Comments
3,161 - 3,180 of 52,276 Comments Last updated 24 min ago

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3387
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you define narcissist?
Still can't respond to this post, huh? Beginning to think you're resembling the "Other Bill", he/she could only spout off BS and be clueless, too...

----------
"The last time we had a Republican President he absolutely and utterly destroyed the economy of the United States of America.
Wall Street fell apart, millions and millions of Americans were unemployed and homeless"

So Barney Frank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc. get a free pass? Typical uneducated comment. You know enough to be dangerous.

"Then the Republican Party, right after destroying the country, insulted Americans by putting up the most ridiculous and laughable candidates this country has ever seen. Then they did it again the next election."

+1 Fair points. But, IF you TRULY believe running someone that had no previous experience running anything was a better choice, you're in for quite a debate. BTW, how did that work out for ya?

BTW, McCain was not a good choice, but I don't recall anyone else that would have been acceptable. Romney was not my first choice, nor my second.

"And you REALLY want to complain about the guy who's done a great job getting us back on track?"

LMAO big time. A "great job"? Seriously? Are you paying attention to what's been going on, or are you so anti-Republican that you're missing things (too many to list)? What EXACTLY has he done? Do you know the last time we had a budget? Do you know what the country's debt is and how long it will take to pay down or get to a reasonable level?

"In fact, such a great job that America chose to re-elect him again?"

The takers now outnumber the makers. Santa Claus has shown up early. The clueless outnumber those that understand what's happening. People want to be a socialist country. Around half the country doesn't pay federal income tax. The liberal goal appears to be to have 50.1% of those eligible to vote on welfare.

----------

You would be fun to watch in court:

Lawyer: Mr. Chickenburger: What time is it?

Chickenburger: Thursday!

Lawyer: No, what time is it?

Chickenburger: Tomatoes!

Makes about as much sense...

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3388
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
By "YOU LIBS" you of course mean your friends and neighbors and fellow townsfolk that you mingle with every day, don't you?
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/attachments/co...
I have four close friends who are democrats. They know EXACTLY how I feel about Obama and his manipulating narcissism. I have a lot of friends and the rest of them are openly concervative. I prefer to hang around with like minded people. My democrat friends and I don't talk politics. The funny thing is, though, they are complaining about how their insurance costs have gone up and they complain IN FRONT OF ME! I know their checks are lower because I know what they did for a living. They are all retired. Actually, they make wise cracks about the sorry state of things regularly. As far as my mingling with libs, I know I do. As long as they don't run their koolaid drinking delusional junk on me, I'm fine with it. BTW, your whole guilt trip crap makes me laugh.(Reference your post.)

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3389
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
This spending can't be supported. Taxes ARE going up for the MIDDLE CLASS. Paychecks are already smaller. No one seems to know WHAT ALL is covered in Obamacare(remember Pelosi's famous line? She represents your party well.), but how will it be funded? Immigration continues to be a major problem. So far, nothing is being done about that. Umemployment hasn't budged according to the jobs report that came out last week. Housing? Some houses are finally selling but at what price? Certainly not at their former value. This out of control spending just simply can't continue. Let's see if Obama's plan doesn't add ONE DIME to the current debt. Remember: NOT ONE DIME.
When is it going to happen? Um....NOW?
BTW, I guess you have appointed yourself the Topix monitor in that you are telling people what they can and can't post. You must work for the government.
At a doc appt. this afternoon, while in the waiting room, I overheard two well dressed ladies (they may have been sales reps) discussing taxes and the $16.5 TRILLION deficit. One of them brought up an interesting point that I have not researched, but it very well may be true:

The federal government took in more revenue last year than any prior year. Yet, the deficit grew.

IF that's true, how can anyone (particularly Pelosi AND the clueless and uneducated) think we DON'T have a spending problem? There's not enough tax revenue to cover what we have, yet people want more...

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3390
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
The libs want more government and more spending. The takers now outnumber the makers. Maybe it will change when we hit rock bottom...
It won't change. Rock bottom will mean nothing to them. Listen.....they can't see the OBVIOUS personality defect in Obama. And it is BLANTANTLY obvious. Just don't think they'll be fazed. At any rate, they'll NEVER admit to a mistake. You can take THAT to the bank.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3391
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
+1 Fair points. But, IF you TRULY believe running someone that had no previous experience running anything was a better choice, you're in for quite a debate. BTW, how did that work out for ya?
BTW, McCain was not a good choice, but I don't recall anyone else that would have been acceptable. Romney was not my first choice, nor my second.
"And you REALLY want to complain about the guy who's done a great job getting us back on track?"
LMAO big time. A "great job"? Seriously? Are you paying attention to what's been going on, or are you so anti-Republican that you're missing things (too many to list)? What EXACTLY has he done? Do you know the last time we had a budget? Do you know what the country's debt is and how long it will take to pay down or get to a reasonable level?
"In fact, such a great job that America chose to re-elect him again?"
The takers now outnumber the makers. Santa Claus has shown up early. The clueless outnumber those that understand what's happening. People want to be a socialist country. Around half the country doesn't pay federal income tax. The liberal goal appears to be to have 50.1% of those eligible to vote on welfare.
----------
You would be fun to watch in court:
Lawyer: Mr. Chickenburger: What time is it?
Chickenburger: Thursday!
Lawyer: No, what time is it?
Chickenburger: Tomatoes!
Makes about as much sense...
Ahh... the rest of this is just too much drivel to respond to. Typical Makers/Takers argument. Yawn. Typical "Lets pretend we're COMPLETELY BLIND to the Massive Huge OVERWHELMING contribution to the deficit made the Republican Policy, Tax Cuts, and Two Unfunded Wars Just to Make Daddy and the Defense Contractors Happy. Yawn.

You even pulled out the pathetic Neil Boortz Santa Claus argument.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3392
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

But this part is worth noting.
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
So Barney Frank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc. get a free pass? Typical uneducated comment. You know enough to be dangerous.
As I just responded to you in another thread -

The Financial Services Moderation Act was authored by Phill Graham , of all things - wait for it - a Texas Republican. A Republican from Iowa introduced it to the House. They did so under pressure from .... wait for it!... Big Banking -(who woulda guessed Republicans doing the will of Big Banking?).

Then there was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, brought into legislation by .... wait for it.... Phil Graham - A Texas Republican doing the will of his big-money players who pulled his strings.

At that time there were both House and Senate Republican majorities.

Wall Street Deregulation was the result of Texas Republicans and Big Banking. Fact.

You DON'T know enough to be dangerous.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3393
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
At a doc appt. this afternoon, while in the waiting room, I overheard ......
Were they able to extract your head from your butt?
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3394
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>Ahh... the rest of this is just too much drivel to respond to. Typical Makers/Takers argument. Yawn. Typical "Lets pretend we're COMPLETELY BLIND to the Massive Huge OVERWHELMING contribution to the deficit made the Republican Policy, Tax Cuts, and Two Unfunded Wars Just to Make Daddy and the Defense Contractors Happy. Yawn.

You even pulled out the pathetic Neil Boortz Santa Claus argument.
Every Republican president since Ronnie Ray-Gun has added trillions to the national debt.

Ask these Right Wingers finally identify a single Republican president - who offered a balanced budget - or who didn't raise the national debt by trillions and trillions.

Then listen to the silence.

Can anyone seriously question that President Cheney - er - Bush - in eight years nearly destroyed not just America but most, if not all the industrialized world.

Thanks Bush/Cheney for the unfounded tax cuts for the rich;
The destruction of the American economy;
3,000 dead Americans under the WTC;
The destruction of the national banking system;
Three wars we never paid for;
The shredding of the Constitution; and
The creation of the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the richest people on Earth.

Yep- we can trust Republicans - their record is so spotless.
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3395
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

ChicknButt wrote:
But this part is worth noting.

As I just responded to you in another thread -

The Financial Services Moderation Act was authored by Phill Graham , of all things - wait for it - a Texas Republican. A Republican from Iowa introduced it to the House. They did so under pressure from .... wait for it!... Big Banking -(who woulda guessed Republicans doing the will of Big Banking?).

Then there was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, brought into legislation by .... wait for it.... Phil Graham - A Texas Republican doing the will of his big-money players who pulled his strings.

At that time there were both House and Senate Republican majorities.

Wall Street Deregulation was the result of Texas Republicans and Big Banking. Fact.

You DON'T know enough to be dangerous.
Great post.
jeb stuart

Baxley, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3396
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
It's quite interesting that all these erudite individuals in here (unregistered, of course) can't answer simple questions that would show they don't know what they're talking about. You're using the racism word quite freely, I'm wondering if you really know what it means. Probably not, but that's not surprising.
Of all the times I've seen racism or racist claims in these types of posts, I'm thinking there is only one post that was blatantly racist, but it was obviously someone trying to stir things up.
BTW, you might want to research the difference between racism and bigotry.
great point bill! would you please explain the diff? i am not kiddin' on this one. i agree that there is a big diff,and that the two originate from different areas(sorta),but i would be very intrested in your explanation(but please,try to keep it to 4000 words or less)afterwards,if i disagree,i may even offer mine.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3397
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Every Republican president since Ronnie Ray-Gun has added trillions to the national debt.
Ask these Right Wingers finally identify a single Republican president - who offered a balanced budget - or who didn't raise the national debt by trillions and trillions.
Then listen to the silence.
Can anyone seriously question that President Cheney - er - Bush - in eight years nearly destroyed not just America but most, if not all the industrialized world.
Thanks Bush/Cheney for the unfounded tax cuts for the rich;
The destruction of the American economy;
3,000 dead Americans under the WTC;
The destruction of the national banking system;
Three wars we never paid for;
The shredding of the Constitution; and
The creation of the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the richest people on Earth.
Yep- we can trust Republicans - their record is so spotless.
Don't forget about the great Katrina response!
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3398
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I responded anyway.

You will need to do your own research. I've explained it on Topix more than once, I do not feel the need to do it again. Kinda like addressing tax items, not worth the effort and too many people argue the facts.

I do promise, though, that the rationale will make some sense, as it's a "positive influence" by those that reduced it from prior rates...

Consider this idea: if you were picking fruit in someone's orchard and were told you could keep as much fruit as you wanted (the orchard you're in is limitless) except that you had to pay a 15% fee (of what you picked), would you work harder and longer than if that 15% fee was (say) 40%? You probably will do it anyway to keep 60%, but I'm expecting the effort would be greater if you were to keep 85%...Perhaps you'd invest in some machinery to help you, some additional help, etc....
Another Right Wing economic fairy tale - taxes prevent investment.

Taxes never have, and never will, prevent investment.

Let's consider this:

Daddy left you $800 Million when he left this stressful life.

You can invest that $800 Million and receive $50 Million a year after taxes,
or
you can invest that $800 Million and receive $40 Million a year after taxes,
or
You can invest that $800 Million and receive $30 Million a year after taxes,
or
you can put $800 Million in plastic PVC pipe and bury it in the back yard, and receive $0.

Are you gonna say - no thanks - I don't want $50 Million, or $30 Million, or $30 Million this year in income ?

Are you gonna say - No Sir, I'll pass up $30 Million and take $0 instead.

The investor obviously invests regardless of the tax rate he'll pay on the income.

As Warren Buffer said, the tax rate never, ever, prevents any investor from investing because some income is always better than no income.

There are 8 Billion reasons to believe Warren Buffet knows what he's talking about.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3399
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
At a doc appt. this afternoon, while in the waiting room, I overheard two well dressed ladies (they may have been sales reps) discussing taxes and the $16.5 TRILLION deficit. One of them brought up an interesting point that I have not researched, but it very well may be true:
The federal government took in more revenue last year than any prior year. Yet, the deficit grew.
IF that's true, how can anyone (particularly Pelosi AND the clueless and uneducated) think we DON'T have a spending problem? There's not enough tax revenue to cover what we have, yet people want more...
According to the Brookings Institute estimate for 2012, those women are correct. When dollars have been adjusted to make them comparable, 2012 will set a record of $2.089 trillion brought in, but will have spent $3.212 trillion. Looking at the last ten years, from 2002-2008, the federal govt spent on average $304 billion more than it brought in, averaging a negative 2.47% of GDP. Since Obama has been in office (2009-2012), the govt has spent on average $1,169 billion more than it has brought in, averaging 9.05% of GDP. And Pelosi says we don't have a spending problem? Her idiocy is truly stunning.
uninformed opinion

Warrior, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3400
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Were they able to extract your head from your butt?
rumor is ur wifey gave him a LONG physical. cough, cough.
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3401
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>According to the Brookings Institute estimate for 2012, those women are correct. When dollars have been adjusted to make them comparable, 2012 will set a record of $2.089 trillion brought in, but will have spent $3.212 trillion. Looking at the last ten years, from 2002-2008, the federal govt spent on average $304 billion more than it brought in, averaging a negative 2.47% of GDP. Since Obama has been in office (2009-2012), the govt has spent on average $1,169 billion more than it has brought in, averaging 9.05% of GDP. And Pelosi says we don't have a spending problem? Her idiocy is truly stunning.
Agreed that we have a spending problem.

It's called:

- the War Department,
- Iraq,
- Pakistan,
- Afghanistan,
- Corporate welfare, and
- Farm subsidies.

Thanks Goodness the left and the middle and the right can agree on something.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3402
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In 2002 the US population was 287,000,000. In 2012 it was 313,000,000. A difference of 9.059%. When you add per-capita influences into the equation the argument doesn't flow in the direction you want it to anymore.

Your idiocy is truly stunning. You'll fall for any bit of propaganda floating around. Use your brains people. Don't believe everything you hear.
uninformed opinion

Warrior, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3403
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

uninformed opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
rumor is ur wifey gave him a LONG physical. cough, cough.
a detailed oral exam 2.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3404
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

uninformed opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
a detailed oral exam 2.
Really? You're quoting yourself so you can double-down on a juvenile barely coherent and completely unfunny and unimaginative insult that only an inbred redneck from Moody Alabama would come up with?

By the way, did you hear about the Alabama Governors mansion burning down?

It almost took out the whole trailer park.
jeb stuart

Baxley, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3405
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

it is my very humble opinion that wifes,girlrfiends,and family members should be left out of these discussions.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3406
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Right Wing economic fairy tale - taxes prevent investment.
Taxes never have, and never will, prevent investment.
Let's consider this:
Daddy left you $800 Million when he left this stressful life.
You can invest that $800 Million and receive $50 Million a year after taxes,
or
you can invest that $800 Million and receive $40 Million a year after taxes,
or
You can invest that $800 Million and receive $30 Million a year after taxes,
or
you can put $800 Million in plastic PVC pipe and bury it in the back yard, and receive $0.
Are you gonna say - no thanks - I don't want $50 Million, or $30 Million, or $30 Million this year in income ?
Are you gonna say - No Sir, I'll pass up $30 Million and take $0 instead.
The investor obviously invests regardless of the tax rate he'll pay on the income.
As Warren Buffer said, the tax rate never, ever, prevents any investor from investing because some income is always better than no income.
There are 8 Billion reasons to believe Warren Buffet knows what he's talking about.
Besides your ridiculous example involving more money than your average investor will ever see, what you are completely ignoring is that with "investment" comes "risk". With your average investment - be it in the stock market or lending money to an entrepreneur to start a business or lending money to a friend there is no GUARANTEE that you will get ANY of your money back, much less make a profit. That is one of the main reasons that the capital gains rate is lower than the tax rate on income, it is an acknowledgement of and incentive to engage in the RISK.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Help in Woodbine!!!!!! Thu Abby 6
Does anyone know Jason Carlin (Aug '13) Aug 16 marcuswade 5
Infowars.com banned from Facebook Aug 15 Jeb 1
Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr. (May '10) Aug 13 Get Over It 1,181
Did Morenos court order shut down Kingsland and... Aug 3 kazoo 3
Who runs the landscape shop in Woodbine? (Aug '08) Jul 31 magnola 24
What happened to Kim Devore Jul 22 Rumor 3

Search the Brunswick Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Brunswick Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Brunswick People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Brunswick News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brunswick
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••