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

[Synergy]

DarkMeat wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah! Way to go Synergy! Recommend giving your dollars to the director of that film. The very guy who said the 911 terrorists were HERO's and WARRIORS!
That's the way to support your country. Hell, you might as well make a donation to AL-queda as to go see that film.

That's your excuse for not seeing that movie? lol That explains a LOT.

[obama is a socialist]

DrumStick wrote:

<quoted text>
No. These are still general undefined accusations. You can't just call a man a thief, you have to state what he stole and prove it. Get where I'm going with this?
<quoted text>
Specifically, what has he done that makes you believe this is a truth? Please provide corroboration.
<quoted text>
Specifically, what does this mean. What has he done, specifically, to make this happen? Please provide some proof or examples.
<quoted text>
Prove it. What do you have to back this opinion?

Truth hurt ? Living in denial ?
http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

[admit it]

ChicknButt wrote:

<quoted text>
Benghazi situation.
Americans were attacked in a volatile part of the world. It's something that happened to us. We were attacked, not for the first time and not for the last time.
Immediately the Republican Presidential Candidate tried to spin it for political gain, firmly putting his foot in his mouth.
Republican Senator and former Presidential Candidate John McCain is trying to spin it to form a new committee since he is about to be booted out for term limits, and the most prestigious thing he's up for is Committee of Indian Affairs.
The Republican Party is now using Benghazi as an attack on Susan Rice, trying to prevent her from being tapped as Secretary of State. They are trying to do this so that the position goes to John Kerry, opening up another Senate seat since they're taking a beating.
In every instance what's happened is the Republican Party and it's members have been using Benghazi as a cheap political tool. They are harming good people by doing this, and harming America. They don't care. They just want to get more power to serve their masters.
They should be DEEPLY ashamed of their behavior surrounding the Benghazi attack on Americans.

You are an apologist for obama, plain and simple. Admit that you are a socialist and move on.

[ChicknButt]

Come on. I present you with some hardcore facts and you respond with "socialist"?

That's the Republican buzzword for "I don't care about facts and I WANT to believe the fairy-tale I believe in."

[Doo]

Republican hate never stops does it? And they call themselves the party of Christains? Real Christains don't hate their neighbors and fellow man for helping others. What a shame and disgrace.

[Synergy]

Doo wrote:

Republican hate never stops does it? And they call themselves the party of Christains? Real Christains don't hate their neighbors and fellow man for helping others. What a shame and disgrace.

It's truly amazing how you libs place ALL the hate on republicans JUST BECAUSE republicans don't jump lock step behind Obama. Have you read ANY of the posts regarding democrat hate? All you are doing is spewing more democrat rhetoric..... Anyone who doesn't blindly support that renegade, Obama, is just full of hate.
Grow a brain.

[move on]

Bigdave1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Dude, but I am not impressed with a big mouthed old man that claims he is a hotshot. Believe me nobody cares who you are or anything about you. Frankly I don't believe a word that you had in your thread except that you are a Democrat and have no idea of what a fascist really is. It is business owners that can't compete with other outsourced products because of high taxes, government regulations, and union wages that American jobs are being sent out of this country. If your company is doing so well then you aren't furnishing good if any health insurance, you are paying very low wages, and you have few if any real job benefits.
BTW how do you know which employee's voted for Romney? What a great guy you are for not firing them for voting for whom they thought was best. I think it is time for you to look in the mirror and take some stock with yourself before your time comes. That is if you believe in God.

Dude you have NO idea what it takes to open and run a business. The government is the least of your problems. The government can actually help with a lot of programs to get one started and get employees to work. The government only becomes a problem when the business succeeds. At that point nobody wants to pay taxes, what a hoot.

[Bill in Dville]

Aggie23 wrote:

And here is the difference between Bush and Iraq and Obama and Benghazi.
Bush relied on intelligence that we now know was incorrect and in some cases from informants who lied. However, there was plenty of reason to believe in it's accuracy. Hussein had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 80's and was KNOWN to be pursuing biological WMD and developing a nuclear program. After the Persian Gulf War, Iraq was ordered to destroy it's chemical and biological stockpiles. One result of Wikileaks is that is now known that chemical agents were found in 2004 and 2007. During Clinton's presidency, the threats of Iraqi WMD was taken very seriously:
"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Clinton 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor 1998
...

+1

It's interesting that all of those wanting to be critical of Bush (BTW, I wasn't a fan) "forget".

[Bill in Dville]

move on wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude you have NO idea what it takes to open and run a business. The government is the least of your problems. The government can actually help with a lot of programs to get one started and get employees to work. The government only becomes a problem when the business succeeds. At that point nobody wants to pay taxes, what a hoot.

(breaking my policy of not responding to unregistered posters)

Actually, depending on the type of business you open and run, you are quite mistaken. Been there and done that.

[Aggie23]

Doo wrote:

Republican hate never stops does it? And they call themselves the party of Christains? Real Christains don't hate their neighbors and fellow man for helping others. What a shame and disgrace.

Please elaborate on your statements, they are so vague it is hard to know to what you are referring. Are you referring to that fact that, in general, Republicans believe that giving to the needy should be a personal choice so that we can be more confident that the money goes to those truly in need and is not wasted by a bureaucracy or given to those who, though able, CHOOSE not to support themselves and their families. I have never heard a Republican say they wished to deny assistance to those who TRULY cannot help themselves. But I have heard Republicans say that creating a permanent underclass by stripping people of their self respect and initiative by setting forth policies that stifle the work ethic is wrong. We see how well the War on Poverty has worked: billions have been spent and the poverty level has not decreased, instead, more people than ever are in government programs. We see couples refuse to marry so that the woman and their illegitimate children can receive more money. The illegitimacy rate among women between the ages of 20-30 has now reached 51%. We see parents trying to get their children labeled with learning disabilities in order to qualify for more money, despite the downward track that places those children on.
Liberals somehow believe that compassion is measured by your willingness to have the government take your hard earned money and waste it on programs that do not help those they claim to want to help - it only keeps them in a state of dependency -(which frankly seems to be the true goal) But if liberals are so compassionate, why is it that study after study does not bear that claim out? Arthur C Brooks, a registered Independent and professor at Syracuse University, studied the claims and published "Who Really Cares: the Simple Truth about Compassionate Conservatism." He found that while liberal households on average make 6% more than conservative households, conservative households contribute 30% more to charity. They also donate more of their own time and even more of their blood. Nicholas Kristof, a professed liberal, went to The Catalogue of Philanthropy to study the same and followed with "Bleeding Heart Tightwads", which came to the same conclusion. Those who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of 4 times more than those who favor income redistribution.(They want to redistribute income all right, just not their own.) His article was an appeal to his fellow liberals to do better. No one is stopping Democrats (who love taxes) from contributing more if they feel so lead. But just look at the tax returns of leading Democrats - their contributions are a joke.
So in conclusion, do not get so sanctimonious about Republicans, who do tend to profess that they are Christians, and claim they do not care about their fellow man. We just put our money where your mouth is.

[Aggie23]

"if they feel so led" not "lead"

[Doo]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
It's truly amazing how you libs place ALL the hate on republicans JUST BECAUSE republicans don't jump lock step behind Obama. Have you read ANY of the posts regarding democrat hate? All you are doing is spewing more democrat rhetoric..... Anyone who doesn't blindly support that renegade, Obama, is just full of hate.
Grow a brain.

I think you've got me mixed up with yourself freind. Obama won the election and all your hate keeps on spewing everyday. Take a back seat where you belong because you did not win and let the winner doo his job. I have a brain which is much more than you have. Fox has ruined yours.

[Aggie23]

Doo wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you've got me mixed up with yourself freind. Obama won the election and all your hate keeps on spewing everyday. Take a back seat where you belong because you did not win and let the winner doo his job. I have a brain which is much more than you have. Fox has ruined yours.

And once again, disagreeing with policy equals hate in the eyes of the Democrats. Just because you lose an election does not mean you check your values and principles at the door. If you truly believe this country is going down the road to losing the things that made this country great, you have an obligation to try and get people to open their eyes and see the mistakes that are being made.
I will quote (again) Hillary Clinton from 2003 "I am sick and tired of people that say if you debate and disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Somehow I doubt you said she was full of hate when she said this. So please either support your posts with facts and substance or quit wasting the space.

[Doo]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
And once again, disagreeing with policy equals hate in the eyes of the Democrats. Just because you lose an election does not mean you check your values and principles at the door. If you truly believe this country is going down the road to losing the things that made this country great, you have an obligation to try and get people to open their eyes and see the mistakes that are being made.
I will quote (again) Hillary Clinton from 2003 "I am sick and tired of people that say if you debate and disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Somehow I doubt you said she was full of hate when she said this. So please either support your posts with facts and substance or quit wasting the space.

I truly know that they are sorry lazy people that do not take responsibility for their lives. There always have been these type as long as mankind has existed. I'm just saying that Obama got electee again by a rather large majority simply because most Americans don't think only the rich should have affordable health care or groceries and medicine. The middle class has fallen on hard times due to the bad economy World wide. What angers me is that the Republicans still want to give the rich tax breaks when they already have plenty while the working class struggles to make their bills every week. America is in deep debt with the deficit and the wealthy seem to want to tack most taxes on the working class. We all need Affordable Health Care and most now can't even afford it. Thank goodness in 2014 there will be better coverage for all Americans and not just the ones that have lots of money. No Republican in office that I can remember has stopped the lazy that wont work or the ones that have abortions either.

[Bill in Dville]

"A large majority"?

Nope, although it probably depends on your subjective definition. I posted elsewhere that 330,000 votes TOTAL (I don't know, or care, if the numbers have been finalized), in four states (OH, FL, VA, CO), would have given the electoral college to Romney, even though BO got 50.6%(I think) of the overall vote. Majority? Yes. But it was a lot closer than people think, even though the electoral college was 332-206. 4 states, 330,000 votes of over 120 million (around .25% of total votes cast) and we have a different winner, even though BO was ahead by around 4 million or so in the popular vote.

"Republicans still want to give the rich tax breaks"?

Oh, you mean the people that pay the most taxes? You can find for yourself many links that show who pays what in taxes, around half the country doesn't pay any income taxes. If you believe the rich don't pay (more than) their "fair share" you need to define "fair share" and realize that there is no Santa Claus...

Q. What do you call "tax breaks" for someone who doesn't pay any income taxes?

A. Wealth redistribution.

[Doo]

Bill in Dville wrote:

"A large majority"?
Nope, although it probably depends on your subjective definition. I posted elsewhere that 330,000 votes TOTAL (I don't know, or care, if the numbers have been finalized), in four states (OH, FL, VA, CO), would have given the electoral college to Romney, even though BO got 50.6%(I think) of the overall vote. Majority? Yes. But it was a lot closer than people think, even though the electoral college was 332-206. 4 states, 330,000 votes of over 120 million (around .25% of total votes cast) and we have a different winner, even though BO was ahead by around 4 million or so in the popular vote.
"Republicans still want to give the rich tax breaks"?
Oh, you mean the people that pay the most taxes? You can find for yourself many links that show who pays what in taxes, around half the country doesn't pay any income taxes. If you believe the rich don't pay (more than) their "fair share" you need to define "fair share" and realize that there is no Santa Claus...
Q. What do you call "tax breaks" for someone who doesn't pay any income taxes?
A. Wealth redistribution.

Mitt Romeny and most rich people pay around 14% which is very cheap. Mine is way higher than that. Warren Buffet tells the truth about taxes and no one wants to hear him. Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all. Loopholes and write offs need to be stopped along with capital gains breaks. I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes.

[Aggie23]

Doo wrote:

<quoted text>
Mitt Romeny and most rich people pay around 14% which is very cheap. Mine is way higher than that. Warren Buffet tells the truth about taxes and no one wants to hear him. Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all. Loopholes and write offs need to be stopped along with capital gains breaks. I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes.

No, no, no, no - please educate yourself about income tax versus capital gains tax rates, they are not the same. Almost all of Romney's 2010 income was from capital gains - that is the earnings from investments made with income that has already been taxed once, it is not the same as the income derived from a salary and you cannot compare the two. And please define fair share, how many times has it been shown that those who make $200,000 and up already pay 52.2% of income taxes, how is that fair?

[Aggie23]

The problem with our budget and deficit is not that the "rich" do not pay their "fair share" - though they don't, they pay MORE than their fair share. The problem is and will probably remain the spending. There is so much waste and redundant spending that the budget could easily be balanced if the government was forced to act like a business and spend no more than it brought in. Why are households expected to "live within their means", but the govt is not. There is no incentive for the various departments to save money. If they don't spend in one year what they were given, they aren't rewarded for being thrifty, they just get that much taken away from their next years budget - how stupid is that. And Obama isn't interested in raising taxes for the sake of more income to the govt, it is all about "fairness" in his mind and he admitted it in an interview with Charles Gibson. Gibson reminded Obama that cuts in capital gains taxes have ALWAYS resulted in MORE income coming into the govt, but Obama said "well, Charlie, it's about fairness" - well, who the hell does he think he is to be the arbiter of "fairness". If Democrats came to the table in good faith and seriously would attack the budget problem like adults and realize that cuts must be made and the entitlement bandwagon has got to be realistically reevaluated so that it is limited to those who TRULY need help, I and most Republicans I know would be willing to talk tax increases if they were truly needed. But that is the crux of the matter - tax increases are not the answer, they can't be - and Democrats know it, but it is all about power and until the majority of the American people realize that, this county will continue to spiral downwards.

[Bill in Dville]

Doo: "Mitt Romeny and most rich people pay around 14% which is very cheap. Mine is way higher than that. Warren Buffet tells the truth about taxes and no one wants to hear him. Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all. Loopholes and write offs need to be stopped along with capital gains breaks. I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes."

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, no, no, no - please educate yourself about income tax versus capital gains tax rates, they are not the same. Almost all of Romney's 2010 income was from capital gains - that is the earnings from investments made with income that has already been taxed once, it is not the same as the income derived from a salary and you cannot compare the two. And please define fair share, how many times has it been shown that those who make $200,000 and up already pay 52.2% of income taxes, how is that fair?

Well stated, Aggie.

Mr. or Ms. Doo: do (no pun intended) some research on the difference (and rationale for) between capital gains and ordinary income.

"Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all."

Oh, it's resentful to want to keep what you've earned? Particularly when so many take advantage of the government teat and so much spending is for the "wrong" reasons?

Actually, I know lots of people that pay lots of taxes, what they want is for everyone to participate, not just half the country.

"I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes."

Quite doubtful, or, perhaps, you don't know very many people...

[Aggie23]

Bill in Dville wrote:

Doo: "

Actually, I know lots of people that pay lots of taxes, what they want is for everyone to participate, not just half the country.
"I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes."
Quite doubtful, or, perhaps, you don't know very many people...

That is an excellent point you made. There was a quote that I think is appropriate:
"While increasing taxes on any group has negative economic effects, the reality of the current federal fiscal situation dictates that a balanced approach of spending cuts in tandem with rising rates and expanding the base of taxpayers is needed....since we are all in this together, EVERYONE (emphasis mine) must participate in funding federal government operations in some form, whether it includes a loss of some benefits at the lower end of the income spectrum, or middle and upper income individuals having to pay higher tax rates."

The most important components of that quote to me are spending cuts, expanding the base of taxpayers and the idea that (as you stated) everyone must participate. Currently almost half the country apparently couldn't care less about the budget crisis as long as they get their check. They don't seem to realize that this country cannot sustain its spending levels or we will be on the road to Greece and all the riots they are experiencing as they try and put their fiscal house in order by cutting their spending. The tax increases Obama is pushing CANNOT keep up with the spending (and in fact would run the govt for EIGHT DAYS) and will NOT lessen the deficit. Spending must be cut.