no obama fan

Bainbridge, GA

#2044 Jan 12, 2013
U folks r 2 stupid 2 talk 2no obama fan

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2046 Jan 13, 2013
Yikes, take a break for a few days and come back and see nothing has changed. Informed Opinion is still showing us how uninformed he/she really is by somehow equating tax breaks with deficits despite the fact that studies repeatedly show that every time tax rates are lowered, the tax revenue increases. The problem has been/is/and will continue to be spending until we get adults in positions of power in the government.

And he/she is still trying to blame the housing bust on Bush - Bush actually tried to regulate some of the out of control lending that started under Clinton with his use of the Justice Department to strong arm banks under the Community Housing Act that dated back to Carter. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were instrumental in blocking any of those regulatory attempts - and isn't
it an interesting coincidence when you look at the sweetheart loan Dodd got and the contributions they both received? Were Banks blameless - nope, but they knew the loans were bad and were trying to protect their investors by dumping those bad loans - which they never would have made if the govt would
quite trying to pretend it understands the way the real world works.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2047 Jan 13, 2013
If anyone is really serious about cleaning up our government than we have got to get a grass roots effort to demand there be an amendment setting term limits on government representatives. If they could no longer see election to the House or Senate as the first step to their own enrichment (see Harry Reid for a classic example) we might actually have votes on legislation that are based on what is perceived as good for the country, not what is good for my various supportive interest groups. Instead, once again, NY rep Jose Serrano has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment limiting the President to two terms.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#2048 Jan 13, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
Yikes, take a break for a few days and come back and see nothing has changed....
Well, you have 3 options (probably more, but work with me):

1. Continue to bang your head against the proverbial wall by debating the clueless and uneducated low information voters.
2. Quit trying to educate or understand, the clueless and uneducated just don't get it. Just read, shake your head and chuckle inside...
3. Stay away.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#2049 Jan 13, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
If anyone is really serious about cleaning up our government than we have got to get a grass roots effort to demand there be an amendment setting term limits on government representatives. If they could no longer see election to the House or Senate as the first step to their own enrichment (see Harry Reid for a classic example) we might actually have votes on legislation that are based on what is perceived as good for the country, not what is good for my various supportive interest groups. Instead, once again, NY rep Jose Serrano has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment limiting the President to two terms.
Good idea but the politicians would never go for it. Some of them have it made...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2050 Jan 13, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
Good idea but the politicians would never go for it. Some of them have it made...
Exactly the problem........sigh.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2051 Jan 13, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you have 3 options (probably more, but work with me):
1. Continue to bang your head against the proverbial wall by debating the clueless and uneducated low information voters.
2. Quit trying to educate or understand, the clueless and uneducated just don't get it. Just read, shake your head and chuckle inside...
3. Stay away.
Yeah, I have come to those same conclusions - hence the break - but sometimes I just think "oh, I'll just take a little look" and get sucked back in.

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Destin, FL

#2052 Jan 13, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I have come to those same conclusions - hence the break - but sometimes I just think "oh, I'll just take a little look" and get sucked back in.
Don't take the bait, the LWLD's methodology not only consists of taking what they can get, when they can get it; it also consists of casting as much as possible upon the water, waiting for a bite.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2053 Jan 13, 2013
General Robert E Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't take the bait, the LWLD's methodology not only consists of taking what they can get, when they can get it; it also consists of casting as much as possible upon the water, waiting for a bite.
Excellent advice.
RELENTLESS

Cadwell, GA

#2054 Jan 13, 2013
Jerry Daniels voeted Obama!
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#2055 Jan 13, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
Yikes, take a break for a few days and come back and see nothing has changed. Informed Opinion is still showing us how uninformed he/she really is by somehow equating tax breaks with deficits despite the fact that studies repeatedly show that every time tax rates are lowered, the tax revenue increases. The problem has been/is/and will continue to be spending until we get adults in positions of power in the government.

And he/she is still trying to blame the housing bust on Bush - Bush actually tried to regulate some of the out of control lending that started under Clinton with his use of the Justice Department to strong arm banks under the Community Housing Act that dated back to Carter. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were instrumental in blocking any of those regulatory attempts - and isn't
it an interesting coincidence when you look at the sweetheart loan Dodd got and the contributions they both received? Were Banks blameless - nope, but they knew the loans were bad and were trying to protect their investors by dumping those bad loans - which they never would have made if the govt would
quite trying to pretend it understands the way the real world works.
If tax breaks increase revenue, since we've cut taxes over 26 times since Reagan became president we should be floating along with a budget surplus and no debt at all.

Just another silly "Supply Side" argument made by rich people to avoid supporting their country.

Hey, I know, I really love my country so I won't pay any taxes - that ought to create a huge increase in tax revenue,

wait... let's stop taxing anyone for anything - those government coffers will overflow with tax revenues when nobody pays any taxes at all.

Yea - right.

The only sillier statement is that all taxes are passed along to the consumer, when any business person knows we charge the maximum for our services and products, regardless of our costs, be those costs taxes or materials.

What's amazing is how these obviously ridiculous assertions : that lowering taxes raises revenue, and that taxes are always passed along to consumers, still are used by those parasites who enjoy our country's benefits while whining when asked to pay taxes like everyone else.

It's the definition of unregulated capitalism ad greed - privatize your profit, externalize and socialize your costs, and pretend you're not not.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#2056 Jan 13, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
If tax breaks increase revenue, since we've cut taxes over 26 times since Reagan became president we should be floating along with a budget surplus and no debt at all.
Just another silly "Supply Side" argument made by rich people to avoid supporting their country.
Hey, I know, I really love my country so I won't pay any taxes - that ought to create a huge increase in tax revenue,
wait... let's stop taxing anyone for anything - those government coffers will overflow with tax revenues when nobody pays any taxes at all.
Yea - right.
The only sillier statement is that all taxes are passed along to the consumer, when any business person knows we charge the maximum for our services and products, regardless of our costs, be those costs taxes or materials.
What's amazing is how these obviously ridiculous assertions : that lowering taxes raises revenue, and that taxes are always passed along to consumers, still are used by those parasites who enjoy our country's benefits while whining when asked to pay taxes like everyone else.
It's the definition of unregulated capitalism ad greed - privatize your profit, externalize and socialize your costs, and pretend you're not not.
@ Aggie: above is a good example of why not to waste your time. Some people think they understand things, but don't. It's not worth the time and effort to educate them, they think they know it already...

Kinda like the fans being critical of football coaches calling the "wrong" plays, yet they don't know how to play the game...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2057 Jan 13, 2013
@Bill in Dville and General Robert E Lee

How right y'all are.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#2058 Jan 13, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
If tax breaks increase revenue, since we've cut taxes over 26 times since Reagan became president we should be floating along with a budget surplus and no debt at all.
Just another silly "Supply Side" argument made by rich people to avoid supporting their country.
Hey, I know, I really love my country so I won't pay any taxes - that ought to create a huge increase in tax revenue,
wait... let's stop taxing anyone for anything - those government coffers will overflow with tax revenues when nobody pays any taxes at all.
Yea - right.
The only sillier statement is that all taxes are passed along to the consumer, when any business person knows we charge the maximum for our services and products, regardless of our costs, be those costs taxes or materials.
What's amazing is how these obviously ridiculous assertions : that lowering taxes raises revenue, and that taxes are always passed along to consumers, still are used by those parasites who enjoy our country's benefits while whining when asked to pay taxes like everyone else.
It's the definition of unregulated capitalism ad greed - privatize your profit, externalize and socialize your costs, and pretend you're not not.
hey,i think they call that the'trickle down effect'.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#2059 Jan 13, 2013
or in other words,we'll take ours now,maybe the rest will get a little something later-like you said-unadulerated and unashamed greed,plain and simple!
Bored

Berlin, MD

#2060 Jan 13, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
But, by God:
Bob couldn't marry Dave,
Bush never is known to have received oral sex,(although Congress failed to i investigate that important question when it came to Bush), and
we could still buy magazines for our rifles that hold over 30 rounds for hunters with really bad aim.
Boring.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#2061 Jan 13, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
Boring.
if all this stuff is so boring to you,why don't you post us all something really profound and exciting?
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#2062 Jan 14, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>@ Aggie: above is a good example of why not to waste your time. Some people think they understand things, but don't. It's not worth the time and effort to educate them, they think they know it already...

Kinda like the fans being critical of football coaches calling the "wrong" plays, yet they don't know how to play the game...
It's always entertaining, and predictable, to observe that whenever confronted by facts and analysis that clearly disprove the Right Wing's "talking points", rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, the response is to attack the messenger.

What's equally amusing is those who watch the bikini models and paid "consultants" on Fox Noise actually think they know more about what's going on, than those who watch CSPAN, NPR, and listen to the BBC.

Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011.
The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.

On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" (a comedy show), could answer about 1.42 questions.

Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#2063 Jan 14, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>hey,i think they call that the'trickle down effect'.
Absolutely right.

One family,(The Walton Family) all by itself owns more than 80 million Americans combined.

Thankfully, they are happy to trickle down on us whenever their bladders must be emptied. We should be thankful.
chevy

Dawsonville, GA

#2064 Jan 14, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's always entertaining, and predictable, to observe that whenever confronted by facts and analysis that clearly disprove the Right Wing's "talking points", rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, the response is to attack the messenger.
What's equally amusing is those who watch the bikini models and paid "consultants" on Fox Noise actually think they know more about what's going on, than those who watch CSPAN, NPR, and listen to the BBC.
Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011.
The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.
On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" (a comedy show), could answer about 1.42 questions.
people who read your posts could not answer any questions about anything because they were in a stupor and unable to speak

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.

Cartersville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rumors circulate around Euharlee shooting (Feb '14) 4 hr BACON 1,221
Bealls outlet 12 hr Badger53 10
Deputy Woody (Nov '10) 14 hr Captain 80
Wynn 15 hr Junie B 4
GA Who do you support for Governor in Georgia in 2... (Oct '10) 15 hr The WB 2,055
Brent Circle Shooting 15 hr me 20
Why are all Cartersville female cops lesbian? (Sep '13) 15 hr BullDyke 570
•••

Cartersville News Video

•••
•••

Cartersville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Cartersville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Cartersville News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••