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

[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!

[we know]

You guys make me laugh. Sincerely.

[Bill in Dville]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

+1 well stated (as usual)

You get it.

[if you are one]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
The default position of those who cannot support their position with actual facts because the truth is that this administration's policies have only made economic conditions worse. Blame all you want on Bush, but the truth is that if you want to look at the housing crisis and it's impact on the economy go look at the Community Investment Act, the Clinton Justice Dept breathing down the necks of banks so they would offer home loans to those who couldn't afford them, and Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep their contributions and sweetheart deals coming in. My disagreement with Obama's positions (and most Democrat positions) is based on policies that are proven to be detrimental to the country - never based on skin color. But you keep screaming racism, that's what the ignorant do best.

Bill, racism is a fact in the South. Just go hang with a few old timers like synergy and they spew it all the time. PURE hate is all you and your buddies have, nothing more. You should know being just another sock puppet.
ALL Presidents have encouraged home ownership, it’s the engine that fuels prosperity. Bush in a speech in California said he wanted all people to have the opportunity to own a home, that’s not a direct quote but close. The problem erupted when government oversight on lenders turned a blind eye to outright stupid loans. One that had worked in the past because home values continued to rise at stupid rates. But when the Bush administration looked the other way as investment firms packaged known bad loans into investments that we highly rated by rating firms in bed with the investment houses the house of cards fell. I don’t think George hand any idea what was going on, to busy patting himself on the back. But he should have and for that thank you GEORGE for killing the economy.
As for that stupid argument that Obama is the cause such a large increase in the deficit, you are right. Unwinding two of the longest wars in our history, wars that were a mistake form the beginning. Wars where lies and misinformation we used to justify them and they we not funded in ANY budget!! Add the costs to save the banking industry and the auto industry. Costs of the money the government spent trying to recover jobs and spur the economy, and facts show they all worked to some degree not matter what you claim. Plus they were passed by Congress, endorsed by OBAMA, Republicans voted for most of them. Heck the 1st bailout and the auto loans were Bush ideas. Saying they have not worked is pure fiction and can’t be backed by one real fact. But that’s not what you are interested in. You just seem to be worried about some poor person getting something that you consider yours.
You are a pitiful human, that’s if you really are one.

[Synergy]

if you are one wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill, racism is a fact in the South. Just go hang with a few old timers like synergy and they spew it all the time. PURE hate is all you and your buddies have, nothing more. You should know being just another sock puppet.
ALL Presidents have encouraged home ownership, it’s the engine that fuels prosperity. Bush in a speech in California said he wanted all people to have the opportunity to own a home, that’s not a direct quote but close. The problem erupted when government oversight on lenders turned a blind eye to outright stupid loans. One that had worked in the past because home values continued to rise at stupid rates. But when the Bush administration looked the other way as investment firms packaged known bad loans into investments that we highly rated by rating firms in bed with the investment houses the house of cards fell. I don’t think George hand any idea what was going on, to busy patting himself on the back. But he should have and for that thank you GEORGE for killing the economy.
As for that stupid argument that Obama is the cause such a large increase in the deficit, you are right. Unwinding two of the longest wars in our history, wars that were a mistake form the beginning. Wars where lies and misinformation we used to justify them and they we not funded in ANY budget!! Add the costs to save the banking industry and the auto industry. Costs of the money the government spent trying to recover jobs and spur the economy, and facts show they all worked to some degree not matter what you claim. Plus they were passed by Congress, endorsed by OBAMA, Republicans voted for most of them. Heck the 1st bailout and the auto loans were Bush ideas. Saying they have not worked is pure fiction and can’t be backed by one real fact. But that’s not what you are interested in. You just seem to be worried about some poor person getting something that you consider yours.
You are a pitiful human, that’s if you really are one.

I'm not Bill, but I'm going to respond.
1. I'm not an old timer.
2. Racism? You libs ALWAYS use that as an excuse. Worn out. Not effective. Obama's main focus is to spread hate. It fits his agenda. Get some new material.
3. PC has ruined this country. Use merit, not color.
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

[we know]

if you are one wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill, racism is a fact in the South. Just go hang with a few old timers like synergy and they spew it all the time. PURE hate is all you and your buddies have, nothing more. You should know being just another sock puppet.
ALL Presidents have encouraged home ownership, it’s the engine that fuels prosperity. Bush in a speech in California said he wanted all people to have the opportunity to own a home, that’s not a direct quote but close. The problem erupted when government oversight on lenders turned a blind eye to outright stupid loans. One that had worked in the past because home values continued to rise at stupid rates. But when the Bush administration looked the other way as investment firms packaged known bad loans into investments that we highly rated by rating firms in bed with the investment houses the house of cards fell. I don’t think George hand any idea what was going on, to busy patting himself on the back. But he should have and for that thank you GEORGE for killing the economy.
As for that stupid argument that Obama is the cause such a large increase in the deficit, you are right. Unwinding two of the longest wars in our history, wars that were a mistake form the beginning. Wars where lies and misinformation we used to justify them and they we not funded in ANY budget!! Add the costs to save the banking industry and the auto industry. Costs of the money the government spent trying to recover jobs and spur the economy, and facts show they all worked to some degree not matter what you claim. Plus they were passed by Congress, endorsed by OBAMA, Republicans voted for most of them. Heck the 1st bailout and the auto loans were Bush ideas. Saying they have not worked is pure fiction and can’t be backed by one real fact. But that’s not what you are interested in. You just seem to be worried about some poor person getting something that you consider yours.
You are a pitiful human, that’s if you really are one.

Synergy....is that you? I'm thinking so. Back with a name change.

[we know]

I'm confused, is this directed to Bill or Aggie? Or both?

[we know]

Synergy is baaack!!!!

[Bill in Dville]

if you are one wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill, racism is a fact in the South. Just go hang with a few old timers like synergy and they spew it all the time.
...

Funny, are you posting to me or Aggie? Aggie's quote, yet my name? Hmmm.

Two things:
1. Please define racism. I think you're full of $hit, but you've shown that many times before, so nothing new.

2. I've known Synergy for around 3 years (and a couple other posters on Topix), I have never heard her say or write anything racist (if you know what the definition of racism is, which is doubtful), only facts about certain individuals, "Einstein".

If it's true, is it racism? I guess you'd have to know the definition to be able to answer...

Also, please show some examples about Synergy "spewing" "it" all the time.

You're a sad, chicken$hit individual making claims about someone you'd be lucky to know and consider a friend.

Typical...