Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

[Pro-American]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously, your plan did not work. You should have gone with ours.

Your plan worked this time, hope you don't see the repercussions when you reach the pearly gates!:)

[Makin bacon]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
And now, the Republican value system is so warped that one legislture wants children of rape victims to be born for the only purpose being that they can get the DNA of the child to convict the father of rape. This is just TOO Republican to even think about. Think that this child may be on (God help us) Welfare with dad put away for life?

Arnold, what does this have to do with my post you're responding to?

Since we're veering off topic, what do you think about the post TSF posted earlier about the school children and my post back to him about it?

[Makin bacon]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
I would rather take the crap shoot with Obama than with Romney. So, the plan has already worked from my point of view. You can watch the results from a foreign country, so, no need for you to worry.

Make no mistake, I don't worry.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Pro-American wrote:

<quoted text>Who cares!?!

You know you love sparing with him.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, what does this have to do with my post you're responding to?
Since we're veering off topic, what do you think about the post TSF posted earlier about the school children and my post back to him about it?

It is new subject matter. Several topics can go on at the same time. We are capable of that, aren't we? I missed that post to TSF. Sorry

[Allen]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Allen, we'll have to agree to disagree. Now you say you have a drink in your home, nothing wrong with that and the other night you said when you go to a bar and start drinking you like to have a cigarette. Of the latter of the two, you HAVE to know, that when maybe not you, but some people that go out for a night of drinking and don't designate a driver, there is intent the minute they get in the car turn the key and could possibly kill someone 2 miles down the road. Alcohol has the ability to impair the thought process and ability to make sound judgment. Therefore, there is intent IMO when a person drinks and does not get a designated driver knowing full well his body reflexes and judgment could be impaired and result in the death of another. For instance, if my daughter were killed in an automobile accident by someone that over corrected, hit her head on and killed her, that I could understand because it was an accident. However, if my daughter was killed by a drunk driver, because being drunk and driving is no accident, it's intentional from that first drink and making the decision to drive, that I could never accept because it could have been avoided.
Let's get back to the football players or anyone with an ego regarding rape, he could just say she said "no" but meant "yes" or we were fooling around and whoopsy daisy penetration just happened there was no intent. It's always about semantics and in the end EVERYONE is sorry, yada, yada yada.

I believe (know) what I said was,"I don't go to bars anymore because it is hard to sit there and have "A" drink while trying to curb the urge for a cigarette." Go back and read it again.

[waco1909]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, what does this have to do with my post you're responding to?
Since we're veering off topic, what do you think about the post TSF posted earlier about the school children and my post back to him about it?

I had an absentee drunk father.My mom raised us, working two jobs.I don't have a damn bit of sympathy for someone who feels sorry for themselves, because their father was gone.MINE WAS, I made it.Quit blaming the world for your problems, and do your best.

[waco1909]

Bacon, I can only respond to TSF, as I didn't see your response, and I can't go back on this phone to find it.I know you were addressing Arnold, but the situation was similar to mine, so I put my two cents in.

[TSF]

Yes 4 months ago the pres said that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act. I still claim he said it was a terrorist act as you are also claiming. As you pointed out, we are both saying the same thing. Being republikan, what you just do not seem to understand is that if it was a terrorist act, then by definition it had to have been done by terrorists.
Another thing escaping the limited republikan mentality is that there were riots in EGYPT (a different country) during the same time as the Benghazi attack. Those rioters were angry about the Hollywood film slamming Islam.
Just FYI, Libya and Egypt are two different countries

Pro-American wrote:

<quoted text>There is a reason I'm playing semantics with you. If WE ALL REMEMBER back to late Sept/early Oct (around page 1150 or so of this thread) of last year, we,(myself, Bacon, TEW, and others), claimed The Ruler and his administration blamed the attacks in Benghazi on a YouTube video. It was at least Mike for sure, and possibly you too, that claimed the Ruler said the very next day that it was "an act of terror." We claimed he never said that terrorist were responsible for the attacks to which your side said no, he said it was an "act of terror." It was ok for your side to play semantics 4 months ago but how dare we try the same play now. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Your side claimed then it wasn't the same thing and now you're claiming it is? Now in Mike's world, and probably yours too, this all falls into that "grey area" but in my world it's called a contradiction!
There is a reason the symbol of the Republican Party is an elephant, they have good memories.
There is also a reason the symbol of the Commucrat Party is a Jackass, no explanation needed.

[Makin bacon]

Allen wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe (know) what I said was,"I don't go to bars anymore because it is hard to sit there and have "A" drink while trying to curb the urge for a cigarette." Go back and read it again.

Allen, I don't care to go back, if you say it was in the past, it was in the past, my bad. Either way you had "A" drink, some people have "MANY" drinks and drive and kill people. I still think the intent is there whether you have "A" drink or "MANY" to get in the car and drive after doing so. Unfortunately "MANY" people think they can drive after "MANY" drinks, just as you could after "A" drink. I'm aware the law allows for some alcohol consumption and being able to operate a vehicle or they wouldn't have set a limit on what is legal or what is considered illegal to drive.

[Allen]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, Allen that comment inspired a song from this here darkie.
(Sung to Sam Cooke's song "Chain Gang")
"That's the sound of Silver's kids, working on his Chain-ge gang.
(Repeat)
All day long they work so hard with no point of view,
Bringing his liquor and coke to him is what they all do.
But,they're tax deductions in his miserable life,
And he also gets one for Katie, his black wife"
Oh don't you know....That's the sound of Silver's kids..........
LOL...Silver in a Sam Cooke song.....priceless

Rof & lmao. Good Lord, I never even thought of that. Lol. I love Sam Cooke. All those old Darkie's were priceless.

[TSF]

I simply copied what a teacher in a predominately black school had written. The rest of the article(which is long) points out that learning is the reponsibility of students and parents. That the failure to learn is not a teacher failure but a student and parent failue.
There are are probably more failing white sudents living in single parent homes than failing black children living in single parent homes simply as a result of the fact that there are consideraby more white chldren and white families. So blaming white people for the failure of black children is certaily unreasonable if you consider the number of failures. Looking at percentage of failues by race gives a higher value for the blacks, which tempts simpletons to attribute that higher percentage ony to racial bias. The problem is infinitely more complex than that. However, there are no arguments that I am aware of that claim children fom single parent out perform other students---they dont and the difference is glaring, regardless of race. And there are obviousy exceptions for all generalizations like this one.

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
TSF, that's a very nice story; however, I'm at a loss how to respond. Are you saying black children are at a greater risk to fail because there's no father in the home? if so, as I, you'll be labeled a racist. I'm going to post a link that shows the statistics that even this mathematically challenged Republican can understand and again, I'll be labeled a racist for pointing out the unusually high % for whatever reason black children are raised in a single parent family.
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossst... #
More importantly to me, it's not about the percentage, but why are so many black children raised in single parent families and why daily are Caucasians, if this forum is a sampling of the difference in opinions, are crucified because of the failure of the black children in school?
Now I know there are plenty of families black and white where mom and dad are working to make ends meet, but surely as we all learned, there has to be time for our children and material things don't always matter, but one on one time does.

[Allen]

Whutevr wrote:

Oh, I'll take that back. Why don't we go for a drink and smoke cigarrets. You can take a jelly shot and I'll do the same.

Don't you mean jell-o? Hike back to your cave neanderthal man.

[Pro-American]

TSF wrote:

Yes 4 months ago the pres said that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act. I still claim he said it was a terrorist act as you are also claiming. As you pointed out, we are both saying the same thing. Being republikan, what you just do not seem to understand is that if it was a terrorist act, then by definition it had to have been done by terrorists.
Another thing escaping the limited republikan mentality is that there were riots in EGYPT (a different country) during the same time as the Benghazi attack. Those rioters were angry about the Hollywood film slamming Islam.
Just FYI, Libya and Egypt are two different countries
<quoted text>

You obviously didn't comprehend my post. Four months ago WE, the conservative side on this forum, claimed it WAS a terrorist attack. The liberal side of this forum said NO IT WASN'T, it was an "act of terror"....semantics...ba sically defending the Ruler because he had already declared "an end to the war on terror" thus meaning they were no more terrorist. Now today you're saying it WAS terrorist, hence the contradiction from your side. Now was it "you" that said it "wasn't" four months ago, I don't recall but I do recall it was your side, those that defend the Ruler.

Now are you claiming the State Dept got the two incidents, Egypt & Lybia, confused with one another when they made their rounds on the Sun morning shows blaming a video?

[Wow]

Allen wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't you mean jell-o? Hike back to your cave neanderthal man.

It took you that long to respond? No man here, girly/boy!

[Silvercoastcorks]

Allen wrote:

<quoted text>
I can believe your not leaving your poor little rich kiddos nada. Wouldn't want to subject them to an estate tax. Now would you? Hey Silver, you should have named your kiddos nickel, dime, quarter and fifty cent piece. Then you could have referred to them as "The Chain-ge Gang".

You didn't pay for them...why do you care?

[Allen]

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
It took you that long to respond? No man here, girly/boy!

Well are you a lesbian? I guess the name fooled you, fool. I'm a girly/girl. That's right a white woman.

[Pro-American]

TSF wrote:

I simply copied what a teacher in a predominately black school had written. The rest of the article(which is long) points out that learning is the reponsibility of students and parents. That the failure to learn is not a teacher failure but a student and parent failue.
There are are probably more failing white sudents living in single parent homes than failing black children living in single parent homes simply as a result of the fact that there are consideraby more white chldren and white families. So blaming white people for the failure of black children is certaily unreasonable if you consider the number of failures. Looking at percentage of failues by race gives a higher value for the blacks, which tempts simpletons to attribute that higher percentage ony to racial bias. The problem is infinitely more complex than that. However, there are no arguments that I am aware of that claim children fom single parent out perform other students---they dont and the difference is glaring, regardless of race. And there are obviousy exceptions for all generalizations like this one.
<quoted text>

I agree, parents involvement in their child's lives is the most important aspect, especially when concerning education, but what I got from your article was that the teachers are saying its not their fault the students aren't learning, it's the parents fault? Isn't it the teachers job to teach? Because children learn at different levels, speed, comprehension, etc..., isn't it their job to try and reach every student? New schools, free laptops, etc..., doesn't teach a child, the teacher does. I guess because I'm used to dealing with private school teachers, I'm not used to teachers passing the buck! It's safe to say this article was written by a govt school teacher!

[Mike Duquette]

Silvercoastcorks wrote:

<quoted text>
Bush didn't attack and kill over 3000 people on 9/11, terrorist did.
Only faulting Hillary like you fault bush.
The embassy had security, in tripoli. The consulate, in Benghazi, is a tad different in mission and it is the state dept responsibility to provide security for consulates.
Who was in charge of the state dept?
Hillary Clinton.
Was there no Marine Expeditionay Unit on float in the Med, was there no carrier battle group on station in the Med, not one SEAL team or Delta platoon on stand by, ready to be deployed, for when help is called for?
Perhaps your teammates are incapable of determining what is and is not a viable threat?

So our team failed to determine the threat that killed four, and your team failed to determine the threat that killed three thousand. Got it.

[Mike Duquette]

The Enemy Within wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical liberal response. Expand government by creating more jobs for the taxpayer to subsidize.

This is not what I wish for, it is what would happen if the government listened to your bitching about what grade the civil war should be taught in.

The problem is, conservatives keep asking for small government then demand things that create more government.