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

[tina]

oh

[Synergy]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
You couldn't be more wrong. The truth is the truth, I have not lied, or falsely blamed any entity. You have no idea of my party allegiance. Absolutely big business, special interest groups and associations, corrupt politics, will walk away with the money. I can promise you, that other than outright thievery of my assetts, I will not be left holding the bag. The fact is, the largest "impact items", dragging the country down, are of democrat origin. Don't start with the war stuff, those costs pale in comparison to entitlement and welfare spending, and the fraud and abuse that goes along with it.

You are to be commended for an intelligent and respectful response. The liberals NEVER disappoint, huh? They ALWAYS resort to insults and name calling. One has to wonder if a conservative had won the election, would those same name calling, let's work together liberals still be SO eager to compromise? Would they just blindly jump on the conservative bandwagon and wave the white flag for the "good" of the country? I've said it many times....."Don't you just LOVE the liberal double standard?"

[Informed Opinion]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>you know that i respect your 'informed opinion',but please don't tell me that you think the libertarians represent main street.

Nope, you're right.

Just my thoughts, have some time while the Wife is having her hair done, so forgive me for elaborating.

Libertarianism, to me, is like Capitalism and Socialism - sounds good - but in the practical world can never work except as part of a mixed economy.

Libertarians are all for self-reliance-
until they or their kids are hit by a car, get cancer, and are dying and cannot afford the medical care, or a tornado, hurricane, flood, or any catastrophes destroys their savings, and suddenly dying, or homelessness, or not educating your kids, doesn't seem so righteous.

Unregulated Capitalism inevitably leads to Fascism - the rich and powerful inevitably use their money and power to get get richer and more powerful, in a "snowball" effect, that destroys all but the few who "rise" to the top. That doesn't seem such a good idea.

Unlimited Socialism inevitably impoverished society by destroying any incentive for self-reliance and productivity.

The argument always seems to be not whether we have socialistic or capitalistic aspects to our economy - but how much of each.

The rich fight for more capitalism - in their self-interest, because they want to get richer; and everyone else,(who understand), fights for more socialism, in their self interests, because they don't want to get poorer.

As Warren Buffet stated, "Class Warfare" has always, and will always exist, it is only a question of whose winning at the time.

[Informed Opinion]

Tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

<quoted text>Nope not this one but you didn't post the whole thing. The Zfacts was a different article. I posted the link to the whole thing. The national debt was 5.6 Trillion when Clinton left that FACT ain't going away. What is the credit rating for the United States right now. Obama has had four years and this country is NOSEDIVING.

OK -

We all now agree acknowledge and agree that Bush turned a $300 Billion Dollar annual budget surplus Clinton left him, into a $1.6 Trillion Dollar annual budget deficit;
and
Bush doubled the National Debt when he left Obama a $10.6 Trillion Dollar National Debt.

... along with three unfunded wars, a completely destroyed economic system, and a bankrupted Wall Street.

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.

[General Robert E Lee]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are to be commended for an intelligent and respectful response. The liberals NEVER disappoint, huh? They ALWAYS resort to insults and name calling. One has to wonder if a conservative had won the election, would those same name calling, let's work together liberals still be SO eager to compromise? Would they just blindly jump on the conservative bandwagon and wave the white flag for the "good" of the country? I've said it many times....."Don't you just LOVE the liberal double standard?"

The LWLD's, as I call them, have a very simple strategy. It is to take whatever they can get, whenever they can get it, today, tomorrow, or years down the road. They do not care if it is political, social, or economical. The "Republicans" keep giving, little by little, believing they won the battle by cutting the lefts demands down to a fraction of what they started at. The problem is, their "victories" of getting the left to settle for less, is no different than cutting a budget increase, and calling it deficit reduction. The current Republicans are too short sighted to see what is going on.

[Tiredofstupidpeo ple]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
OK -
We all now agree acknowledge and agree that Bush turned a $300 Billion Dollar annual budget surplus Clinton left him, into a $1.6 Trillion Dollar annual budget deficit;
and
Bush doubled the National Debt when he left Obama a $10.6 Trillion Dollar National Debt.
... along with three unfunded wars, a completely destroyed economic system, and a bankrupted Wall Street.
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.

You win the stupidest post of this thread. To you it's simple Bush did it. You are dumber than a box of rocks. Again Clinton left with a National debt of how much? I have posted it three time. We can also agree that the US credit rating has been down graded and when Harry, Nancy and Obama had full control in the years 2007 to 2010 things have gotten really bad. And since your to stupid to understand the 2nd admendment heres a hint it has nothing to do with hunting.

[Could Be]

See Clear wrote:

Obama is able to solve all problems. Support Obama!

LMAO..... So can Oprah!

[RELENTLESS]

Give me Jerry daniels on a platter!

[no obama fan]

U folks r 2 stupid 2 talk 2no obama fan

[Aggie23]

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.

[Aggie23]

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.

[Bill in Dville]

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.

[Bill in Dville]

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...

[Aggie23]

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.

[Aggie23]

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.

[General Robert E Lee]

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.

[Aggie23]

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]

Jerry Daniels voeted Obama!

[Informed Opinion]

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.

[Bill in Dville]

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...