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

Charlotte, NC

#29339 Dec 1, 2012
Sorry! New Thread to read 2012-2013 Politidicks by Mike.
Taxpayer

Charlotte, NC

#29340 Dec 1, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I just want to know who agreed to this post enough to put a check mark on it?
I am glad that you have moved away from calling America a communist nation and are now just worried it will someday become communist. Baby steps.
You got some major issues. Now you want to know who put a check mark on a post. Get on with your sad, pathetic life.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29341 Dec 1, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>Please do what you post you're going to do. We would loose all respect for you Miley, only can you create your new thread to read simply 2012-2013 Politidicks by. Here, here!
Maybe you should learn to read carefully. I never said I was going to find a new thread, I said I 'needed' to do so. Can you see the difference? I feel conservatives often fail to understand what they read as in this case. It seems to be a trend.
Actually, I am looking, but that does not mean I will stop responding to your republican rants.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29342 Dec 1, 2012
Snore wrote:
<quoted text>Old news Bacon. That's exactly what Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Morgan, & Vanderbilt did. They paid 20 million to have Pres. Mckinley(R) elected and in their pockets to only line their pockets. They each paid 200 grand for their President that was bought literally & criminally by four crooks. And good ole Teddy R.(D) was put on as VP to keep him at bay because he was against big business and was going to put an end to it. So McKinley offered him the VP position and he took it without battin a eyelash only to eventually backfire on the 4 crooks when McKinley got assassinated. 20 grand back in 1900 equates to 20 million today. Pennies to them; 3 of the 4 were multi billionaires by todays standards but it wasn't the money honey. It was the power that kept fueling their glutony for more and more power and to keep small enterprise at bay while each of them monopolized the steel, oil, rail roads/freight industries. And all the while, didn't give a rats ass about the workers who worked in horrific and dangerous conditions. If that ain't criminal then what is besides the obvious, scum of society today. It ain't going away and to think the 2012 campaign combined costed 4-5 billion. That's another crime in it of itself. That 4-5 billion could of kept our fellow americans fed, clothed, sheltered, with money left over to educate these less fortunate people to at least put food in their mouths etc. Our Gov't today as I see it is just as corrupt as it was in the late 1800's - present.
Snore, couldn't agree more. That's why I told Mike to wake up and smell the roses. It's not like political offices just started being bought and sold the last 20 years. Goodness gracious, Joe Kennedy paid everybody and their brother to have Jack elected. You speak about it wasn't the money honey, but the power, I beg to disagree, you have to have money to get the power. Had John and Robert Kennedy not been assasinated and Ted learned to drive a little better while drunk, our country would have had 24 years of Kennedys in the WH and it would have been by payoffs.

The group you speak of is part Carnegie, Rockefeller etc all a part of the Bliderberg Group. People make lite of this group controlling not only our country's elections but other' as well, but they have the MONEY and the POWER and they do it. They practically own the world's wealth. I agree with you that our country is corrupt today as back a 100+ years ago. However, trying to ban speech by outside corportions is the least of our problems with elections, If that's the case, let's cease trade with other countries and see how well we can do by not being able to send commodities(?) made here in the U.S. just between the states. You can't tell countries our country owes money to hand over fist we'll ban your speech in our country. I think that would be like cutting your nose off to spite your face. Going back to the Bliderberg Group, old daddy Bush was in bed with the group too, so it's not just a one party group they own.

Good post Snore.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29343 Dec 1, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>You got some major issues. Now you want to know who put a check mark on a post. Get on with your sad, pathetic life.
Why would I not want to know? Are you now suppressing questions? I see quite a lot of judge-its on posts these days, but I see very few responses to my posts. It seems someone does not have the balls to put a name in front of their opinion. It seems they cannot articulate their views.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29344 Dec 1, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Deny self-independence and to warship the state.
Still waiting for evidence of your outrageous claim?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29345 Dec 1, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
I like these words.They fit.
America's social policy, with its unending bureaucratic programs to "help" the poor, the needy, the children, the disabled, the disenfranchised that benefits the authoritarian ruling class at the expense of productive citizens is the direct result of the Democrat Party adopting and implementing the old Socialist Party of America platform along with its class warfare under the now unpopular name "liberalism."
But anyone who calls socialism "socialism" will be called unhinged, deranged or simply stupid because we're all expected to use the euphemistic code word "progressivism" and pretend it isn't socialism.
You see, when you blame the democrats for all ills, I tend to think you are a republican.
Funny how when you get called out on it, you claim it is also the republicans fault. Make up your mind and stay consistent.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29346 Dec 1, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you are just fine with companies owned by foreign people being the ones who buy our government?
Yes, I am sour about it. Why are you not? No wonder your party trots out people like Mitt. Your party is bought and paid for and the members of your party are cool with that.
Mike, sorry honey, I was speaking of Old Hank aka Guam tipper and the sour grapes. The article I posted didn't have your name or picture, it was Hank. Stop personalizing everything so much and that should cut down on your whining. BTW, your party is bought and paid for too. You really need to read more. Read the post by Snore and my response, maybe between the two, you might want to read about what he posted and what I posted. Both very interesting reading.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29347 Dec 1, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you should learn to read carefully. I never said I was going to find a new thread, I said I 'needed' to do so. Can you see the difference? I feel conservatives often fail to understand what they read as in this case. It seems to be a trend.
Actually, I am looking, but that does not mean I will stop responding to your republican rants.
YOU, Mike Duquette, actually have the nerve to tell someone to READ more carefully? This coming from a man that rather someone tell him what a book is about than read it?? At least conservatives TRY to read and you use cliff or online summaries. Oh yeah buddy, you're the guy to be admonishing anyone about reading something!!!

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29348 Dec 1, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Snore, couldn't agree more. That's why I told Mike to wake up and smell the roses. It's not like political offices just started being bought and sold the last 20 years. Goodness gracious, Joe Kennedy paid everybody and their brother to have Jack elected. You speak about it wasn't the money honey, but the power, I beg to disagree, you have to have money to get the power. Had John and Robert Kennedy not been assasinated and Ted learned to drive a little better while drunk, our country would have had 24 years of Kennedys in the WH and it would have been by payoffs.
The group you speak of is part Carnegie, Rockefeller etc all a part of the Bliderberg Group. People make lite of this group controlling not only our country's elections but other' as well, but they have the MONEY and the POWER and they do it. They practically own the world's wealth. I agree with you that our country is corrupt today as back a 100+ years ago. However, trying to ban speech by outside corportions is the least of our problems with elections, If that's the case, let's cease trade with other countries and see how well we can do by not being able to send commodities(?) made here in the U.S. just between the states. You can't tell countries our country owes money to hand over fist we'll ban your speech in our country. I think that would be like cutting your nose off to spite your face. Going back to the Bliderberg Group, old daddy Bush was in bed with the group too, so it's not just a one party group they own.
Good post Snore.
My complaints about corporations having more freedom now to fund political campaigns, has nothing to do with it always being done in the past to some extent. So why assume I am ignorant of it? You jump to conclusions with zero evidence.
I am only wanting it to be harder for corporations to do so, and it sounds as if you are want to make it easier.

Thank you for admitting allowing corporations to fund political campaigns is to allow foreign people fund our political campaigns.
I see you feel America must allow none Americans do so, but do you agree they should? BTW I do not agree America 'must' do so due to debt.

I see no connection of campaign finance and trade. Can you articulate how that is related?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29349 Dec 1, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, sorry honey, I was speaking of Old Hank aka Guam tipper and the sour grapes. The article I posted didn't have your name or picture, it was Hank. Stop personalizing everything so much and that should cut down on your whining. BTW, your party is bought and paid for too. You really need to read more. Read the post by Snore and my response, maybe between the two, you might want to read about what he posted and what I posted. Both very interesting reading.
I am not "personalizing" it, I am only asking if you are for or against it.
I did read both posts. I am aware of who you responded to. Does that mean I cannot ask a question or throw out my opinion? Do you know why topix allows anyone to respond to anyone's post? Do you understand the concept of this forum? If you wish to have private conversations, this is not the place for you.

Why do you run from so many questions?
WACO 1909

United States

#29350 Dec 1, 2012
Any fool knows.....whoever has the most money....has the most influence....hello there bacon....looks like they may allow a vote on casinos in Texas.....if so......I'm taking four quarters...to the first slot machine I can reach....!!!

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29351 Dec 1, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>My complaints about corporations having more freedom now to fund political campaigns, has nothing to do with it always being done in the past to some extent. So why assume I am ignorant of it? You jump to conclusions with zero evidence.
I am only wanting it to be harder for corporations to do so, and it sounds as if you are want to make it easier.
Thank you for admitting allowing corporations to fund political campaigns is to allow foreign people fund our political campaigns.
I see you feel America must allow none Americans do so, but do you agree they should? BTW I do not agree America 'must' do so due to debt.
I see no connection of campaign finance and trade. Can you articulate how that is related?
Free expression is only free if they check with Miley the gay bar manager first. Perhaps the inconsistancy of America is why other governments are not modeling theirs after ours. Perhaps that same inconsistancy is why foreign investors are not investing into GM so they can clear what they owe from the first two rounds of "stimulus" to the American people before your president authorizes additional rounds of quantitative easing, oops sorry, stimulus.
WACO 1909

United States

#29352 Dec 1, 2012
I don't think anyone cares about your opinions on the proper usage of"forum". All you do is whine and complain.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29353 Dec 1, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I am not "personalizing" it, I am only asking if you are for or against it.
I did read both posts. I am aware of who you responded to. Does that mean I cannot ask a question or throw out my opinion? Do you know why topix allows anyone to respond to anyone's post? Do you understand the concept of this forum? If you wish to have private conversations, this is not the place for you.
Why do you run from so many questions?
They do have personal message feature? You the forum cop now too? Man of many parts Miley.
WACO 1909

United States

#29354 Dec 1, 2012
Your opinion should definitely be thrown out.
WACO 1909

United States

#29355 Dec 1, 2012
Bacon it looks like the guy doesn't approve of your politics, or you.You must be devastated...

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29357 Dec 1, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>My complaints about corporations having more freedom now to fund political campaigns, has nothing to do with it always being done in the past to some extent. So why assume I am ignorant of it? You jump to conclusions with zero evidence.
I am only wanting it to be harder for corporations to do so, and it sounds as if you are want to make it easier.
Thank you for admitting allowing corporations to fund political campaigns is to allow foreign people fund our political campaigns.
I see you feel America must allow none Americans do so, but do you agree they should? BTW I do not agree America 'must' do so due to debt.
I see no connection of campaign finance and trade. Can you articulate how that is related?
GE, do your homework and tell me how "campaign finance and trade" connect. Bet you can't or WON'T. BTW it took one second for me to think of this one.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#29358 Dec 1, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Snore, couldn't agree more. That's why I told Mike to wake up and smell the roses. It's not like political offices just started being bought and sold the last 20 years. Goodness gracious, Joe Kennedy paid everybody and their brother to have Jack elected. You speak about it wasn't the money honey, but the power, I beg to disagree, you have to have money to get the power. Had John and Robert Kennedy not been assasinated and Ted learned to drive a little better while drunk, our country would have had 24 years of Kennedys in the WH and it would have been by payoffs.
The group you speak of is part Carnegie, Rockefeller etc all a part of the Bliderberg Group. People make lite of this group controlling not only our country's elections but other' as well, but they have the MONEY and the POWER and they do it. They practically own the world's wealth. I agree with you that our country is corrupt today as back a 100+ years ago. However, trying to ban speech by outside corportions is the least of our problems with elections, If that's the case, let's cease trade with other countries and see how well we can do by not being able to send commodities(?) made here in the U.S. just between the states. You can't tell countries our country owes money to hand over fist we'll ban your speech in our country. I think that would be like cutting your nose off to spite your face. Going back to the Bliderberg Group, old daddy Bush was in bed with the group too, so it's not just a one party group they own.
Good post Snore.
The Kennedys. There is a group of people the democrats idolize and I will never understand why. Joe Kennedy made a lot of money bootlegging liquor during the Prohibition. He purposely broke the law and paid for his family's fortune with blood money.

And republicans are the assholes? Please.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29359 Dec 1, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>My complaints about corporations having more freedom now to fund political campaigns, has nothing to do with it always being done in the past to some extent. So why assume I am ignorant of it? You jump to conclusions with zero evidence.
I am only wanting it to be harder for corporations to do so, and it sounds as if you are want to make it easier.
Thank you for admitting allowing corporations to fund political campaigns is to allow foreign people fund our political campaigns.
I see you feel America must allow none Americans do so, but do you agree they should? BTW I do not agree America 'must' do so due to debt.
I see no connection of campaign finance and trade. Can you articulate how that is related?
If you would take the time to read instead of watching cable news shows you might know the answers to your questions. TSF throws them out daily, did you miss the one this morning? Corporations and other countries can and do have free speech in our country Mike, they pay for it. Wake up guy and get off the tv cable news channels. Reading is like milk, it does a body good.

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
American Idol Finalist coming to Troutman 19 hr styledo 1
Stuart Cramer High School Varsity Football Team... 19 hr Stormy Bob 2
Are Southerners Stupid or do they just sound th... (Oct '08) Fri tired of the hate 4,897
East Gaston Football (Sep '08) Thu BlueDevilEagleand... 879
Did you hear what happened at Friends? Aug 25 buzzfriend 6
Where the boy at in Charlotte ? (Dec '15) Aug 25 Fred Herbert 46
Let's See Who's A REAL Charlottean! (Jan '08) Aug 24 Fred Herbert 94

Charlotte Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Charlotte Mortgages