Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Allen

Penrose, NC

#25837 Oct 29, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Why not spend on the statue of liberty? I see they got an elevator and safer steps now.


I understand that lady liberty is an important part of our history but, I don't think she should have taken priority over bridges, roads, etc. Personal opinion lady liberty should have taken the back burner.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25838 Oct 29, 2012
The Enemy Within wrote:
<quoted text>
The debt should always be paid down regardless of the party in control.
I didn't imply your opinion was illogical. I pointed out that Obama's statement, like some of yours are vague and non committal. Leaving ample room for interpretation. Or "spin" as it is called.
My points are non committal because circumstances differ and there is no one solution for each problem.
Your views are very black and white as is most republicans are. What I keep trying to point out is, you need to look at the situation of the day to discern the approach.

Tax cuts for the rich is not going to lower the debt. Loopholes will not likely be cut much. Spending two trillion extra for the military is not going to reduce the debt.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25839 Oct 29, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
What are you doing Mike? engaging in a Topix version of Custers Last Stand? What are the odds now about five to one? RUMOR has it, by the way, that Obama will win the electoral college, and lose the popular vote.Poetic justice? For Al Gore?
What polls are you looking at? Are you watching fox news again?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25840 Oct 29, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time clueless one. Arnold, I believe on Friday, asked for someone to show examples of deadbeats on welfare. I found the article and posted it. Somewhere in your clueless mind, would you not agree this article clearly shows deadbeats taking advantage of welfare? The article was the answer to Arnold's question? Arnold, didn't ask for a state by state break down, if it only was occurring in one state etc. He asked for an example. He asked and I gave him an example. I believe he asked Pro and I gave the example. Try looking at the premise of a post and an article cited before you jump in with both feet and are trying to defend an argument without knowing the origin of why it was posted. You can more clearly articulate your argument if you know why and what you're arguing.
Thanks for clearly that up. I thought you were trying to answer my question about showing evidence fraud was increasing. But we know you do not answer my questions.
I am pretty sure Arnold has already acknowledged fraud occurs in these programs, so I am not sure why he needed an example of what he does not dispute. If what you claim is what he actually asked.

You could have cleared up the confusion the first time I asked what the point of the article was supposed to enlighten me on. Thanks for wasting my time.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25841 Oct 29, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Did you have any point of posting this?
No

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25842 Oct 29, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>In 06, the economy was not in the shitter yet. So Obama was speaking to why republicans were spending so much in the good times, and not saving for the hard times.
So if the republicans had saved in the good times, Obama could have spent in the hard times to keep the economy stable and yet keep the debt low.
You're such a bullshitter!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25843 Oct 29, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for clearly that up. I thought you were trying to answer my question about showing evidence fraud was increasing. But we know you do not answer my questions.
I am pretty sure Arnold has already acknowledged fraud occurs in these programs, so I am not sure why he needed an example of what he does not dispute. If what you claim is what he actually asked.
You could have cleared up the confusion the first time I asked what the point of the article was supposed to enlighten me on. Thanks for wasting my time.
Again clueless one, how do you know if I don't answer your questions? You fail to follow basic steps of going to the origin of a post and then you only get half the story, you ask halfass questions because you don't know what you're talking about and then blame me or anyone that doesn't answer your questrion. You didn't have a fat clue what I was talking about with these posts. Most people don't randomly pick a post and just jump in, sometimes they follow the origin, which I see is a foreign concept to you. As far as wasting your time, why did you waste mine? If you want to know what you're suppose to take from a site someone posts, use your own advice "I'm not doing your research" and go back and research the posts and see what you may have missed and you won't look like a jackass.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25844 Oct 29, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>No
Hey Emlu. Do you get snow up your way today?

Emlu, don't waste your time explaining to Mike why you post anything. He doesn't understand and it will always be the poster's fault that he doesn't understand the question and even though he doesn't understand, he'll certainly disagree.

Been talking a lot lately?:)

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25845 Oct 29, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Emlu. Do you get snow up your way today?
Emlu, don't waste your time explaining to Mike why you post anything. He doesn't understand and it will always be the poster's fault that he doesn't understand the question and even though he doesn't understand, he'll certainly disagree.
Been talking a lot lately?:)
Yes, it's blowing a little, the ski resorts are opening Wed.(Sugar Mt) As for Mike, he beats the same old drum. Yes, yes, I have been talking a lot.;)

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25846 Oct 29, 2012
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text> You're such a bullshitter!
Cop out response.

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>In 06, the economy was not in the shitter yet. So Obama was speaking to why republicans were spending so much in the good times, and not saving for the hard times.
So if the republicans had saved in the good times, Obama could have spent in the hard times to keep the economy stable and yet keep the debt low.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25847 Oct 29, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Again clueless one, how do you know if I don't answer your questions? You fail to follow basic steps of going to the origin of a post and then you only get half the story, you ask halfass questions because you don't know what you're talking about and then blame me or anyone that doesn't answer your questrion. You didn't have a fat clue what I was talking about with these posts. Most people don't randomly pick a post and just jump in, sometimes they follow the origin, which I see is a foreign concept to you. As far as wasting your time, why did you waste mine? If you want to know what you're suppose to take from a site someone posts, use your own advice "I'm not doing your research" and go back and research the posts and see what you may have missed and you won't look like a jackass.
Bacon, you do this same old thing, no matter if it were I in the discussion or not. You consistently post sites and give no reason for posting them.

I simply asked you to explain, yet you refused for several posts.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#25848 Oct 29, 2012
You demonstrate your ignorance in your belief that presidents can aurhorize spending or borrowing. Congress is responsible for all expenditures through departmental budgets. It is true that the National debt increased over 100% during the presidency of Dubya Bush, but it wasn't Bush that did that. It was congress. It is true that the national debt has increased 50% during the presidency of Obama, but Obama didnt do that either . It was congress. Congress passes the laws, authorizes spending and borrowing and has to authorize raising the debt limit.
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text> The point is what Obama was preaching against as a Senator in '06 is exactly what he did when elected President. I guess he was against before he was for it.
Allen

Penrose, NC

#25850 Oct 29, 2012
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO, "Hey Mikie, do you like it?"
Whether or not I beleive that abortion is murder is irrelevant. I did see part of the interview with Mourdock when he was ask about the rape of a 13 year old girl. It is very evident to me where he stands. We all know that rape is an act of violence. Rape is not God's will, we were given freewill. Barrbaric as it may sound but, hanging is to good for a bastard like that. How the hell could we possilbly ask that a 13 year old child become a mother after being violated in such a way?
What could we expect a young female's outlook to be on marriage, sex and family after such a traumatic experience?
Pro I seek feedback from you most of all because you have stated that you have three daughters!



Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25851 Oct 29, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Bacon, you do this same old thing, no matter if it were I in the discussion or not. You consistently post sites and give no reason for posting them.
I simply asked you to explain, yet you refused for several posts.
My bad Mike, I actually thought you had read the origin of why I posted the site. I'm sorry for assuming you had read why I had posted the site, but as usual you didn't and it's my fault. Does this blame game thing work well for you in the real world?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25852 Oct 29, 2012
TSF wrote:
You demonstrate your ignorance in your belief that presidents can aurhorize spending or borrowing. Congress is responsible for all expenditures through departmental budgets. It is true that the National debt increased over 100% during the presidency of Dubya Bush, but it wasn't Bush that did that. It was congress. It is true that the national debt has increased 50% during the presidency of Obama, but Obama didnt do that either . It was congress. Congress passes the laws, authorizes spending and borrowing and has to authorize raising the debt limit.
<quoted text>
So TSF, Obama had a democratic congress for the first two years of his presidency and the National Debt increased 50% in a 4 year period and under GW over eight years it increased 100%? You're the numbers guys, so let me ask, could not a democratic congress under a democratic president do any better? You can't blame the repubs, they didn't have control of Congress for the first two years, what went wrong with the dems in congress the first two years? It looks like Obama's record with congress is no better than GW's. You can explain to me, IF Obama is re-elected and congress (dem or repub--both failed) do no better, what makes GW and Obama any different? It appears to me, neither were and are good team players.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25853 Oct 29, 2012
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether or not I beleive that abortion is murder is irrelevant. I did see part of the interview with Mourdock when he was ask about the rape of a 13 year old girl. It is very evident to me where he stands. We all know that rape is an act of violence. Rape is not God's will, we were given freewill. Barrbaric as it may sound but, hanging is to good for a bastard like that. How the hell could we possilbly ask that a 13 year old child become a mother after being violated in such a way?
What could we expect a young female's outlook to be on marriage, sex and family after such a traumatic experience?
Pro I seek feedback from you most of all because you have stated that you have three daughters!
Allen, I'm butting in. I, have a daughter and I couldn't imagine her being raped at any age. Tere would be no need for a trial for the man that did it, I'd save the taxpayers money and take care of the problem myself. I don't believe a child that's a victim of rape, or incest (which is the difference?) or a woman that's an adult being the victim of rape should be able to have an abortion. We need to educate our daughters, and women in general that rape should be reported immediately and they give 7 pills from a birth control dose pack that will cause a period and take care of an unwanted pregnancy. Pray to God, the man was not HIV positive, that's insult to injury. I think the men that made the statement were idiots and that's as kind as I can be; however, making a joke about their insensitivity to rape victims is also idiotic. In my job before, I attended support groups for rape victims and the cereal box joke would not have been funny. Rape isn't funny and I think making a jokes even to point out someone's stupidity only inflicts more emotional pain to rape victims.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25854 Oct 29, 2012
oops Allen, I do believe a child that's a victim of rape... should be able to have an abortion

“ We are not permanent”

Since: Oct 08

Gaston County

#25855 Oct 29, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So even if the economy is bad, you see no need for spending to help keep it from collapsing? If the debt was paid down to a surplus in the good times, one could spend in the bad without debt. At least in theory.
But republicans like Bush said it is your money, so you should not have the government help save for a rainy day.
"Keeping from collapsing" did not resolve the debt issue. We are deeper in debt.

There has not been a surplus. Clinton left no surplus.

Correct. The government should not save "our" money for us. We should be responsible enough to save for ourselves. If one does not plan for the "rainy day" then one can get wet.

“ We are not permanent”

Since: Oct 08

Gaston County

#25856 Oct 29, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>My points are non committal because circumstances differ and there is no one solution for each problem.
Your views are very black and white as is most republicans are. What I keep trying to point out is, you need to look at the situation of the day to discern the approach.

Tax cuts for the rich is not going to lower the debt. Loopholes will not likely be cut much. Spending two trillion extra for the military is not going to reduce the debt.
Your points are non committal because you straddle the fence at times and lean to the side that best suites your argument.

You are correct. I see things in black and white and move on. When you drill down to the core of any issue the underlying problem typically can be resolved with a black and white answer.

You said "Taxing the rich is not going to lower the debt".

I agree. Government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#25857 Oct 29, 2012
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text> Define greed. Who are you to determine when someone else has to much? How could you possibly know someone else's needs?
I think this outsourcing of Sensata Technologies, smacks of greed...Over $500,000 in one quarters profit this year, yet still scheduled for China...Imagine a 180 employee plant, clearing over $2 million annually, but it's not enough? Those are some hungry stockholders....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charlotte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
So when is the ground breaking on the Harris Te... (Sep '14) 14 min BoOGIE Tatersack 24
If Belmont world have stayed away from selling ... 20 min Hobo Town 21
Jerry Sofley 26 min Waldo 2
Friday night football 29 min M Smith 2
Poll Do you think women with hairy armpits are ok (Jan '09) Aug 28 NemO 545
Help wanted. Sales in Charlotte Aug 28 NemO 2
Location questions. Aug 27 Abc 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Charlotte Mortgages