Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17739 Aug 18, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
Mike I think you know my views on racism.I'm not sure silver is a racist or a segregationist I don't even know if the terms are alike.When he called my friend a half-breed I pretty much lost it.Jesus Christ is the Son of Man and God.Does that make HIM a halfbreed? OBVIOUSLY i'm asking the wrong guy that as you are an atheist .I was just wondering.
Evidently you missed many of Silvers posts. He is openly racist. Why would he embrace racism if he were not a racist?
He claimed he would never hire a black person and wished to have no black persons in his neighborhood. What more do you need to know?
If he were not so blatantly racist, I likely would not be so short with him. But the racism changes everything in my book.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#17740 Aug 18, 2012
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/1807-woman-...

More stellar democrat equality values...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17741 Aug 18, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a representation of the people for the people by the people that I do not agree with. Seriously man, if we need to rehash the gay debate this weekend, fire away.
Procreation factor alone is a reason why the gay choice lifestyle is not acceptable. Yes, there are traditional couples that require outside assistance, but ALL gay couples require assistance.
So what happens when there are no more surrogates and your kids world is comprised of all gay people? Your kids die off. Humanity dies off. And yes, that will probably eventually happen but at least give your kids the chance to make that determination for themselves. Again, I only speculate because I am not an anthropologist or bioengineer.
I alreay know your posture on the religious implications.
No, it will not eventually happen because everyone is not gay. Your logic fails massively. Who cares if they procreate? Not everyone who gets elected procreates. Again, how does this affect their politics? It changes nothing.
The world is in a over population era. We have no need for all to procreate at the time. So just why are you so worried about everyone procreating? Does procreating make for better politicians? If so, then only vote for parents. Quite simple. No need to know the sexual preference.
Seven billion humans on earth and rising. No worries dude.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#17742 Aug 18, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>It would be nice to see just what loopholes he used. I hear one is for his horses. Seventy seven thousand dollar deduction. Is that really needed?
I think some loopholes are warranted. Some push people to put their money in good places. Insurance deductions are great and warranted. Deductions for charities are warranted. I do not think deductions should be given for religious payments/donations. Religion is not charity.
But if people really want the debt reduced, unwarranted deductions need to be cut. Mitts returns will put the focus on this.
Anyone who does not want Mitt to release them must not really be serious about the debt.
Absolute Mike, no faith based questions here. For the sake of argument, have you ever thought that for at least 10+ years Mitt Romney has had political aspirations and with these political aspirations he will be under bigtime scrutiny. Do you seriously think he cheated on his taxes when he knew that's the first stumbling block to moving on up the food chain of politics? I'm not saying if he paid ONLY 13% or 14%(whichever number you guys are arguing about), but he apparently paid what he was required to pay according to the IRS. His tax returns will probably show that he paid only what he had to pay. Whether any of us find it offensive that compared to his income, the taxes he paid may look pathetic, it's not illegal to pay only what you're required to. Do you really think that people run around and go "OMG, I'm sending an extra couple of thousands or millions because I feel I haven't paid enough even though the law says I have." That's why I say the IRS needs to be overhauled.

Now getting to leaking his federal income taxes would be a federal offense. We don't have time to list everyone elected to or has worked for the federal government that has/is/or will be serving prison time for a federal offense. For you to think that would keep someone from leaking that information is preciously naive, but there's always someone that will do anything for the right price. I'd just assume see somebody leak his income tax information than I would the WH leaking conidential military information that could kill our men and women in the military. Don't say this hasn't happened, people on both sides of the aisle have called the WH out on this right to the POTUS. So, if people don't care if leaking information kills somebody, leaking income tax information is small time and again, everybody has a price.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17743 Aug 18, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
You are Mike. You asked for Ammendment One to not be passed and it was. You ask for no racial discrimination yet I have shown reverse racism examples time and time again.
Equal outcomes. Another example is Obamacare, or the Affordable health care act.
Oh, so equal health care is the outcome you speak of?

I ask for no racism. You are a racist who openly advocates hiring on race values. This is why the government forces people to hire blacks. Because you refuse to do so willingly. Twist it any way you wish. All I see from you is some perverted twist on the idea of discrimination.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#17744 Aug 18, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Can you not see how someone only making fifty grand a year would be hurt by paying 17 grand in taxes but someone making 500k a year would not be equally in hurt by paying 80k? One cannot pay much for a mortgage on 32k take-home. But I cannot see why taking home 420k is going to hurt anyone paying a mortgage.
Everything is relative. Democrats are not asking for a flat tax, republicans are.
I see the detriment to both sides. But they have the same opportunity to change that as you or I do. Also how is it benefical to penalize the guy making 500k a year more in taxes? Because they earn more? How is that fair? I think, since you are the bar manager, you should be required to tip out way more than wait staff or bar tenders to your doorman or security staff. That seems fair to me.

There is that key word again, opportunity. Maybe those that are only taking home 32k a year should manage their wealth better or determine what priorities are important and which ones are not.

Everything is relative.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17745 Aug 18, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you are an only child Mike. As far as the racist crap, blah blah blah. Again, I am prejudice but I don't speak for the entire Republican Party. I walk to the beat of my own drum and that drum is of conservative values, which obviously, do not align with you liberal ideas. I am ok with us not agreeing or seeing eye to eye. But it is not ok for the Dems to castigate "hate group" comments or "racist" comments because someone does not agree with their beliefs. You say I am full of shit, well back at ya buddy.
I have agreed it is not right to cast racist condemnation when not warranted. But I think you fail to see, your voice and many racists like yourself are a huge part of your party. It is clear to see. You being racist is certainly not helping your argument. So when someone sees a policy that comes from you guys that so much as appears racist, it is called as such. Not everything in life is fair. But again, I am not condoning it, just pointing out reality.

You can point to reverse racism all you wish, but no one is going to take a racist seriously on the subject. That is reality, fair or not. To expect otherwise is lacking understanding of the world and human nature.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#17746 Aug 18, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>No, it will not eventually happen because everyone is not gay. Your logic fails massively. Who cares if they procreate? Not everyone who gets elected procreates. Again, how does this affect their politics? It changes nothing.
The world is in a over population era. We have no need for all to procreate at the time. So just why are you so worried about everyone procreating? Does procreating make for better politicians? If so, then only vote for parents. Quite simple. No need to know the sexual preference.
Seven billion humans on earth and rising. No worries dude.
So, by your logic, breeding should be regulated? Doesn't China do that? Didn't Russia do that? Didn't the Japs do that?

It is the only thing of a family unit that isn't dictated by law, tax or regulation. The only reason I could see, for a family to not exercise their "right" procreate is either by choice or fiscal reasons.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#17747 Aug 18, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so equal health care is the outcome you speak of?
I ask for no racism. You are a racist who openly advocates hiring on race values. This is why the government forces people to hire blacks. Because you refuse to do so willingly. Twist it any way you wish. All I see from you is some perverted twist on the idea of discrimination.
Twist it? Well back at ya big guy.

I have a clear conscious and sleep like a baby.

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Houston

#17748 Aug 18, 2012
What a night.

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Houston

#17749 Aug 18, 2012
When did RUSSIA regulate breeding ?

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#17750 Aug 18, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Evidently you missed many of Silvers posts. He is openly racist. Why would he embrace racism if he were not a racist?
He claimed he would never hire a black person and wished to have no black persons in his neighborhood. What more do you need to know?
If he were not so blatantly racist, I likely would not be so short with him. But the racism changes everything in my book.
I also support segregation and traditional marriage. You forgot 2 mike.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17751 Aug 18, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
I see the detriment to both sides. But they have the same opportunity to change that as you or I do. Also how is it benefical to penalize the guy making 500k a year more in taxes? Because they earn more? How is that fair? I think, since you are the bar manager, you should be required to tip out way more than wait staff or bar tenders to your doorman or security staff. That seems fair to me.
There is that key word again, opportunity. Maybe those that are only taking home 32k a year should manage their wealth better or determine what priorities are important and which ones are not.
Everything is relative.
And you have the right to vote for such. Not the bar manager part.
I see it as fair, you do not. I get it. I do not see it as a penalty. I see the person making that much being able to do so because of what the country give opportunity for, so he must pay for that service. That is just the way I see it. I can understand if you do not. As I keep saying, there is no Utopian system, and not all is perfectly fair in the world.

And making 32k is not equal to making 420k. So not sure why you keep accusing us of asking for equal outcomes.

I do think in America we do 'now' have more equal opportunities. No thanks to the bigots who try to stop them. But what you seem to not understand is, we are not all asking to be rich or have equal outcomes. We do ask for equal opportunities. Republicans fight that part tooth and nail.

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Houston

#17752 Aug 18, 2012
You know...Catholics are into breeding.Still can't use contraceptives I hear.Maybe the "rhythm method"? Silver probably has ten kids.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17753 Aug 18, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
So, by your logic, breeding should be regulated? Doesn't China do that? Didn't Russia do that? Didn't the Japs do that?
It is the only thing of a family unit that isn't dictated by law, tax or regulation. The only reason I could see, for a family to not exercise their "right" procreate is either by choice or fiscal reasons.
Not sure where or why you deduced I am for regulating breeding?
Funny thing though, taxes do give credit for having children. I was just pointing out we are not in a children deficit. No need for your paranoid concerns about homosexuals not procreating. You sure take huge leaps in judgement. You are sounding like Bacon now.

Yes, people have choices whether to procreate of not. It is not really your business nor does it have a thing to do with running for office.

You still have not answered the question.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17754 Aug 18, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolute Mike, no faith based questions here. For the sake of argument, have you ever thought that for at least 10+ years Mitt Romney has had political aspirations and with these political aspirations he will be under bigtime scrutiny. Do you seriously think he cheated on his taxes when he knew that's the first stumbling block to moving on up the food chain of politics? I'm not saying if he paid ONLY 13% or 14%(whichever number you guys are arguing about), but he apparently paid what he was required to pay according to the IRS. His tax returns will probably show that he paid only what he had to pay. Whether any of us find it offensive that compared to his income, the taxes he paid may look pathetic, it's not illegal to pay only what you're required to. Do you really think that people run around and go "OMG, I'm sending an extra couple of thousands or millions because I feel I haven't paid enough even though the law says I have." That's why I say the IRS needs to be overhauled.
Now getting to leaking his federal income taxes would be a federal offense. We don't have time to list everyone elected to or has worked for the federal government that has/is/or will be serving prison time for a federal offense. For you to think that would keep someone from leaking that information is preciously naive, but there's always someone that will do anything for the right price. I'd just assume see somebody leak his income tax information than I would the WH leaking conidential military information that could kill our men and women in the military. Don't say this hasn't happened, people on both sides of the aisle have called the WH out on this right to the POTUS. So, if people don't care if leaking information kills somebody, leaking income tax information is small time and again, everybody has a price.
Not one word of my post had anything to do with Mitt cheating on taxes. You always make up arguments no one is having. You are debating yourself.
Experts are saying it is possible Mitt payed zero in income taxes for several years, legally. We just wish to know how much he paid and why.

The chief of staff to the vice president leaked confidential information about the CIA and was sentenced to five years in prison for lying about it in the investigation. Bush commuted his sentence.

The leak of tax information you speak of is would just be a rumor. Unless the taxes are revealed, no rumor actually matters.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#17755 Aug 18, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure where or why you deduced I am for regulating breeding?
Funny thing though, taxes do give credit for having children. I was just pointing out we are not in a children deficit. No need for your paranoid concerns about homosexuals not procreating. You sure take huge leaps in judgement. You are sounding like Bacon now.
Yes, people have choices whether to procreate of not. It is not really your business nor does it have a thing to do with running for office.
You still have not answered the question.
Oh and you're not judgemental Mike? You must be able to leap the Grand Canyon. You're probably the most judgemental person on this forum and the sad thing is, you've convinced yourself that you're right about everything and that you don't judge people. You and your assumptions based on your broad knowledge of reason and logic is laughable.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#17756 Aug 18, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Not one word of my post had anything to do with Mitt cheating on taxes. You always make up arguments no one is having. You are debating yourself.
Experts are saying it is possible Mitt payed zero in income taxes for several years, legally. We just wish to know how much he paid and why.
The chief of staff to the vice president leaked confidential information about the CIA and was sentenced to five years in prison for lying about it in the investigation. Bush commuted his sentence.
The leak of tax information you speak of is would just be a rumor. Unless the taxes are revealed, no rumor actually matters.
Mike, read this part of my post: "I'm not saying if he paid ONLY 13% or 14%(whichever number you guys are arguing about), but he apparently paid what he was required to pay according to the IRS. His tax returns will probably show that he paid only what he had to pay. Whether any of us find it offensive that compared to his income, the taxes he paid may look pathetic, it's not illegal to pay only what you're required to." I said earlier do you really think he would have cheated on his tax? If he paid ZERO, notta, nothing and it was legal, what is there to prove? If you're not accusing him of cheating why say "Experts are saying it is possible Mitt payed zero in income taxes for several years, legally. We just wish to know how much he paid and why." If he paid nothing and it was legal, then why do you need to know?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17757 Aug 18, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and you're not judgemental Mike? You must be able to leap the Grand Canyon. You're probably the most judgemental person on this forum and the sad thing is, you've convinced yourself that you're right about everything and that you don't judge people. You and your assumptions based on your broad knowledge of reason and logic is laughable.
Judging and taking giant leaps of judgement as I accused are two very different things. You are again arguing something in your own mind.
Really, you need to focus on my words a bit better.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#17758 Aug 18, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, read this part of my post: "I'm not saying if he paid ONLY 13% or 14%(whichever number you guys are arguing about), but he apparently paid what he was required to pay according to the IRS. His tax returns will probably show that he paid only what he had to pay. Whether any of us find it offensive that compared to his income, the taxes he paid may look pathetic, it's not illegal to pay only what you're required to." I said earlier do you really think he would have cheated on his tax? If he paid ZERO, notta, nothing and it was legal, what is there to prove? If you're not accusing him of cheating why say "Experts are saying it is possible Mitt payed zero in income taxes for several years, legally. We just wish to know how much he paid and why." If he paid nothing and it was legal, then why do you need to know?
Mitt is the one who said he has paid at least 13% on his past taxes. Maybe you should watch some news once in a while instead of just the commercials and American Idol.

I have told you why we want to see the returns. Can you not read? OK, I will repeat myself seeing as you cannot read so well.
Now focus.
Mitt is running on an agenda of lowering taxes for the rich. So we democrats would like to see if the rich are paying to much taxes. If Mitt is paying to much, and we can see it on paper, he may have a case, but we feel he is not paying enough. So we wish to see the evidence.

Maybe you are not familiar with the agenda democrats have had for many decades. We wish the rich pay a fair amount of the taxes. Have you never heard this before? News flash.
This is a simple issue. Sorry fox news will not tell you guys why we wish to see the tax returns. One day that channel will be fair and balanced. I am joking, it will never tell you the whole story.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Salisbury Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Feb 5 Gee Tee 9,892
Review: TLC Lawncare And Landscaping,llc (Apr '14) Jan 27 Mike 4
Where to get trees in Salisbury/Spencer? Jan 27 Jessie 3
Faith Music Thread (Nov '14) Jan 23 Musikologist 3
Kiesha dukes Dec '15 Curious 1
Ashli blake Dec '15 Curious 1
Best thot in salisbury,nc Dec '15 Curious 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salisbury Mortgages