Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Texas Tornado

United States

#25925 Oct 30, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>Correct, just look at the job Sec. of State Clinton is doing.
Was that a retort? How amusing that you would dare match wits with me.How positively Feminine of you!
Texas Tornado

United States

#25926 Oct 30, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your point and while some of it is true, you never see an assistant coach in the paper for losing a game.
And as those investors can relieve Pro of his duties, they can relieve the entire company buy selling their stocks and taking their money and business elsewhere, thus putting everyone out of work.
That Silvercoast! Always sees the black lining in every silver cloud! After a two minute conversation with Silvercoast, Santa Claus would suicide out.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25927 Oct 30, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Do you always make excuses for not answering questions? I asked a simple question. You refused to answer it. Why would you assume I know why you posted it, if I had to ask you why you posted it?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25928 Oct 30, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Mitt Romney's VP pick thinks otherwise. The many Mitt is supporting for the Senate, thinks otherwise.
Several republican congressmen and Senators think otherwise.
These men think this due to their belief in god. They want to make their god beliefs law.

Pretty sure all Democrats would agree with your statement. Well, maybe some of them would not expect, praying to a god would help anything. God does nothing to stop rape. So why would he do anything to stop aids? Clearly no god does.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25929 Oct 30, 2012
Texas Tornado wrote:
<quoted text> That Silvercoast! Always sees the black lining in every silver cloud! After a two minute conversation with Silvercoast, Santa Claus would suicide out.
For the sake of it...do you think Santa would let the elves unionize or would he export the manufacturing of his toys. OR would he tell the elves it's a right to work/hire state?
Texas Tornado

United States

#25930 Oct 30, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Do you always make excuses for not answering questions? I asked a simple question. You refused to answer it. Why would you assume I know why you posted it, if I had to ask you why you posted it?
Shouldn't you be getting ready for the next big gay rights parade?
Texas Tornado

United States

#25931 Oct 30, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>For the sake of it...do you think Santa would let the elves unionize or would he export the manufacturing of his toys. OR would he tell the elves it's a right to work/hire state?
Santa is obviously a socialist just ask Silvercoast!
Texas Tornado

United States

#25932 Oct 30, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Mitt Romney's VP pick thinks otherwise. The many Mitt is supporting for the Senate, thinks otherwise.
Several republican congressmen and Senators think otherwise.
These men think this due to their belief in god. They want to make their god beliefs law.
Pretty sure all Democrats would agree with your statement. Well, maybe some of them would not expect, praying to a god would help anything. God does nothing to stop rape. So why would he do anything to stop aids? Clearly no god does.
Make your boyfriend use a rubber Mike.
Allen

Robbins, NC

#25933 Oct 30, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
I will stipulate there is nothing wrong with an employee feeling empowered in his or her job.
However, those stockholders and investors usually don't talk to the guys on the loading docks or lower level managers when profits and dividends are not on par either. Collective effort, but still up to the employer to make sure the employees are performing on task and effectively.
Yes, I agree with you. The stock holder and/or investor should make it their mission to talk to those on lower levels when profits and dividends are not up to par and hold those on the upper responsible for their short comings. I feel like most times that the lower levels are made to feel as though the are on the outside looking in therefore may have even yet a greater understanding of failures within a business. Sometimes those who only have dollar $ signs in their eyes cannot see the forest for the trees.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25934 Oct 30, 2012
The Enemy Within wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
So if America goes into a depression, just deal with it? Is that your non solution? Saving money did not help many in the depression.

I am well aware when Obama saved America from a depression, it did not resolve the debt issue. No one ever said otherwise. So who are you debating here, the voices in your head?
Clearly you are not following what I am trying to say.

Clinton did not control the purse strings, the republican congress did.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25935 Oct 30, 2012
The Enemy Within wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Thanks for at least admitting you only see in black and white and refuse to look at compromising. Typical of our republican congress. And that is why there is a problem.
In a world of grey, one must compromise. In a democracy, one must compromise. One must see the grey. If you cannot see the grey, then you can never work with people who see things differently than you.
Religion is black and white. That is its greatest failure and flaw.

You and your team refuse to attack the situation from both angles. That would be to get more revenues and cut spending. They just want one way or the highway. They refuse to compromise. Without compromise, you will never see the debt reduced.
WACO 1909

United States

#25936 Oct 30, 2012
Forum is getting rough.Oh well.Roll with it.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25937 Oct 30, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a lie.
Prove me wrong.

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The tax rates have been lowered steadily for decades. It was much higher in the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies.
So America is clearing going in a direction that is less of what a up and coming communist country would be.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25938 Oct 30, 2012
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text>So if Bush would've spent the money on the debt during the "good times", it would've allowed Obama to spend the money on other things. News flash, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. That being said, although the govt has a debt problem, more importantly, THE GOVT HAS A SPENDING PROBLEM!
So under your philosophy, when you pay out (debt) more than you take in (income), it's ok to still spend money that you don't have on frivolous things and eventually you'll pay off your debt? You can call it what you want, I call it bullshit!
You may call 'saving the economy' a frivolous endeavor, but I feel otherwise.

Spending has been a long term problem. Both parties spend quite a lot, so quit acting as if republicans do not spend.
I am just suggesting that spending should be done in some cases as in the one when our economy was on the brink of collapse.
You ignored all the points here as did all of your teammates. You just keep diverting.
I assume I must be correct, because none of you have argued that point once.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25939 Oct 30, 2012
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text>So if Bush would've spent the money on the debt during the "good times", it would've allowed Obama to spend the money on other things. News flash, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. That being said, although the govt has a debt problem, more importantly, THE GOVT HAS A SPENDING PROBLEM!
So under your philosophy, when you pay out (debt) more than you take in (income), it's ok to still spend money that you don't have on frivolous things and eventually you'll pay off your debt? You can call it what you want, I call it bullshit!
So you assume the congress under Mitt is going to cut spending? Do you really think they will cut it so much, it will offset the tax cuts he wants and the increase in military spending?

Republicans refuse to compromise on cuts. They do not want to cut military spending. If you do not compromise, nothing will get cut enough. That is just a fact of our congress. Why would the democrats cut all they want, if the republicans refuse to cut anything they want? How is that fair? It is not fair, and that is why cuts will not ever go as deep as needed.

Republicans refuse to compromise on tax cuts, or spending cuts. How in hell do you expect the debt to be reduced like that?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25940 Oct 30, 2012
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text> The buck stops at the White House! The President has the power to sign a bill into law or to veto.
Of Bush's eight years in office, the majority of his spending, minus the wars, were in the last two years of his second term....when the democrats controlled congress. Yes, he could've vetoed but he didn't. Why, who knows.
Why is it with you libs, when a Republican is in power, it's their fault but when a democrat is in power, it's congresses fault?
He did not veto the spending, because the spending was an attempt to stop the economy from collapsing. You see, the tax cuts Bush put in place was not enough to make the economy good. Just as Mitt's proposals will not help the economy.

Bush failed to ask his boys to pay for the needless war in Iraq. So the debt increased.
You act as if the republicans cut spending. This is just not factual.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25941 Oct 30, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Make sure you are clear Mike. The house and senate of Mass was all democrat with Romney being the only repub. Romney veto'd quite a bit from the left with them only to override his veto.
That is how well it is working in Doucheachusetts.
Yes, the congress overrode his vetos, because Mitt refused to make compromises. Why? He is black and white and refuses to acknowledge the grey.
My point stands, Mitt did not work with the democrats in Massachusetts. So why would you believe he would now?
He refuses to compromise on tax cuts and spending cuts. So just what do you think is left to compromise on?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25942 Oct 30, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Make sure you are clear Mike. The house and senate of Mass was all democrat with Romney being the only repub. Romney veto'd quite a bit from the left with them only to override his veto.
That is how well it is working in Doucheachusetts.
"Doucheachusetts"? Grow up.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25943 Oct 30, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
And as with any dynamic situation, strategy and tactics change to meet the needs. You do know we won the Iraq war, right?
The needs were laid out by the experts,and Bush felt he knew better than they. Clearly the experts were correct, and Bush was not.

Not sure if I would call Iraq a win. Just what was won? What did we achieve for the deaths of four thousand Americans and a trillion dollars?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#25944 Oct 30, 2012
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with Bacon, there would be one less scumbag allowed to breath on the taxpayer's dime! As far as my opinion on abortion, that's another topic completely.
So you refuse to answer the question on abortion? I do not foresee your wish of rapists being put to death. And in case you did not know, putting someone on death row costs tax payers more than locking someone up for life.
And from what I hear,someone who is locked up for raping a child, will get plenty of Karma effects in prison.

Now why do you refuse to answer to the abortion question? Would you insist your child bear the child of a rapist? Would that be gods gift in your view?

These are very relative political questions, as Paul Ryan is of the opinion that your daughter should be forced to have that child by the government. Do you agree with Paul Ryan? Do you agree the government should force your child to do what it feels is gods gift?

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
dont trust trump 3 hr Ivory Snow 6
Watch the heat 20 hr TIME 1
Unchecked apartment building. Mon moplus 1
Hidden Fees Mon Lama 2
Are All Yankee's Jerks or do the just ACT that ... (Jul '09) Sun anyone 306
Cepeda Brunson Jul 24 anonymous 7
News N.C. Hit With Lawsuit Over Anti-LGBT Law Jul 23 WasteWater 5

Charlotte Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Charlotte Mortgages