Giantkitty

I keep buying them, waiting for Joan Collins to be in one. So far, she hasn't, but I know someday she will be, and I will hug the TV.

I go to the store, then cutely bat the game off the shelves. After that I knock it around with my paws, and hopefully I don't bat it where I can't reach it. Then I put it in my mouth and give the cashier sad kitty eyes, and while he goes "awwww" I make a run for it.

[giyanks22]
>Not to be racist, but why do you think Obama is taxing homes that make a tleast $250,000 or more for 50%? Because he wants to >give our money to African Americans. Think about that.

It is racist when it's turned from an economic issue to a racial issue, unless you have proof that only African Americans benefit.

Not to be racist, but wouldn't McCain (and republicans in general) be racist also? He, as a white person, wants and has given tax breaks to rich people, who are almost all white. By using your logic, McCain is also racist and even more so because if you compared rich people to poor people in regards to being the same race, the rich have an awfully high percentage of white people, while the poor are more of a mixed group.

>That is what the UK's taxes are, but you get health care and other benefits from that. If I am making $300,000 a year, and am used to >having $230,000, but now I am being taxed for 50%, and now only have $150,000 after taxes, then I will have to change my life style. >What if people can't continue to pay their mortgages because of this???

Assuming that's true, if you can't get by on $150K a year, then there's something wrong with you. I don't know, go with one less yacht, don't live in such a huge mansion, or in McCain's case, sell some of them: you know there's something wrong with you (or the system) when you don't know how many houses you have. As of now, a lot more people in the lower incomes are having problems paying their mortgages, and sub-prime mortgage banks are collapsing. Let's worry about that and not whether or not wealthy people can afford their mortgage on what must be a really expensive mansion if you're making $150K/ year and can't pay it off all at once.

 >Obama is taking money from the only people who are putting money into the economy,

Really? I see hundreds of non rich people in town contributing to the economy every day. Are you and Player1 related? (He's the one that said only the rich spend money) Plus rich people can put money in the bank, a luxury poorer people can do less.

>and now he leaving them with less money to spend, so now retailers will be hurt more.

I suppose the yacht and higher end retailers will be hurt more, but lower end retailers will benefit. Plus see note above about the rich and putting money in the bank

>Obama's economic plans are incredibly stupid. Why else would he want a %50 tax on for the most part, "non- African Americans." >He wants to give African Americans money, by taking from Caucasians.

And McCain wants to keep money away from all minorities, by keeping it to the rich. That argument (which I don't support either way) can go both ways.

>You might call be a racist or a bigot, but I am not the one who went to a racist church for 10 years, and listened to some crackpot old >fool tell me how evil white people are....

Let's assume that was true. I'd rather someone listen to a "crackpot old fool" for what, about 2 hours a week, than someone, for roughly 40 hours a week (average working week)  listen to and agree with 90% to a "crackpot old fool" who affects hundreds of millions more people by stagnating the economy, costing us billions of dollars and many lives in a war for oil, basically (but we're still paying $4 a gallon on), among other things. 

"Xrun- thanks for being respectful about your opinions. 

And thats families who make 250,000 a year, which is the middle class. Why tax the middle and higher class more when they are the only people buying things, in turn saving our economy. They are the people keeping everything running, buying stuff so people get paid. Taxing them more would cause them to spend less. 

"

The main problem lies in the show itself. To me, it just seemed like some Indian version of a Jerry Springer show (oh, gee put some powder kegs and matches in the same room). The reason people watch it is just to see fights break out, but at least there's some control over the situation. Sure people start attacking each other, but at least there are bodyguards to try to stop it (success of that varies). But in that Indian show, I assume that was "expected."
This raises so many issues: what did the contract that he signed say? Was he a mentally functioning adult? Did she hit too hard? Was he justified because it's a natural instinct to fight back, contract or no contract? From the information I'm given, I'm blaming the show itself for setting up itself like that. If the men were supposed to "take that," why weren't they properly restrained? At the very least, it's almost a certainty that if the show didn't exist, that wouldn't have happened in the first place.

"Hamz said:

"Moving to Off Topic, please post topics in the correct board!"

Which topic was this in originally??? im intrigued :D"

How about Garanimals?

It came from systemwars, the most trusted and unbiased source of information ever!

My guess it was only made so that someone would use it later in a textbook as an example of bad sampling techniques.

What's next? Xbox WINZ!!! Their games that start with "X", released on February 29, 2008, and reviewed by guys named Michael are higher rated than the PS3's!!

I'd buy it for $2 tops. Play it for laffs, then give it to our library so future programmers would see an example of what not to do.

Please change "Catchphrase" to "Catch Phrase" it's listed that way in Wikipedia and people could find it easier, especially if they type in "phrase"