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

[Synergy]

we know wrote:

Synergy is baaack!!!!

lol I never left. I can't determine if Blairsville thinks Aggie and Bill are the same or if Blairsville, by mistake, responded to the wrong post. Who knows?

[we know]

I'll now be a silent observer. Promise.

[Synergy]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
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 ...

Bad link.

4. Here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[AlphabeticalChic kn]

WebstersDictionary wrote:

<quoted text>
racism
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races,” that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some “races” are innately superior to others. Racism was at the heart of North American slavery and the overseas colonization and empire-building activities of some western Europeans, especially in the 18th century. The idea of race was invented to magnify the differences between people of European origin in the U.S. and those of African descent whose ancestors had been brought against their will to function as slaves in the American South. By viewing Africans and their descendants as lesser human beings, the proponents of slavery attempted to justify and maintain this system of exploitation while at the same time portraying the U.S. as a bastion and champion of human freedom, with human rights, democratic institutions, unlimited opportunities, and equality. The contradiction between slavery and the ideology of human equality, accompanying a philosophy of human freedom and dignity, seemed to demand the dehumanization of those enslaved. By the 19th century racism had matured and the idea spread around the world. Racism differs from ethnocentrism in that it is linked to physical and therefore immutable differences among people. Ethnic identity is acquired, and ethnic features are learned forms of behaviour. Race, on the other hand, is a form of identity that is perceived as innate and unalterable. In the last half of the 20th century several conflicts around the world were interpreted in racial terms even though their origins were in the ethnic hostilities that have long characterized many human societies (e.g., Arabs and Jews, English and Irish). Racism reflects an acceptance of the deepest forms and degrees of divisiveness and carries the implication that differences among groups are so great that they cannot be transcended. See also ethnic group; sociocultural evolution.

Websters wrote:

<quoted text>
1
: the state of mind of a bigot
2
: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
See bigotry defined for English-language learners »
See bigotry defined for kids »
Examples of BIGOTRY

<a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments>

First Known Use of BIGOTRY
circa 1674

There are your definitions. Now can you please spare us your Semantics lessons in the future?

[Columbus Native]

driving me nuts wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep that isolationist route has worked so well in the past every time it has been tried. You are in a state of denial.
Speaking of sucking on something how about getting that straw you're sucking on out of that Koolaide you are drinking.

Yep, folks like you believed in Vietnam,Iraq, and if you could Iran. Keep sucking on that bottle of koolaid made at Haliburton's main office.

[ChicknButt]

Republicans are anti-nipples!

That's right. You can't make this stuff up.

See the proposed Republican-sponsored legislation yourself right here:

http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HT...

Yet another reason to vote Democratic.

[Columbus Native]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
The one intelligent statement in that entire post.
Besides the moral case for standing with Israel, a strong Israel is vital to American interests, but I guess you can't see past your obvious bigotry to realize that.

You and your Bronx jewish muthur may think this is a moral issue but the majority of Americans don.t want America to borrow from the Chinese and fight Israels war for them.

[Informed Opinion]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>Besides your ridiculous example involving more money than your average investor will ever see, what you are completely ignoring is that with "investment" comes "risk". With your average investment - be it in the stock market or lending money to an entrepreneur to start a business or lending money to a friend there is no GUARANTEE that you will get ANY of your money back, much less make a profit. That is one of the main reasons that the capital gains rate is lower than the tax rate on income, it is an acknowledgement of and incentive to engage in the RISK.

What a crock.

I'm not going to "risk" my money for a mere 12% after tax return, unless O get a 14% ROI, I'm gonna put it in my mattress and make a 0% return.

You don't want risk, put your money in your mattress.

You don't want risk, don't get out of bed, and hope an asteroid doesn't land on your house.

Life is full of risks.

You don't want risk - put your money in insured bank accounts and let the bank invest it.

What a bunch of cry babies these rich Right Wingers are.

They sit on their butts clipping coupons from their bonds and whine:
"Oh, I might have made a bad investment - so you working people should give me welfare for all the risk I'm taking "

Working people ought to get a tax break the because the business owners might make foolish management decisions that cost the worker his job.

Now that's risk.

The only reason that investment income is ever taxed at less than ordinary income rates is because greedy, selfish, unpatriotic whiners bribe politicians for the tax break.

Really,
show us one millionaire or billionaire who kept his money in his mattress, instead of investing it in a bank account, stocks, bonds, T-Bill, REIT, etc., because of "risk", and we'll take that claim seriously.

Till then, it's just nonsensical propaganda informed people laugh at.

As Buffet says - anyone who believes investors won't invest their money somewhere, somehow, is crazy.

[Informed Opinion]

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.

T-Bills

Investors who buy T-Bills increase the supply of money available to the government, thereby reducing the interest rate the government pays to borrow money.

It's called supply and demand.

Increased supply means lowers price per unit.

That means lowered government costs, lowered deficit, and lowered debt.

[uninformed opinion]

ChicknButt wrote:

Republicans are anti-nipples!
That's right. You can't make this stuff up.
See the proposed Republican-sponsored legislation yourself right here:
http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HT...
Yet another reason to vote Democratic.

ur wife likes likes 2 show them.

[Image]

ChicknButt wrote:

Republicans are anti-nipples!
That's right. You can't make this stuff up.
See the proposed Republican-sponsored legislation yourself right here:
http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HT...
Yet another reason to vote Democratic.

I'd dare say that law will never get past a court challenge based on federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination.

It's just another stupid-ass attempt to keep women in bondage, and by bondage, I don't mean BDSM.

[Image]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
T-Bills
Investors who buy T-Bills increase the supply of money available to the government, thereby reducing the interest rate the government pays to borrow money.
It's called supply and demand.
Increased supply means lowers price per unit.
That means lowered government costs, lowered deficit, and lowered debt.

It's still borrowed money on which interest must be paid and when they're cashed, the government must borrow more to pay up.

[ChicknButt]

uninformed opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
ur wife likes likes 2 show them.

Too bad about you being brain-dead. You'll never be half the man your mother is.

[Columbus Native]

Does anyone know who is running for Senate 2014 Georgia?

[Larry Swanson]

ChicknButt wrote:

<quoted text>
Too bad about you being brain-dead. You'll never be half the man your mother is.

Monkey Bread has been around forever, most people remember having it when they were kids. Fond memories of the house filling up with the smell of cinnamon followed by eating a sticky treat with your fingers makes the delicious Monkey Bread a certified comfort food.

[Shoes on the other foot]

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.

And what about the many other business that started up and failed? You must realize the failure rates are fairly high for new businesses. Not every business investment accomplishes what your example does. And I didn't suggest that "treasury bonds" were the only form of "stable" investment.

As for the government growing the economy, be very clear, I do agree with you. It's up to entrepreneurs to do so.(We all know the government can't even balance its own checkbook, how can they grow the economy?)

However, I'm just not sure why the working man has to "subsidize" investors by giving them lower tax rates...

I myself am for business taking risks with their own money - I have done so myself, starting my own business after working for others in the private sector for over 20 years. So obviously, I believe in capitalism (and I certainly know risk, that much I can assure you).

Apparently you missed that my comments here were rather academic. One argument says giving investors tax breaks will increase investment, while another view might be that giving investors who put money into more stable investments would insure financial stability. I'm sure that compelling arguments could be made for each view, and a dozen other ideas.

Let's all face it, people with surplus cash will always seek to invest their money for a return - the government doesn't need to give them an incentive to do so.

(And extrapolating on that idea, maybe the government should give cash bonuses (or tax breaks) to the employable-unemployed who actually take the initiative to find a job - it's the same line of reasoning.)

[Image]

Columbus Native wrote:

Does anyone know who is running for Senate 2014 Georgia?

They're all alike, so what's the difference? They run for public office for the same reason you look for a job, only their's pays a whole lot more, over and especially under the table.

[we know]

ChicknButt wrote:

Republicans are anti-nipples!
That's right. You can't make this stuff up.
See the proposed Republican-sponsored legislation yourself right here:
http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HT...
Yet another reason to vote Democratic.

Censorship has made it to America...it's about time. The Grammy's recent implemented dress code is proof. As long as I don't have to wear a burqa, I'm okay with this bill..... I don't want to watch you breastfeed your babies....Now, when it's Hunger Games time, I'll understand.

[Informed Opinion]

Image wrote:

<quoted text>It's still borrowed money on which interest must be paid and when they're cashed, the government must borrow more to pay up.

Agreed.

It lowers the interest rate paid, which lowers the cost of the deficit, which lowers the debt.

We just get to repay less than we otherwise would.

[Informed Opinion]

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>Yep, folks like you believed in Vietnam,Iraq, and if you could Iran. Keep sucking on that bottle of koolaid made at Haliburton's main office.

Great post.

There's somebody, somewhere, that poses a danger to people who don't care enough to protect themselves.

Why should they when as long as they take the money from the CIA, and do business with the right people, America will bankrupt itself, and send our kids to die for them.