Who do you support for Governor in Tennessee in 2010?

[awe]

WILLARD wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not certain you are prepared for what I presently think. I suppose I should first ascertain if you authored the flagship of indecency recently launched against SSS and those of us burdened to read it! If so, I wish to declare such an act decisive cause to exclude you from a group of individuals I will engage with on topix, or elsewhere. If I am in error here, I gladly offer apology. If not, I must tell you this post was offensive beyond prurience, and most unwelcomed by me.
While those in our group heartilly joust with each other in robust debate, argument, confrontation, satire, parody, sinicism, one-up-manship and the rest of it, The spectacle of this post falls outside the purview of social acceptability. Triple (S) remains on the opposite spectrum of most of what I believe, but does not deserve this brand of filthiness!

awe, ow sweet of you to defend the nasty camden skank!. I really don't care if you don't like me calling him/her names. Opnions are like,well you. The old saying wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up faster is my answer to this. You don't like what i say about her,well DON'T READ IT!!! Noone is forcing you to read what me or anyone else post to her/him about her/him! Him/her doesn't have a problem saying nasty things about anyone who doesn't agree with her/him views! You want to defend the skank,you can suck it too!!!

[WILLARD]

Really Sassy wrote:

<quoted text>
I gotta agree with him on this post.

How are you today?

[TJohn]

WILLARD wrote:

<quoted text>
Speaking for myself, I'm never offended by the "teapublican" reference. I am a registered republican, and fully ascribe to tea-party principles of constitutional governance, enumerated powers, separation of powers, limited powers, governance by budgetary affordability and fiscal soundness. In short, attempting to operate government in similar prudence and care exercised by citizens managing their homes and businesses, etetera...
What I have difficulty with, as such, is being considered someone more dangerous to America than al-Qeada, and other such nonsense as a result! But, that's just me.

It is a common tactic of Demoncrats to use this tactic. When they don`t have a leg to stand on they then accuse the other side of the vilest accusations in an attempt to attack the person they disagree with. It has ramped up since this last president took office. It has worked to a degree but now people are just plain tired of being labeled just because they disagree with a certain person or party. I have been aware of the tactic for years and it has never worked in silencing me. I can sling mud with the best of em. Very few demoncrats can you debate with these days because they have been brainwashed into thinking the rest of us are evil when in fact....

[Honestly]

Overtaxed wrote:

<quoted text> You are certainly entitled to your own opinion ! Since this is an anonymous forum, I have no reason to lie...what would that prove ? Your post indicates that there is only black and white. I see many shades of grey. Neither Republicans nor Democrats represent all of the views I espouse, so the choice becomes a scale. Which political positions come closest to the ones important to me and which are not. That scale has shifted over the years. If you are satisfied that Republicans represent everything you believe in, by all means vote for them. I will give you a ride to the polls...but your opinions carry no more weight and your vote is no more important than mine.
Just as the silly predictions from radical Democrats during the Bush years predicted that "W" would not yield the presidency after his term, here come rhe radical Republicans predicting a never ending Obama Administration. I called the Dems on that then and I call you on it now. This is not how America works and it never will be.
It is my opinion that the Republican Party will have to change to closer represent 21st century America, or their appeal to voters will continue to diminish. As far as stabbing a "party" in the back, I do not owe my vote to any party, and when they cease to represent a majority of my interests and my values I will withhold my vote and my influence.

OK, By your explaining yourself, I believe you were a Repub. I myself have voted over the years for many Democrats. They were once know as the peoples party. They got farm subsidies started to help the farmer, they got welfare to help the dustbowl-depression era people and many more bills that actually helped people.(medicare, medicaid, etc.) They killed 50,000 soldier in Vietnam. Since the early 60's they have gradually changed to becoming more liberal to what they are no-days. There are a few (very few) democrat conservatives left. Yes, in years I have voted for democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians,etc. You might say I have changed my party (not quite as dramatic as you)to being an independent. We can debate the different topics (including the gray areas) that both parties have or don't have. Hopefully without the talking points and just the truth. I will say this: Yes, there were radicals telling everyone that would listen that Clinton and Bush would get a third term. In those situations, there was no way they could get a third term. They did not have the votes to overturn an amendment. By the end of the third year, Obama will have those votes. We are rapidly becoming a nation of takers and by the next election (two years), we will have another majority in congress thus setting the stage. Like Roosevelt, Obama will be so popular that the necessary paper work to overturn this amendment will pass both houses and begin their trek through the states. Now - one thing you need to rem. the ratification process takes years, however, once the process is started, he would be able to obtain a third term legally. Take a look at the Emancipation/Proclamation that was in force long before it was radified. In fact the last state to ratify it was Mississippi, this year.

If over 50% of the people are takers, they are not going to give up a good living but in fact want more. No, I am not talking about SSN or Medicare. Welfare, food stamps, disability, child care: One women recently on the news this week gets approx.$80,000 per year while sitting at home with two kids. Need I say more. We can drive each other to the polls together, and vote differently in any election. I do respect yours or anybody else's vote as long as it is an informed vote. I fought for, believe in and live with the idea that the vote is our most valuable right.

[Cornbread]

Truth Detector wrote:

Just curios:
7–4+3*0+1 =

That 'd be 4

All other questions are answered by #42

[WILLARD]

awe wrote:

<quoted text>awe, ow sweet of you to defend the nasty camden skank!. I really don't care if you don't like me calling him/her names. Opnions are like,well you. The old saying wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up faster is my answer to this. You don't like what i say about her,well DON'T READ IT!!! Noone is forcing you to read what me or anyone else post to her/him about her/him! Him/her doesn't have a problem saying nasty things about anyone who doesn't agree with her/him views! You want to defend the skank,you can suck it too!!!

Life's all about choices, be who you "choose" to be!

I've already made an objection to the substance and tone of another person's post, I believe that to be adequate and without need for a re-hash! If you're in need of a drama fix, go somewhere else, I'm sick of it!

To correct a small part of your delusion here, It's not my job to exonerate SSS or anyone else on the thread, certainly not you! Look, triple (S) isn't my personal, social or political ally, and she doesn't consider me a friend. She has castigated me for about everything on the menu, but she has the right to do it. I only celebrate in the sense that you and I, along with everyone else can do the same, o.k.? I'm well aware of problems we all deal with here, I'm hoping for a better atmosphere, but don't expect it!
I hope you will learn to feel differently. tks.

[SexySassySenior]

Honestly wrote:

<quoted text>
YOU SAID: You cannot blame the average Israeli Citizen for what their Gov't. does any more than you can blame the average American Citizen for what our Gov't. does.
I beg to differ: The gov is a reflection of the people (they voted). Since Our gov. in infiltrated with a large quantity of Dem/LIBS, it in essence is transferring the ideology of the left into its agenda. The only problem you, a dem/lib, did not see, is that when the gov. get 'so big' it then becomes the ideology of ONE person and cares nothing about the people who put him/her there. I know nothing about Israel but by the ideology of their gov. I think the people recognize they could all be wiped-out tomorrow if their gov. did not take a preemptive stand. Much like your so-called 'Property rights' What happens when someone tries to take over your home or property. Oh--Call the law. What if there was no law, judge,or anything to stop them. Now--what do you do? throw sticks. Israel is in the same pot. There is not a law, sheriff, judge, etc. that will stop another country, people, etc. from invading them. The U.S. is really the only friend they have in the world. Now---would it not be nice if one or two of your neighbors come over to help you defend your property (in the first scenario)when no one else would. When the current administration guts the military, we will have foreign company on our shores. Guess we can then throw sticks because our guns will be long gone?
Thank you dem/libs for a good life expectancy!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you blame the "Dem/Libs" for this? Where were you when George W. Bush and the Republican-Controlled Congress voted in a change to the "Emminent Domain" Law, so they could take your Property for any Corporation or Company that would pay more Taxes on it, than you do and there's not a thing you can do about it? Where were you then? Where were you in 2011, when Boehner bragged about getting the Sequestration Option from Obama in exchange for agreeing not to send the Country into Default? Where were you then? Where are you now, that the Teapublicans are willing to let the Country go back into a major Economic downfall, again, just to protect the Wealthiest from paying more than a 14% Tax Rate and/or close the Tax Loopholes that enable them to pay zero taxes, instead of paying the 28 to 32% that you pay, or are willing to let THEIR Sequestration that Boehner bragged about getting agreed to, that will surely almost destroy YOU and just about everybody else , as well as this economy? WHERE WERE YOU THEN AND WHERE ARE YOU NOW???
I can PROVE what I'm accusing Boehner/Teapublicans of, can you prove what you're blaming the Dems/Libs of???

[Nuh]

Only in America could two people with the responsibility of overseaing the federal tax code... Timothy Geithner (D), the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel (D) who once ran the Ways and Means Committe... BOTH turn out to be tax cheats and who are in favor of higher taxes.

[TJohn]

Honestly wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, By your explaining yourself, I believe you were a Repub. I myself have voted over the years for many Democrats. They were once know as the peoples party. They got farm subsidies started to help the farmer, they got welfare to help the dustbowl-depression era people and many more bills that actually helped people.(medicare, medicaid, etc.) They killed 50,000 soldier in Vietnam. Since the early 60's they have gradually changed to becoming more liberal to what they are no-days. There are a few (very few) democrat conservatives left. Yes, in years I have voted for democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians,etc. You might say I have changed my party (not quite as dramatic as you)to being an independent. We can debate the different topics (including the gray areas) that both parties have or don't have. Hopefully without the talking points and just the truth. I will say this: Yes, there were radicals telling everyone that would listen that Clinton and Bush would get a third term. In those situations, there was no way they could get a third term. They did not have the votes to overturn an amendment. By the end of the third year, Obama will have those votes. We are rapidly becoming a nation of takers and by the next election (two years), we will have another majority in congress thus setting the stage. Like Roosevelt, Obama will be so popular that the necessary paper work to overturn this amendment will pass both houses and begin their trek through the states. Now - one thing you need to rem. the ratification process takes years, however, once the process is started, he would be able to obtain a third term legally. Take a look at the Emancipation/Proclamation that was in force long before it was radified. In fact the last state to ratify it was Mississippi, this year.
If over 50% of the people are takers, they are not going to give up a good living but in fact want more. No, I am not talking about SSN or Medicare. Welfare, food stamps, disability, child care: One women recently on the news this week gets approx.$80,000 per year while sitting at home with two kids. Need I say more. We can drive each other to the polls together, and vote differently in any election. I do respect yours or anybody else's vote as long as it is an informed vote. I fought for, believe in and live with the idea that the vote is our most valuable right.

One women recently on the news this week gets approx.$80,000 per year while sitting at home with two kids.

I also saw this report and it stated the woman was studying to be a nurse and one child was in daycare and the other in pre-school with that be the bulk of the assistance but the total wasn`t 80 k but it could be as high as 80 k with other programs available to her. I agree with helping people esp those who are trying to help themselves but the problem is we don`t have the money and 80 k is alot when you consider the amount of people who can get it. I wish I had enough money to help everybody out of poverty but I don`t and if tried I would soon be with em. I see us all in the ditch and my question is who will help America when that time comes and it`s coming.

Other then that the rest of your post is pretty spot on.

[Teapublican]

TJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
One women recently on the news this week gets approx.$80,000 per year while sitting at home with two kids.
I also saw this report and it stated the woman was studying to be a nurse and one child was in daycare and the other in pre-school with that be the bulk of the assistance but the total wasn`t 80 k but it could be as high as 80 k with other programs available to her. I agree with helping people esp those who are trying to help themselves but the problem is we don`t have the money and 80 k is alot when you consider the amount of people who can get it. I wish I had enough money to help everybody out of poverty but I don`t and if tried I would soon be with em. I see us all in the ditch and my question is who will help America when that time comes and it`s coming.
Other then that the rest of your post is pretty spot on.

How can I get an Obama phone?

[TJohn]

SexySassySenior wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you blame the "Dem/Libs" for this? Where were you when George W. Bush and the Republican-Controlled Congress voted in a change to the "Emminent Domain" Law, so they could take your Property for any Corporation or Company that would pay more Taxes on it, than you do and there's not a thing you can do about it? Where were you then? Where were you in 2011, when Boehner bragged about getting the Sequestration Option from Obama in exchange for agreeing not to send the Country into Default? Where were you then? Where are you now, that the Teapublicans are willing to let the Country go back into a major Economic downfall, again, just to protect the Wealthiest from paying more than a 14% Tax Rate and/or close the Tax Loopholes that enable them to pay zero taxes, instead of paying the 28 to 32% that you pay, or are willing to let THEIR Sequestration that Boehner bragged about getting agreed to, that will surely almost destroy YOU and just about everybody else , as well as this economy? WHERE WERE YOU THEN AND WHERE ARE YOU NOW???
I can PROVE what I'm accusing Boehner/Teapublicans of, can you prove what you're blaming the Dems/Libs of???

I can see it now. Obamo standing on a street corner with one of those sighs saying " THE END IS NEAR " with a date on it March 1st 2013

I promise you the world isn`t coming to an end in the next week because of these cuts. Fear tactics by the demoncrats.

By the way, I haven`t seen where Boehner " brag " about it. I`d like to see that because i`ve not seen any video of him doing it.

You already posted a farce earlier on this thread that was proven wrong. These cuts were obamos idea and he sighed it into law. His name is on the damn thing and now he wants to blame the GOP. If they cave and don`t let the cuts take effect then there will be no hope for getting our spending or the budget under control.

[TJohn]

Teapublican wrote:

<quoted text>How can I get an Obama phone?

The next time you have to re-certify for your food stamps ask your case worker and you can apply for a cell phone and a voucher for a land line for your home. You take the voucher to your local phone company and then you will get service based on the amount of the voucher.

[Dunlapian]

TJohn wrote:

<quoted text>The next time you have to re-certify for your food stamps ask your case worker and you can apply for a cell phone and a voucher for a land line for your home. You take the voucher to your local phone company and then you will get service based on the amount of the voucher.

So why is it called an Obama phone?

[TJohn]

Dunlapian wrote:

<quoted text>So why is it called an Obama phone?

Not sure but thats what many call the free cell and home phone service you can get from welfare. Again , not sure when it started but my guess with the name implyed it started with obamo.

[WILLARD]

TJohn wrote:

<quoted text>The next time you have to re-certify for your food stamps ask your case worker and you can apply for a cell phone and a voucher for a land line for your home. You take the voucher to your local phone company and then you will get service based on the amount of the voucher.

You need to watch this video, it explains the Obama-phone giveaway!

CLICK TO WATCH VIDEO: http://bit.ly/P2EwQO

[crazya55whiteboy]

Its crazy how people turn against each other just cuz one has more money than the other, gives them a sense of feeling more higher up than the rest of people,and how greed can create such chaos when those people start wanting to make even more, (ceos and politicians and corps) while paying workers less, the republican party is trying to kill the middle class especially when single parents are living below poverty line while working full time jobs and wanting to strip social security and food stamps and any other benefit that helps those less fortunate instead of raising taxes on the extremely wealthy. i find that greed the kinda thing that creates most most of our problems here in the United States. we need a new increase in the minimum wage and it does not effect the jobs numbers in doing so it actually helps because people dont want to work all day and only bring home $280 a week and thats not enough to raise kids on and save money back its impossible. i voted democrat Mike Mcwherter and every other democrat that will run because republicans are racist and corrupt inside and out.

[Guadalupe]

Dunlapian wrote:

<quoted text>So why is it called an Obama phone?

How did you get your obama phone?

[Cornbread]

So why is it called an Obama phone?

All because one Black woman was caught on video at a rally, saying something like "I Love my Obama phone."

There is one problem with the Obama Phone: It doesn’t exist. Obama didn't start the program .

Since 2009 there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense.

There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. This policy started with land line phones first, since cell phones weren't around. It began in the 1980's.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984.(It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.

[Truth Detector]

Teapublican wrote:

<quoted text>How can I get an Obama phone?

http://obamaphone.net/

[Unreal]

The Obama Phone?

Posted on October 29, 2009 , Updated on Nov. 5, 2009



Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

FULL QUESTION

Is this e-mail true?


I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his "Obama phone."

&#11024; Click to expand/collapse the full text &#11023;

FULL ANSWER

Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money, as the e-mail alleges. And it’s hardly new.

How It Works

SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

...
The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson Phones, anyone?

Read more:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-ph...