmed the Sand People that are eluding this rover.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 07:54 PM) 18k/yr? This year it's about 30k/yr. You need to re-read what he wrote.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) If it was something racist, or giant dicks (which I would still find hilarious) then I could understand. But the article says whales and seaturtles... I'm sorry, when you post...I see your avatar and then I don't hear a word you say.

I went to UIC for about a year and a half and finished at DeVry. My tuition was pretty cheap, overall, from what I remember. Less than 12k for an entire year while at Devry, and that was doing trimesters...it was even less at UIC.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) Teens cited for chalk-doodle in parking lot Nothing political but didn't know where else to toss this It's chalk. f***ing dumb.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) They take their memes seriously around here! Because you know how memes are always full of facts and figures. Oh, and it wasn't my meme...I didn't create it. Another meme for you meme haters.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) This crap is just not sustainable. My generation and younger are putting themselves in so much debt with little hope of paying it off. My wife and I are at about $160k. I guess in 20 years it'll be nice to have that extra income to pay for a vacation home, or more likely to pay for a semester of my kids' college tuition. That depends... It's ok to put yourself into debt for college *IF* you are going to college for something useful to the world around you. For example, going into debt to become a nuclear engineer is a bit different from going to be a ... psychologist. One of the two will probably have an infinitely easier time repaying their student loan debt.

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 09:36 AM) Haha, something went horribly wrong when I was trying to preview a post. I was gonna tell Balta that he's an awful person for spoiling the Gene Wilder meme fun with his facts and figures. They take their memes seriously around here! Because you know how memes are always full of facts and figures. Oh, and it wasn't my meme...I didn't create it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 08:14 AM) Goldman Sachs will not face charges in the 2008 collapse. Sigh. But hey, they'll know not to do it again right?! You aren't actually surprised by this, are you?

This is why voting has become an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. We tend to put a lot more blame/credit on the presidents desk than they deserve. It's of my opinion that it doesn't matter if Obama or Romney win, the Senate/Congress either will have to deal with will be pretty much the same mix of bad meets evil...and it's what's truly broken in our system. We like to blame presidents, past and present, for 90% of what the houses of congress do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) If that's the case though, then subtracting customers from CFA shouldn't produce a significant decrease in jobs either. If a boycott is successful, it will hurt the company in that it has to shut down locations. Otherwise the boycott failed anyway. Which it did.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) Eh, doesn't quite work out that way...that doesn't mean the new place is going to hire former CFA employees "just because". Most chains like that can run just as efficiently, regardless of increased business, without adding headcount. Most stores, like McDonalds, have a headcount per sq foot number...regardless of business. They're like well oiled machines. Oh, and from what I know, CFA treats their employees much better than most of those types of places.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) Doesn't that assume that by not eating at CFA, I also don't eat anywhere else, as having a substantial number of former customers start eating somewhere else would produce job gains at those locations? Basically, as long as i don't starve to death, this isn't a big concern. Eh, doesn't quite work out that way...that doesn't mean the new place is going to hire former CFA employees "just because". Most chains like that can run just as efficiently, regardless of increased business, without adding headcount. Most stores, like McDonalds, have a headcount per sq foot number...regardless of business. They're like well oiled machines.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) CFA's political donations directly impact American policy and laws. SA stoning people to death does not. It's dumb to try to link the two things. It's only a diversionary tactic meant to dismiss objections without actually addressing them. Let's also remember that CFA employs a LOT of innocent people who need that job. Something you and others are obviously not thinking about. If you hurt their business, the CEO, who is already mega rich, isn't affected whatsoever. The employees he will lay off, however...are. So good job. You've hurt innocents via collateral damage, but accomplished absolutely nothing in hurting your actual target. That, and if the media posted what other CEO's or CFO's or company executives from various companies supported or believed in, you'd be left buying nothing at all...of course, since the media isn't doing that research for you, you aren't going to bother doing it yourself. I'm sure there are executives at Apple that hate gays, and are mad that a homosexual is their new CEO, too... GG.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcu..._im0_mbbl_m.htm Around 40K of the 340K oil imports comes from Saudi Arabia. Around 90K comes from Canada. So maybe we should boycott oil from there for having universal health care and gay marriage? So... 1) That meme was used terribly wrong. Whoever made it should be shot for being so incorrect in their usage of the meme. 2) We have no way of discerning our oil provider at a gas pump. And more comes from non-OPEC countries. 3) I'm sure most would agree that cars are more of a necessity than Chick-Fil-A 4) As there are no ways of discerning what country gave the oil, we can't readily acquire alternatives (like KFC, Subway, etc.). With Chick-Fil-A, we can. Most, if not all memes are hyperbolically broad generalizations. So what.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) Actually, only about 12-14% of our oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, our largest non-domestic oil supplier is currently Canada, which supplies nearly 2x as much oil to the U.S. per month as Saudi Arabia. Canada legalized Same Sex Marriage in 2005. Furthermore, the U.S.'s 3rd biggest non-domestic oil supplier is Mexico, which has legalized same sex marriage in Mexico City and at least 1 other province and has the opposite situation of the defense of marriage act, so all states in Mexico must recognize homosexual marriages performed in those states. Thus, buying gasoline supports same sex marriage! So long as you shop at the right gas stations.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Wow, another thing that misses the point. It's not because of what he says, it because of what he does. The Saudis aren't funding Focus on the Family to restrict the rights of American homosexuals. It was also a joke meme... But there is some truth too it in either case. Most people love to protest out of convenience. So long as it doesn't upset their livelihoods, it's easy to do...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) Oh if only it was that simple. Unfortunately, Im not aware of any company that only sells "Non-Saudi" gas, so Im kind of stuck? Slightly different than CFA who has hundreds, if not thousands, of competitors. No, it is that simple. It's just a matter of convenience to the protester, whether you'd ever admit that or not. It's easy for you to protest one, but not the other. An industry based on pollution and war, funded by war, death and destruction...but you're ok with that industry because it's convenient. While I won't invest in oil companies for moral reasons...I'll openly admit I use their products and support the death and destruction that industry leads too because it makes living my life easy/possible.

Mo' betta' images.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) What other state would you credit to Perot tipping? I honestly don't care to go through this, who really cares since it's all speculation anyway. Clinton won.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) But he did not lose the state of Texas to Clinton. You could make the argument that Perot played spoiler in Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio. If that's the case, we're talking a total of 75 electoral votes swapping from candidate to candidate in 1992. That would give Clinton 295, Bush 243. More than just those.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) I just checked this number out of curiosity, and man, I'm amazed by how much this is actually true. 1996: 96,456,345 49.1% 1992: 104,405,155 55.1% 1988: 91,594,693 50.1% 1992 was the highest voter turnout since the 1972 election. It was the first time and last time in the modern age people had choices...heh

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) Perot got 19% of the vote in 2012. If 4 of those 19% came from voters who may have voted Democrat because of dissatisfaction with Bush (and crossover like that was more common in 1992 than we'd see today), Clinton would have still gotten 47% of the votes cast. It's also, very likely, that the Perot campaign got a few million voters to the polls who would not have otherwise voted in 1992 at all. Since most of the votes Perot got were in strong blue or strong red states as it was, it would not have helped Bush win very easily. His path to 270 was a lot more complicated than a Perot spoiler. I edited. As I highlighted, Bush almost lost the state of Texas to Clinton because of Perot. There are many repeated examples of this. It's simply undeniable.