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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jerry Daniels voeted Obama!

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.

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...

@Bill in Dville and General Robert E Lee

How right y'all are.

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'.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

chevy wrote:

<quoted text>
people who read your posts could not answer any questions about anything because they were in a stupor and unable to speak

fat,ugly and stupid is no way to go through life,young man.

chevy wrote:

<quoted text>
people who read your posts could not answer any questions about anything because they were in a stupor and unable to speak

Written like a true Republican.

What I don't get is why all the hate from the liberals? Your guy won. Everything is going to be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Right? The rich are going to pay their fair share(Whatever THAT is. No one seems to know.) The middle class and poor will be "moving on up" financially and all will be right with the world. Why all the hate, liberals? You are getting exactly what you wanted. What's up?

Synergy wrote:

What I don't get is why all the hate from the liberals? Your guy won. Everything is going to be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Right? The rich are going to pay their fair share(Whatever THAT is. No one seems to know.) The middle class and poor will be "moving on up" financially and all will be right with the world. Why all the hate, liberals? You are getting exactly what you wanted. What's up?

What hate?I love republicans,as soon as I can afford it,I plan to buy two three of them.