“Anasasis Xenophontis.”

Since: Dec 08

over there.

#29181 Nov 27, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare, food stamps, welfare. Pick one.
your so fking stupid I'm about to look this up. How the hell can you say that democrats are the only ones that receive these things? Drive to marion take a good long look at the lowerclass of that county, whiich are 99 percent white trash republican, and tell me whose the majority. Poor/rich republicans revieve more entitlements than anyone based on my personal experience alone. I know way more rich democrats than I do republicans and I'm in a red state. Spin that one corks.
NOT QUITE HERE

New York, NY

#29182 Nov 27, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
Mike"debating"and or"argueing" with you never accomplishes anything but always leaves me feeling like all that has been done is to harden opinions and attitudes.In other words,make things worse.Things change, people change.Responding to you further would be fruitless, only serve to inflame emotions.I'll bet you can't wait to post a nice sarcastic counterpoint Michael Duquette.Don't waste your time.Our communication is at an end.
And by the way Michael Duquette, the guy in this photo must have really pissed off some psychopath on Topix. You've been doing that a lot lately haven't you Mike? I'm kind of feeling a little crazy Mike. Maybe you better watch your BACK!

www.everwonder.com/david/worldofdeath/acciden...

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29183 Nov 27, 2012
sevenSecrets wrote:
<quoted text>your so fking stupid I'm about to look this up. How the hell can you say that democrats are the only ones that receive these things? Drive to marion take a good long look at the lowerclass of that county, whiich are 99 percent white trash republican, and tell me whose the majority. Poor/rich republicans revieve more entitlements than anyone based on my personal experience alone. I know way more rich democrats than I do republicans and I'm in a red state. Spin that one corks.
Good, tax your rich democrat friends. Not all democrats take entitlments, but all who take entitlements are democrat.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#29184 Nov 27, 2012
Correct. Don't hold you breath. I didn't see one of them or anyone else helping me after Hugo and my place was just as bad.
I believe in letting people help themselves. I just do not see giving royalty status to the rich by allowing them to pay a lower tax rate than I pay.
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Still don't see you on ny or nj
TSF

Kenly, NC

#29185 Nov 27, 2012
You are so FOS. I hear pods of fat republikans bitching every day about socialism and half of them are are "on the draw" whether it would be social security, disability , veterans benefits, food stamps, unemployment, medicare, medicaid , reinvestment tax incentives, loopholes, subsidies, or prescription drug benefits. To a stupid a$$ed republikan, its only socalism when someone beside them get benefits.
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, tax your rich democrat friends. Not all democrats take entitlments, but all who take entitlements are democrat.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29186 Nov 27, 2012
TSF wrote:
<quoted text>Correct. Don't hold you breath. I didn't see one of them or anyone else helping me after Hugo and my place was just as bad.
I believe in letting people help themselves. I just do not see giving royalty status to the rich by allowing them to pay a lower tax rate than I pay.
Make more money and you could pay those same rates.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29187 Nov 27, 2012
TSF wrote:
<quoted text>You are so FOS. I hear pods of fat republikans bitching every day about socialism and half of them are are "on the draw" whether it would be social security, disability , veterans benefits, food stamps, unemployment, medicare, medicaid , reinvestment tax incentives, loopholes, subsidies, or prescription drug benefits. To a stupid a$$ed republikan, its only socalism when someone beside them get benefits.
And you're a self made millionaire?

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29188 Nov 27, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it is personal information. Topix has rules. It does not say if the information is available to the public through snooping, it is ok to post it. The point of the Topix rule is to keep people from stalking. You are on the line of a stalker. Not to mention this is the legal definition of slander, as it is not even true, because it is not me, but someone with a 'similar' name. My name is not Thomas.
And it just really shows you cannot handle the heat of debate, so you resort to personal attacks. That is in low form.
You might wish to consult a lawyer.
You subject yourself to your own punishment when you put your own personal info on the Internet. IE facebook, myspace, twitter are just a few. Secondly, the link I posted is a matter of public record laws and rules, as maintained by the state of North Carolina Department of Corrections. Don't like the law or rules, move. Moreover, as I told you before, I study my adversaries. I research. Part of my job is doing backgrounds on people. I use all available legal means, including the Internet, to gather "intelligence" on someone, friend or foe. It helps when making decisions on whether or not, they are someone the firm wants to do business with or if it is someone they would rather avoid. Since Topix doesn't charge a fee, and I pay for my internet bill, I will continue to post in manner that suits me. Don't like be subject to persecution or ridicule for YOU putting YOUR personal info on the web, don't post it. All I did was let technology work for me.

Now, had I posted pedigree info, like SSN, phone numbers, addresses etc, then you and Topix would be well within your means to whine and cry.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#29189 Nov 27, 2012
Your self admitted voyeurism certainly fits the description of a staker.
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
You subject yourself to your own punishment when you put your own personal info on the Internet. IE facebook, myspace, twitter are just a few. Secondly, the link I posted is a matter of public record laws and rules, as maintained by the state of North Carolina Department of Corrections. Don't like the law or rules, move. Moreover, as I told you before, I study my adversaries. I research. Part of my job is doing backgrounds on people. I use all available legal means, including the Internet, to gather "intelligence" on someone, friend or foe. It helps when making decisions on whether or not, they are someone the firm wants to do business with or if it is someone they would rather avoid. Since Topix doesn't charge a fee, and I pay for my internet bill, I will continue to post in manner that suits me. Don't like be subject to persecution or ridicule for YOU putting YOUR personal info on the web, don't post it. All I did was let technology work for me.
Now, had I posted pedigree info, like SSN, phone numbers, addresses etc, then you and Topix would be well within your means to whine and cry.
NOT QUITE HERE

Houston, TX

#29190 Nov 27, 2012
Mike that last poster was one of the local jerks.It wasn't me.I don't do violence to other people.Just myself.....since the punk is hiding behind"not quite here"my guess is the little Bitch doesn't have enough guts to bother you for real.Making threats on Topix is bad enough...using my moniker just makes it worse.
NOT QUITE HERE

Houston, TX

#29191 Nov 27, 2012
Mike we have three fake posts in my name thus far.GUESS someone wants to kill two birds with one stone.Mike in all the time I've been on Topix I've never posted a"link".Period.The dirty little coward who did this vile crap is too scared to do it on his own.
WACO 1909

Houston, TX

#29192 Nov 27, 2012
Well Mike these scum on Topix can have it.You can contact me if you like.
WACO 1909

Houston, TX

#29193 Nov 27, 2012
Silvercoast one final thing. Its not necessary to take everything to the"MAX".That's....T HE TRUTH!

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29194 Nov 27, 2012
TSF wrote:
Your self admitted voyeurism certainly fits the description of a staker.
<quoted text>
Once again and as usual, you're wrong.

Check out NC Generl Statutes.

14&#8209;277.3.&#65533 ; Stalking.

(a)&#65533;&#65533; &#65533;&#65533;&# 65533;&#65533; Offense. &#65533; A person commits the offense of stalking if the person willfully on more than one occasion follows or is in the presence of, or otherwise harasses, another person without legal purpose and with the intent to do any of the following:

(1)&#65533;&#65533; &#65533;&#65533;&# 65533;&#65533; Place that person in reasonable fear either for the person's safety or the safety of the person's immediate family or close personal associates.

(2)&#65533;&#65533; &#65533;&#65533;&# 65533;&#65533; Cause that person to suffer substantial emotional distress by placing that person in fear of death, bodily injury, or continued harassment, and that in fact causes that person substantial emotional distress.

(b)&#65533;&#65533; &#65533;&#65533;&# 65533;&#65533; Classification. &#65533; A violation of this section is a Class A1 misdemeanor. A person convicted of a Class A1 misdemeanor under this section, who is sentenced to a community punishment, shall be placed on supervised probation in addition to any other punishment imposed by the court. A person who commits the offense of stalking when there is a court order in effect prohibiting similar behavior by that person is guilty of a Class H felony. A person who commits the offense of stalking after having been previously convicted of a stalking offense is guilty of a Class F felony.

(c)&#65533;&#65533; &#65533;&#65533;&# 65533;&#65533; Definition. &#65533; For the purposes of this section, the term "harasses" or "harassment" means knowing conduct, including written or printed communication or transmission, telephone or cellular or other wireless telephonic communication, facsimile transmission, pager messages or transmissions, answering machine or voice mail messages or transmissions, and electronic mail messages or other computerized or electronic transmissions, directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and that serves no legitimate purpose.(1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 804, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 173; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1997&#8209;306, s. 1; 2001&#8209;518, s. 1; 2003&#8209;181, s. 1.)

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29195 Nov 27, 2012
TSF wrote:
Your self admitted voyeurism certainly fits the description of a staker.
<quoted text>
And it does not fall underneath the cyberstalking umbrella...

North Carolina
Last updated: September 4, 2011

S 14-196.3
Cyberstalking

The following definitions apply in this section:
Electronic communication.- Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature, transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, computer, electromagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system.
Electronic mail.- The transmission of information or communication by the use of the Internet, a computer, a facsimile machine, a pager, a cellular telephone, a video recorder, or other electronic means sent to a person identified by a unique address or address number and received by that person.
It is unlawful for a person to:
Use in electronic mail or electronic communication any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person.
Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing, or embarrassing any person.
Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another and to knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct, or criminal conduct of the person electronically mailed or of any member of the person's family or household with the intent to abuse, annoy, threaten, terrify, harass, or embarrass.
Knowingly permit an electronic communication device under the person's control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section.
Any offense under this section committed by the use of electronic mail or electronic communication may be deemed to have been committed where the electronic mail or electronic communication was originally sent, originally received in this State, or first viewed by any person in this State.
Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
This section does not apply to any peaceable, nonviolent, or nonthreatening activity intended to express political views or to provide lawful information to others. This section shall not be construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity, including speech, protest, or assembly.(2000-125, s. 1; 2000-140, s. 91.)
Gunter

Hamburg, Germany

#29197 Nov 27, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
<quoted text>And by the way Michael Duquette, the guy in this photo must have really pissed off some psychopath on Topix. You've been doing that a lot lately haven't you Mike? I'm kind of feeling a little crazy Mike. Maybe you better watch your BACK!
www.everwonder.com/david/worldofdeath/acciden...
This is not a good thing to promote anywhere. If you can't resolve ineffectual debates then cease the agenda. You can't debate a topic with no substance. Maybe you need to debate your problem with a psychiatrist.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#29198 Nov 27, 2012
Silver, threatening the over throw of the US government is a crime. So is stalking. Maybe you should expedite you move while you still have the opportunity.
Gunter

Hamburg, Germany

#29199 Nov 27, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you avoiding me Mike? Can't debate the subject with me? It's not worth losing your HEAD over or is it? I'm game!lol
What in the world is wrong with you? We all know Mikey is an idiot. Don't put yourself on his level. This is what he wants you to do. Do not respond to his meaningless comments. The scheisskopf is not worth adding to your head collection.
WACO 1909

Houston, TX

#29200 Nov 27, 2012
I thought it was you."Gunter".
Gunter

Lumberton, NC

#29201 Nov 27, 2012
WACO 1909 wrote:
I thought it was you."Gunter".
Absolutely not. This is total nonsense.

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
Where Did the Devil Come From? (May '08) 4 hr ste 403
Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats ... (Apr '12) 8 hr Brian_G 1,900
patrick brehm arrested and charged Thu medmel8556 1
Biogel Injections (Feb '10) Thu Currently Queen 139
Black women don't find white men attractive. (Jul '10) Thu force me 36
Cherry Crush Dec 17 Cherry Dreams 1
why do i only see darkness in light? Dec 17 Displaced 2
Charlotte Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Charlotte People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Charlotte News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Charlotte

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:56 am PST

NFL 9:56AM
Cam Newton (back) probable for Panthers vs. Browns
NBC Sports 9:56 AM
Panthers list Cam Newton as probable for Sunday
NFL10:25 AM
Injury roundup: Julio Jones questionable against Saints
NBC Sports10:31 AM
Coach: 'Very confident' Newton starts vs. Browns - NBC Sports
ESPN11:21 AM
Rivera 'confident' Newton will start Sunday