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

[ChicknButt]

uninformed opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
where is Moody Alabama?

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g211/ny2ks/...

[Bill in Dville]

uninformed opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
where is Moody Alabama?

If we were playing Jeopardy, the correct "answer" would be:

The location of your ISP (apparently).

[jeb stuart]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
Still can't respond to this post, huh? Beginning to think you're resembling the "Other Bill", he/she could only spout off BS and be clueless, too...
----------
"The last time we had a Republican President he absolutely and utterly destroyed the economy of the United States of America.
Wall Street fell apart, millions and millions of Americans were unemployed and homeless"
So Barney Frank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc. get a free pass? Typical uneducated comment. You know enough to be dangerous.
"Then the Republican Party, right after destroying the country, insulted Americans by putting up the most ridiculous and laughable candidates this country has ever seen. Then they did it again the next election."
+1 Fair points. But, IF you TRULY believe running someone that had no previous experience running anything was a better choice, you're in for quite a debate. BTW, how did that work out for ya?
BTW, McCain was not a good choice, but I don't recall anyone else that would have been acceptable. Romney was not my first choice, nor my second.
"And you REALLY want to complain about the guy who's done a great job getting us back on track?"
LMAO big time. A "great job"? Seriously? Are you paying attention to what's been going on, or are you so anti-Republican that you're missing things (too many to list)? What EXACTLY has he done? Do you know the last time we had a budget? Do you know what the country's debt is and how long it will take to pay down or get to a reasonable level?
"In fact, such a great job that America chose to re-elect him again?"
The takers now outnumber the makers. Santa Claus has shown up early. The clueless outnumber those that understand what's happening. People want to be a socialist country. Around half the country doesn't pay federal income tax. The liberal goal appears to be to have 50.1% of those eligible to vote on welfare.
----------
You would be fun to watch in court:
Lawyer: Mr. Chickenburger: What time is it?
Chickenburger: Thursday!
Lawyer: No, what time is it?
Chickenburger: Tomatoes!
Makes about as much sense...

they are clueless,again.right on time,bill!

[conservative]

Those of you on here having an intelligent discussion, please continue. All of you arguing about stupid stuff like children, PLEASE, SHUT THE HELL UP!

[jeb stuart]

HELP ME OUT,BABY!y,know it is past my bedtime.

[jeb stuart]

conservative wrote:

Those of you on here having an intelligent discussion, please continue. All of you arguing about stupid stuff like children, PLEASE, SHUT THE HELL UP!

i assume that you are one of the ones having the intelligent discusssion,so by all means,please carry on as the adult among us.now,where were you?

[we know]

jeb stuart wrote:

HELP ME OUT,BABY!y,know it is past my bedtime.

Are you yelling for Synergy?

[jeb stuart]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>i assume that you are one of the ones having the intelligent discusssion,so by all means,please carry on as the adult among us.now,where were you?

as the conservative one,i was expecting a little better (from you).but then, ya never know.

[jeb stuart]

we know wrote:

<quoted text> Are you yelling for Synergy?

you know what? you know how to try to try to intimidate someone,and is all.does'nt always work,does it.it is just a crude example of your own insecurity- and does not work on everyone.

[jeb stuart]

conservative wrote:

Those of you on here having an intelligent discussion, please continue. All of you arguing about stupid stuff like children, PLEASE, SHUT THE HELL UP!

as far as i can tell,this is your first and only contribuion to any "intelligent discussion".please add more your wisdom is much needed.

[Just Trolling Along]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Another Right Wing economic fairy tale - taxes prevent investment.
Taxes never have, and never will, prevent investment.
Let's consider this:
Daddy left you $800 Million when he left this stressful life.
You can invest that $800 Million and receive $50 Million a year after taxes,
or
you can invest that $800 Million and receive $40 Million a year after taxes,
or
You can invest that $800 Million and receive $30 Million a year after taxes,
or
you can put $800 Million in plastic PVC pipe and bury it in the back yard, and receive $0.
Are you gonna say - no thanks - I don't want $50 Million, or $30 Million, or $30 Million this year in income ?
Are you gonna say - No Sir, I'll pass up $30 Million and take $0 instead.
The investor obviously invests regardless of the tax rate he'll pay on the income.
As Warren Buffer said, the tax rate never, ever, prevents any investor from investing because some income is always better than no income.
There are 8 Billion reasons to believe Warren Buffet knows what he's talking about.

While I understand Bill in Dville's belief that investors should be rewarded for taking risks, my gut reaction - and life experience - tells me that Informed Opinion is very correct on this issue: No matter what the tax rate is, a person with money to invest is indeed going to invest it - they certainly are not going to bury it in the back yard.

And something else that occurs to me: the rational offered for the tax breaks is because investors have risk associated with investment. Understandable. But one might also argue for the government to give tax breaks for those investors who put money in activities which are not so risky, yet have more stable financial returns. The argument might be that a more stable economy with defined growth would be fostered.

[jeb stuart]

conservative wrote:

Those of you on here having an intelligent discussion, please continue. All of you arguing about stupid stuff like children, PLEASE, SHUT THE HELL UP!

look,my pc has been hacked.i have known about it for some time and allowed it. it will no logner be allowed.fair nuff.

[conservative]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>as far as i can tell,this is your first and only contribuion to any "intelligent discussion".please add more your wisdom is much needed.

Your Rants......I rest my case.

[conservative]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>as far as i can tell,this is your first and only contribuion to any "intelligent discussion".please add more your wisdom is much needed.

Earlier, you were actually having an intelligent conversation with others on here. i.e. Synergy, bill in d'ville, informed opinion, etc. What happened?

[jeb stuart]

conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
Earlier, you were actually having an intelligent conversation with others on here. i.e. Synergy, bill in d'ville, informed opinion, etc. What happened?

change already?now my conversations were intelligent.hmmmm,seem a little uncertain of yourself now.it will all be sorted out in due 'coarse'.

[conservative]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>change already?now my conversations were intelligent.hmmmm,seem a little uncertain of yourself now.it will all be sorted out in due 'coarse'.

Not uncertain at all. You seem bi-polar.

[jeb stuart]

conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
Not uncertain at all. You seem bi-polar.

i rant,and yet have(according to you)intelligent conversations?and this makes me bi-polar? your medical knowledge may serve you well,sometime in the near future.

[Aggie23]

Just Trolling Along wrote:

<quoted text>
While I understand Bill in Dville's belief that investors should be rewarded for taking risks, my gut reaction - and life experience - tells me that Informed Opinion is very correct on this issue: No matter what the tax rate is, a person with money to invest is indeed going to invest it - they certainly are not going to bury it in the back yard.
And something else that occurs to me: the rational offered for the tax breaks is because investors have risk associated with investment. Understandable. But one might also argue for the government to give tax breaks for those investors who put money in activities which are not so risky, yet have more stable financial returns. The argument might be that a more stable economy with defined growth would be fostered.

So which has a better return to the overall economy, the money invested in those "non-risky" investments like Treasury bonds (which results in no growth to the economy), or the money invested with the small entrepreneur who may go out of business, thus losing your investment, or who may have a successful restaurant that employs a dozen, opens a second restaurant and employs another dozen and eventually has a chain and employs hundreds. Which has the long term best benefit to the economy? The government does not and cannot grow the economy in any real sense. It is the small business that is the engine that truly drives this economy.

[we know]

Stuart & Synergy, where are you? Informed opinion, I miss you, baby.

[jeb stuart]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
If we were playing Jeopardy, the correct "answer" would be:
The location of your ISP (apparently).

"WRONG ANSWER",bill.if you were playing jeopardy,the "CORRECT ANSWER" would be "where is the location of your isp"?((all answers must be in the form of a question,you should have known that,bill!